Often we dig our own grave making people “defend” their opinion. Instead of winning them over, we push them to become more and more entrenched in their opinion as they build larger mental defenses against the challenges we present. So I want to hear from you:
How do you avoid putting people on the defensive? (Even though those people had a strong alternative opinion)
What was a time where the opposite happened; all the facts were there, but absolutely no one was convinced by the talk?
I feel like solarpunk has a lot of obvious-once-seen ideas and powerful “ahh-ha” moments. But if we can’t convince others to take a glimpse from our perspective, not much benefit will come from it.
Don’t try to point out why they are wrong, but rather why you believe what you believe. And when they tell you why they believe what they do, no matter how ridiculous it might seem, respect their opinion and explain which points exactly you disagree with and why.
I think the idea of trying to convince the other is flawed in itself. It implies that you are right and they are wrong. Approach any conversation with that mindset, and neither their nor your opinion will change.
Instead, try to see a discussion as a way to exchange perspectives with the goal of finding the truth. Only if you are open to the idea of changing your mind can you hope to change that of your conversation partner.
I think the idea of trying to convince the other is flawed in itself.
In recent years I’ve come to this conclusion as well. For me it’s a matter of treating people the way I want to be treated — like an intelligent adult who can make their own decisions. I’m all too happy to discuss my opinions, but I’m generally not interested in persuading anyone, nor do I want to be persuaded. I am interested in information that is relevant, so that’s what I try to offer as well. If that information makes someone consider an idea they had not considered before, great! If not, that’s honestly fine, too.
In movies you can change someone’s whole worldview with a rousing 2-minute speech, but in reality I think real change takes months or years. I don’t expect to reach a consensus with someone I fundamentally disagree with in the course of a single conversation.
That said, I will admit that in my personal life this approach has its drawbacks. I have been criticized for being too passive and conflict-averse. I won’t pretend I have all problems of social dynamics figured out.
This is such an awesome answer; exactly what I was looking for. Simple, general, and something I can actually try. Thanks for replying
I find it incredibly rare that “others” are as interested in finding “truth”. Especially when they’ve been brainwashed repeatedly by their idols to ignore logic and fact with faith and opinion.
I remember getting into political arguments that went nowhere at the time but resulted in me changing my mind years later. The people I argued with never knew about my change of heart. As far as they knew I was one of those people who get more entrenched in their beliefs.
What I’m getting at is that your arguments can hit home without looking like it. What you’re seeing as getting defensive could just be the early stages for them changing their minds.
This can be especially true if someone’s political beliefs are part of their identity. You don’t make those kind of changes all at once.
So I’d say just argue in good faith, don’t try to score points, provide food for thought if you can, and hope for the other person to eventually find their way to the truth.
Has happened to me, and also I’ve had the rare opportunity to hear back from someone later. We had a very heated discussion about a very hot topic. Took about 2 hours lol, seemingly zero progress. Agreed to disagree.
A few years pass, we’re still friendly, and they eventually confess to me that I did change their mind that night. Just took them a long time to process it.
Basically I took the same approach as the person who changed my mind, which you have laid out very succinctly,
argue in good faith, don’t try to score points, provide food for thought if you can, and hope for the other person to eventually find their way to the truth.
I came up with some truly stupid things while trying to justify my ridiculous beliefs. Deserved to be made fun of frankly, but this person instead treated me with respect. People are not perfectly rational truth-seeking robots, often just being a jerk is enough to convince them you’re wrong regardless of any other factors.
Many people can’t imagine different perspective due to their limited intuition, they need concrete examples of improvements so they can imitate these. In other words, if your intention is to convince someone about your improvement, show to that person how the improvement works well on you, without impose your vision directly.
You can’t the mind that refuses to change.
“Against stupidity, the gods themselves, contend in vain.” Friedrich Schiller
Or, ‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.’
Don’t waste time with the people who refuse to listen; work on building a network of like minded people.
What can someone who lives in an apartment building do? Or a student in a dorm? Which candidates should we support.
Your time is a limited resource, don’t waste it pounding deaf ears.
I’ve always been fond of
‘Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.’ - Mark Twain.
don’t waste time with people who refuse to listen; work on building a network of like minded people
And anybody who says this is “building an echo chamber“ is just saying they feel entitled to your space and attention even when they don’t feel any need to include others in their own.
Just pointing this out. Nobody has all the answers, and we can all learn something new. Talking to the convinced isn’t a waste of time if you’re listening.
Didn’t say anything that necessitated this response.
I was agreeing with you
Huh interesting. Even rereading it I am taking it 2 very different ways. Read it the wrong way the first time, my mistake.
It’s all good
Have you heard of reactance Theory?
It basically states that people will react to a something they perceive as a challenge of something they identify with, or perceive as a loss of freedom, with reactivity and defensiveness.
Rather than explaining your point of view, you approach and ask their opinions with curiosity. Listen openly.
I think something that works pretty well related to this is, find something at the core of how they feel about things that you actually agree with, and compliment them on being right about that. Then talk about what you think the implications of that thing are.
As much as I hate to say it, I think learning to make use of the same communication strategies that bad-faith argument people tend to use is the way to go. In specific:
- You’re not trying to “win” against the person you’re talking to. That is, in a lot of cases, impossible. You’re trying to communicate your message to an audience (which, sure, includes the person you’re talking to). You’re not limited to the framework the person is trying to give you. You can just say your message.
- Short, tangible talking points can be more effective than detailed and accurate explanations. Pick one thing that’s true that encapsulates a little example that’s hard to deny about the way you’re saying the world is, and stick to it. This technique is so effective that it can create a narrative even if the overall world-picture it creates isn’t actually accurate; if the narrative you’re trying to construct actually matches with reality, then you’ll have a broader base of little exemplar anecdotes to draw from.
- Stay patient, don’t get irritated, don’t feel like you have to “respond” to everything. If the other person’s talking in good faith and asks a relevant question, then sure, you should answer it. But if they’re just doing a Gish Gallop or something, it may be more effective to call out the Gish Gallop and keep explaining your own POV than to try to debunk every single thing, or to get them to “agree” or pin them down to something they’re saying that’s wrong, when they’re not interested in cooperating and the effort will just derail you from making your own side of the argument.
I wouldn’t point out a gish gallop, it’s just a waste of time. Just ignore points that are not relevant to the discussion. If they call attention back to a point by emphasizing it later, then go ahead and dismantle it. Usually people won’t bother though.
Staying focused on-topic is definitely one of the most important things to remember.
I absolutely think that if someone’s shifting topics aggressively as an argumentation tactic it’s productive to point it out.
You don’t gotta dwell on it but calling out if someone’s using bad faith tactics is part of your communication with the audience (and then, I agree, pivot it back around to just talking about what you wanted to talk about.)
Very briefly I suppose. Just be aware you’re opening another door for them to deflect more, by arguing about that now.
Arguing with who? If they can get you deflected by starting an argument about something else, that’s on you. Just say “Lol nice Gish Gallop” and continue explaining the truth.
Here’s an example of what I was talking about – it’s a little bit shooting fish in a barrel because the guy was pretty unpopular anyway, but I still felt it was worth articulating some of the positive-side talking points (not just “Biden’s good I like him,” which is easy to misconstrue into something, but specific tangible examples that are easy to get your head around). But, at the same time, calling out how silly the person’s POV on it was. You can’t get drawn into a back-and-forth, no; that side of it I do agree with. But if you’re playing cards with someone and they’re trying to cheat, it’s absolutely okay to point out “hey he’s cheating, this is how” as long as you’re also continuing to play the game.
Yeah, that works. It’s very briefly touching on it. Personally though I prefer to keep a laser focus on the most relevant points. Acknowledging anything they do that is outside of the topic of the conversation gives them further engagement on whatever they’re doing. It’s an offshoot of the don’t feed the trolls philosophy I suppose, except in this case its not feeding a trolling method while continuing to engage with the troll themselves.
I think when the convo is reviewed, it becomes pretty clear to an observer who is staying on topic and who is taking the shotgun approach.
Showing instead of convincing. Everybody can talk, what counts is the tangible outcome.
It goes hand in hand with avoiding putting someone in the defensive. I find it hard sometimes, I usually make my opinion clear but try to change topic and remain open to talk about other stuff. That’s not great and I’d like to be more skillful in being silent.
In terms of dialogue, you can’t beat Street Epistemology
Trove of resources.
