Convincing: How do you convince the unconvincable?
Convincing: How do you convince the unconvincable?
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.