Narrative can dislodge prejudice more effectively than polemics and polls

Evidence

We cannot be proud of these effects as educators. Our students do not appear to examine critically what they read; they just chugalug it down. Furthermore, the fact that Pastor Peters moved them even when his arguments were denounced by the Experimenter suggests one cannot present such material to uncritical thinkers, simply denounce it, and think it will do no harm. — Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter, 3259 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Two insights can help determine the degree to which a statement or a person can be classified as Islamophobic. In their discussion of anti-Americanism, Katzenstein and Keohane identify the intensity of an individual’s adherence to a particular position. They assign changeable opinions less weight than more durable predispositions, such as distrust or bias (Katzenstein and Keohane 2007: 19-24). — Erik Bleich, Defining and Researching Islamophobia, 37 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Curating facts functions as polemic more effectively than explicit argumentation; Counterstories do more than rebut dominant narratives; they humanize marginalized communities. — James D. Kirylo (ed.), Reinventing Pedagogy of the Oppressed:…, 469; Anti-racist TV narratives can still endorse the suspicion they supposedly rebut (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Denouncing biased material does not neutralize its persuasive effect #complicates (0.80) — Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter, 3259
• Durable predispositions like bias count more than changeable opinions in gauging prejudice #complicates (0.78) — Erik Bleich, Defining and Researching Islamophobia, 37