Oct 8, 2026 · 42 min · 21 segments
What does actually influence our decisions? And most importantly right now, how can we effectively communicate around the midterm election to make sure we win? To answer these questions we are…
Steve PiersonHostKate CatherallGuestJiggy GeronimoGuestSo Feelings Over Facts, we put together a neuroscience-backed case for why we need to use an emotion-centered framework.
Because like you said, our field has been trying to argue our way to persuasion, which we know doesn't really work, and one of the key barriers is something we talk about in our report, which is called motivated reasoning.
And motivated reasoning is basically this defense mechanism that your brain has essentially to protect you from the pain of being wrong.
So when you encounter conflicting information, your brain basically puts up this shield and refuses to change its mind.
And so when we throw facts at people, you're just coming up against this shield of motivated reasoning, and we're not able to change people's minds.
Yeah, it reminds me of, um, back in 2017, we were doing resistance boot camp, kind of, uh, big training modules, and there was a graphic about, like, trying to pull someone out of their little safety circle of friends and community members, uh, and, uh, you know, showing that...
I mean, we can call cult members, you know, we can g- call MAGA cult members because there's a, a correlation there, but really just people need belonging.
They, uh, they need their communities, and anything that challenges them and isolates them from that, uh, we're gonna have a hard time convincing them of that.
I think the s- the science terminology here is, like, ingroups and outgroups, right? So how do we make sure that we can establish some kind of shared identity at even the smallest, you know, sense of commonality, whether it's, like, a superordinate identity, like we're both moms, or we're both veterans, or we're both teachers, or...
Doesn't have to be, like, race or gender or ethnicity or any of those things, although those things are also ingroups.
Um, but finding some way to, like, bring people's shoulders down and, like, take the earmuffs off, one key way to do that is to appeal to a sense of shared humanity.
Um, and, uh, even then, I would go one step further and say, like, it doesn't even need to, we don't even need to make it that complicated.
Like, if you think of any conflict you've ever had with another person, how many times have you been successful in persuading them to share your point of view by arguing with them? Like, probably never, right?
Um, and I think that's, like, very intuitive, but so easy to forget when we're talking about building campaigns to change people's minds.
So Feelings Over Facts, we put together a neuroscience-backed case for why we need to use an emotion-centered framework.
Because like you said, our field has been trying to argue our way to persuasion, which we know doesn't really work, and one of the key barriers is something we talk about in our report, which is called motivated reasoning.
And motivated reasoning is basically this defense mechanism that your brain has essentially to protect you from the pain of being wrong.
So when you encounter conflicting information, your brain basically puts up this shield and refuses to change its mind.
And so when we throw facts at people, you're just coming up against this shield of motivated reasoning, and we're not able to change people's minds.
Yeah, it reminds me of, um, back in 2017, we were doing resistance boot camp, kind of, uh, big training modules, and there was a graphic about, like, trying to pull someone out of their little safety circle of friends and community members, uh, and, uh, you know, showing that...
I mean, we can call cult members, you know, we can g- call MAGA cult members because there's a, a correlation there, but really just people need belonging.
They, uh, they need their communities, and anything that challenges them and isolates them from that, uh, we're gonna have a hard time convincing them of that.
I think the s- the science terminology here is, like, ingroups and outgroups, right? So how do we make sure that we can establish some kind of shared identity at even the smallest, you know, sense of commonality, whether it's, like, a superordinate identity, like we're both moms, or we're both veterans, or we're both teachers, or...
Doesn't have to be, like, race or gender or ethnicity or any of those things, although those things are also ingroups.
Um, but finding some way to, like, bring people's shoulders down and, like, take the earmuffs off, one key way to do that is to appeal to a sense of shared humanity.
Um, and, uh, even then, I would go one step further and say, like, it doesn't even need to, we don't even need to make it that complicated.
Like, if you think of any conflict you've ever had with another person, how many times have you been successful in persuading them to share your point of view by arguing with them? Like, probably never, right?
Um, and I think that's, like, very intuitive, but so easy to forget when we're talking about building campaigns to change people's minds.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.