Summary
Highlights
Jason Perry introduces Tim Shriver, Mara Carabello, and Boyd Matheson to discuss the Dignity Index. Tim Shriver explains that the Dignity Index is an attempt to address the widespread contempt, hatred, and divisiveness in the country, which he believes is hurting relationships and preventing problem-solving. The index seeks to introduce a new way of engaging in discussions, focusing on treating others with dignity, even in disagreement.
Maura Carabello elaborates on the Dignity Index, mentioning its pilot project in Utah. It's an 8-point scale where 1-4 indicates contempt and 5-8 signifies recognition of dignity. Boyd Matheson clarifies that the index is not about being 'nice' or 'civil' in a superficial sense, but rather about elevating conversations to solve problems. It's about self-awareness and avoiding contempt, which can lead to invalidating others' viewpoints.
Tim Shriver emphasizes that dignity is a notch higher than civility. He argues that humiliating opponents is ineffective and often counterproductive. True persuasion comes from listening and acknowledging others' viewpoints. He warns that violent-sounding speech and hatred can escalate to actual violence, underscoring the high stakes for the country's cultural fabric and ability to solve problems. The index is a mirror for self-reflection and aims for behavioral change that politicians will eventually follow.
A video segment features University of Utah students discussing their experience coding speech using the Dignity Index. They highlight how the process made them more thoughtful about their own language and how it can be a tool to humanize people regardless of differing views. They noted how politicians reacted to their scores and how the index made them realize that politics doesn't have to be synonymous with divisiveness.
Boyd Matheson presents an example of a political commercial rated as a 'three' on the Dignity Index, characteristic of 'us versus them' rhetoric, attempting to discredit an opponent's moral character. He explains that such negative campaigns persist because they are effective in manipulating voter emotions, leading to a focus on power rather than the common good. Tim Shriver adds that using tactics of humiliation demeans the principles one is trying to uphold and hinders problem-solving.
Maura Carabello introduces an example of a Congressional debate rated a 'six' for its focus on shared values and open conversation. She notes that while 'eights' (full consensus) might be rare in debates, seeking to clarify one's position without contempt is key. Boyd Matheson then discusses a 'seven' rated example from a congressional debate where Representative John Curtis engaged with a difficult topic (climate change) by inquiring about others' views, showcasing curiosity rather than contempt. This approach fosters problem-solving and counters the isolating effects of contempt, which ultimately stifles free speech.