Every now and then, there are rumblings about passing a law that would prohibit unions from using member dues to make political contributions without the written permission of the member. For those of us who’ve been exposed to the portrayal of unions as corrupt special interests (think The Wire, Season Three), this makes some sense. I admit to thinking that I could see where the impulse for such legislation might come from when I first heard of it. For me, the two sides were: constrain political contributions or don’t.
Flying Whale, not surprisingly, was able to put it in context much more quickly, responding, “Are we going to require shareholders to sign something before corporations can make political contributions too?” For Flying Whale, the two sides were: constrain both opposing powers or neither.
Initially, I was confined to a narrower scope, that of limiting union corruption, when imagining the other side of the argument. Flying Whale was working from a broader and, I think, more robust understanding–that the other side was really about keeping opposing powers balanced.
The conversation reminded me that I really do think it’s a skill to be able to see the real “other side,” not the one embedded in the frame someone else is using.
Cynthia Crossen’s book, Tainted Truth, of which I’ve admittedly only read a few chapters, really made this point for me. In her discussion of polling, she explores how poll results are affected by question wording. Old news, right? But I was surprised by how difficult it was for me to spot the less egregious slants. For example, in Chapter Five, Crossen explores the public opinion polling that surrounded the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill scandal/accusation. Regarding a question from a New York Times/CBS News poll:
“Some people say Anita Hill’s charges should not be taken seriously because she did not make them years ago at the time she said the incidents happened.” (So far, so good. That, indeed, was a popular argument against Anita Hill’s case.) The question continues: “Other people say the charges should be taken seriously even though they were made for the first time just recently.” This second sentence is supposed to be the other side of the coin–the reason Anita Hill should be taken seriously. Instead, it simply restates the negative point–she took a long time to complain. But what would the results have been if the second part of the question had read, “Other people say the charges should be taken seriously because women sometimes have reasons to delay reporting such behavior?”
Once Crossen points it out, it’s so clear. But just the “Some people say…other people say” structure had me fooled into taking it as an even-handed question.
Knowing that you’re susceptible to being duped certainly helps, but I’m finding this to be a slow skill to acquire.
Jonas
Echolocation 