Thread by @DeAnnaBurghart

Overheard today:

"Schiff said he committed treason, and that wasn't true. The whole thing turned out to be nonsense." (Equating one hyperbolic rhetorical statement to the entire inquiry.) 1/

Overheard today:

"They've been trying to impeach him since the day after he walked into office." (Note complete lack of any proportion, either regarding use of the word "impeach" by lawmakers, or the fact that opposition will, you know, oppose.) 2/

Overheard today (regarding a 2020 win):

"Oh, he'll win. Especially once they announce everything that Biden and his son did." (The same wholesale rejection of accusations by Democrats is applied to denials from Democrats.) 3/

Overheard today:

"This will bounce back to hurt the Democrats. They'll never recover from this." (... I just ... ) 4/

My point, I suppose, is that for some people this isn't about policy, or rhetoric, or even character. It's about team sports, and perhaps even more importantly, Being Right(tm). For some people, no amount of information will inform, let alone persuade. 5/

One of the first things you learn when you study this stuff is not to try persuading entrenched opposition. If their core identity is tied up in that belief, nothing—nothing!—will change it. It's a threat to the id. You won't change them; you will only enrage them. 6/

Communication isn't like a broadcast station; you don't just send stuff out into the world and boom, communication happens. It's transactional. It only happens when there's at least one receiver actively receiving. 7/

Put another way, persuasion is a process, not an end result. People have to participate in their own persuasion. So if the concept you're offering is a direct threat to their self-identity, they will not participate. Nor would you. It's self-preservation. 8/

There are ways of getting around that, of course. Every despotic, genocidal regime has used them, whether accidentally or deliberately. You can use social pressures, and rewards, and all forms of coercion. But that doesn't stick. 9/

That's why shaming tactics aren't super successful here. It just gets people's back up. Their id takes over, and you lose right out of the gate. 10/

(Shame can be super satisfying, and it's occasionally successful on a micro level, when employed by people the recipient respects, but on a national level? A movement level? They just band together.) 11/

So how do you get through? Well, first, accept that maybe you can't. The person I quoted above is not reachable right now. Their identity is too wrapped up in this, and nothing I say will ever matter. But maybe you have enough of a relationship with someone to try. 12/

First, acknowledge it's a process. You won't get a win in a day. You're in this for the long haul. 13/

Second, assess where you stand. You already know what they believe. How intensely do they believe it? And (key point here) how much does it *matter* to them? 14/

If someone honestly believes that (for instance) climate change is a hoax, and this *matters* to them, you have a very long road. "It's hard to convince someone to believe something when their paycheck depends ..." etc. 15/

So you're looking for the persuadable area: the thing they have chosen to believe (eh, it just seems like climate change can't be real) but that isn't central to their beliefs. 16/

It's probably something they have little personal experience with. They don't spend a lot of time reading about it or talking about it. It's a thing they could change their mind on and still feel consistent with the rest of their belief system. 17/

They need time for that belief system to shift. It's incremental, in other words: not one great leap, but a bunch of tiny steps. 18/

Next, work on their dissonance by finding the inconsistencies. Cognitive dissonance is extremely uncomfortable. People go to great lengths to reconcile incompatible beliefs and actions. 19/

People will find any way possible to rationalize conflicts between attitudes (about issues or people), or between their attitudes and their beliefs. 20/

Just as an example—and I'm truly not thinking of a particular person here—"I don't like being around poor people" and "Jesus loves poor people" and "I follow Jesus" is a very uncomfortable place for someone to be. So they find all kinds of rationalizations. You've seen them. 21/

So, getting back to our hypothetical subject of persuasion, is there something the person cares about that's obviously inconsistent with the belief or attitude you're trying to change? That's a possible entry point. 22/

Once you find a possible entry point, whittle at it. Use a penknife, not a bazooka. Make them uncomfortable, but don't be a jerk about it. Make it about the issue, not the person. 23/

Remember that persuasion is a two-party (or more) process. It's a participation sport. You can't just spray info at someone and win. So put it down on the table and see if they pick it up. Give them time to wrestle with the dissonance. 24/

Say someone has a lot of complicated emotions around (just randomly picking a topic) health insurance. They adore Politician X (+5) and loathe Medicare for All (-5).

Now, say X comes out and endorses M4A. That person is going to have a LOT of thinking to do! 25/

Now, you could jump in here with "See, I told you X was a bozo they endorsed this policy you hate and now you're stuck with it and them! hahaha!" But do you think that's going to be very successful? Not likely. 26/

Instead, let them pick up the info. "Wow, I was surprised to hear X endorse M4A. I don't know what to think of that. What do you think?"

Give them time to figure it out. This is participation, remember? That means you have to listen too. Bite your tongue, if necessary. 27/

Once you get something back, listen, exchange info, wait, see what happens. Remember, dissonance is uncomfortable, so sometimes people will go find a bunch of mud (info that fits their preconceived notions) and patch up the crack. But sometimes, the light shines through. 28/

When that happens, the most likely scenario is that they find a balance. So, for instance, they decide they don't actually *loathe* M4A (-2), and that "love" is an awfully strong word for how they feel about X (+2). 29/

They find a balance that makes them more comfortable, and then go on their merry way. And now you look for another crack.

We do this instinctively, but usually about mundane stuff. Think about how you buy a car, for instance. The trajectory of your research. 30/

Look for those topics of mutual interest where you're both more like +/- 2 than +/-5. You won't convince anyone by yelling at their id; it just yells right back (and yours isn't listening either, by the way). 31/

This requires a lot of listening, so how much is it worth to you? I'm not going to try to change this person's mind. There's no return there for either of us. Instead, I'm being a very likeable Democrat. :) Makes it harder to entrench in "they're all evil and stupid." 32/

But if it's worth investing, and if you don't own a mass-market media outlet, whittle away at the edges instead of trying to plunge in the knife. If you nudge them enough, they'll find their own Waterloo—usually over something you never expected. 33/

And when that happens, celebrate it. Help them deal with the dissonance caused by their new belief, including the worry that one or the other makes them a bad person. 34/

"I believed that because I was stupid/terrible/worthless" serves no one. Make it about the information, not the person. "You got new info, that's all. Being able to change your mind is a strength, not a weakness!" (Bonus: This makes them more persuadable about other things!) 35/

A quick glance through my timeline will show I fail at this often, just like everyone else. Sometimes we're just too hurt, too emotional, too scared. So you have to think, What do I want out of this? If it's to persuade, is this the right topic? Time? Venue? Person? 36/

Sometimes, you just want to vent. That's OK too. (I obviously do it A LOT.) But acknowledge that your venting isn't going to change someone's entrenched opinion. Just know what you're getting out of it, that's all. 37/

Finally, try not to back people into corners. You may point out the one they're in, but if you force someone to do something inconsistent with their beliefs they can be astonishingly capable at rationalizing it. 38/

Sometimes this is necessary and appropriate. This was basically the rationale behind the Civil Rights Act: Force people to accept equal participation in society, and eventually they rationalize and accept it. (Obviously we still have a long way to go, but still.) 39/

But it can also backfire. "If you support X you also have to support [awful unthinkable heinously offensive policy] Y" can lead to a surprising amount of "Well, why is Y bad, really?" rationalization. Be very careful what you couple together. 40/

And remember that you never know what's in someone's head, background, experience unless they show you. "It was all based on lies" may be coming from a very different place than you think. And you will only learn that if you listen.

IF it's worth it to you. FIN. 41/41

Coda: This is mostly just me thinking out loud. There are lots of brilliant people out there writing about stuff like this. If you find it interesting, poke around a bit. Don't take my word for it. ;)