The best insight here is that self-worth and fear of shaming are the main motivators for not agreeing.<p>A weaker argument, that is less threatening to self-worth is one way of preventing that your discussion partner goes on the defense.<p>Another way is to make him feel safer in the sense that he can trust that you will not hurt his feelings. This can be done by affirming that you are on the same page with him, that you and him share the same goal.
You can also do this by denying what the other person might be afraid of, such as "I don't think your opinion is stupid" or "I don't want to abolish guns for hunting purposes".
These methods come from "Crucial Conversations", it goes in depth on the underlying emotional motivations of conversations. Great book.<p>Another, cheaper tactic is to acknowledge positive characteristics of the other, making that person feel better about himself. This way, their self-worth is less vulnerable and they are more open to arguments (although this frequently fails because people distrust compliments from people that pose a threat).
I have also said we should talk more about first principles and less about the policy arguments at first.<p>Regarding gun control, the first principles at issue are these:<p>1. Is life more important than liberty or vice versa? (ooh this reverses vs. the abortion issue regarding political lines)<p>2. Do we trust the government to fully monopolize force? Do we trust the police? the army? Should the government be there primarily to protect us?<p>3. What are the implications of one interpretatin of the 2nd Amendment on federal power or another?<p>(I won't go over my view here, except to say it is not a partisan view.)<p>The reason is that very often we can find common ground over first principles, and this helps with discussing others without putting the other side on the defensive or shaming.
My take away here is that we need to educate people in such a way they view ones' ability to change their position given new evidence as a positive. Like scientists do.<p>I guess I always felt people didn't value this trait but I needed to have it spelled out for me in this article. Why in the world would any person value themselves more having been right all along. Why wouldn't they care about educating themselves every day.
Once upon a time, I learned to play the game Go.<p>One of the key insights I took away was that if you directly attacked an enemy in a weak area, the enemy would defend in that area, making him strong there. Almost always you would end up with an impenetrable wall on both sides.<p>There's an art to pressing your advantage in an area without making it an 'attack'.<p>(In the end, I never really got that good and haven't played for years, so actual good Go players may find my insight pretty naive.)
Politics is the art of persuading people they already agree with you. Subtler arguments are much better than brazen ones for doing this, and getting people to change their mind - and good politicians exploit this fact whenever they're in a setting that lets them.<p>24/7 media, and national coverage when somebody "flip-flops," might have contributed to politicians doing this less often, but I'm not sure.<p>And don't forget that a political debate isn't supposed to end with either politician changing their mind; it's supposed to end up with the spectators making up their mind about the politicians (which is why in those sorts of debates, you're <i>supposed</i> to use arguments that appeal mostly to your own supporters, assuming you have enough of them.)
'Winning an argument' is a magic bullet that doesn't exist. Otherwise it would be called 'teaching'<p>I'm not trying to change the person's mind when I enter into a debate, I'm trying to plant a seed of empathy for them to see things from another perspective so that their own brain begins to work against their existing bias.<p>I also tend to be one of those crazy people that believe their are a lot of grey areas when science isn't involved.
A mentor explained this to me as, "If you want someone to do something, you have to let them save face. If someone screws something up and you want them to fix it, you can't humiliate them in the process."<p>I used to get very frustrated with shoddy work from subcontractors. I found that the more I directly documented the quality of the work, the worse they'd harden their position. I learned there are better ways to operate. (And if they still don't fix things when presented softly, it's better to fire than to try and convince someone who can't learn.)
Or if you want to have a population with a dogmatic rigid attitude then you make everything a symbol for "who they are and what they believe in." I have been to countries that are more nationalistic than the USA and many minds are closed when it comes to even realizing that questions can be asked. The sphere of what is the truth is so large it obscures all vision.
I use another tactic sometimes, somewhat related.<p>I make a stronger and radically (more inflammatory if you wish) than the person I am talking to. It has to be just inflammatory enough for them to start defending the weaker more moderate position, basically leaning towards the direction you'd want to persuade them originally. For example, I have some hard core Fox News watching Republicans in my extended family. So sometimes when they bring health care and how it distributes wealth to the lazy and it is not free market and such. I bring grandma so and so and how she is just mooching off our government with the medicare. She never paid all that in her life and she is part of the socialist communist system that is robbing the country. Then they usually start to backpedal -- well...you see this is different and they argue for how the country should take care of the elderly and so on...<p>Anyway I do it more for fun and amusement if someone makes the mistake of bringing the topic up, rather than hoping to actually convince them.<p>And maybe this is well studies and has a name I just don't know what it is called. "Act crazier than the crazies"?
I've always found it interesting that most people have really strong opinions on complex political questions to begin with.<p>For example, as a programmer, how do I know what the correct immigration level should be? How should I know if we should intervene in Syria?<p>Even if I follow the news, a few articles and news clips really aren't going to give me enough information to make an educated decision.
>And if you’re wrong about a bunch of things, you’re obviously not as smart or as good or as worthwhile a person as you previously believed.<p>These are all true statements. Most people are not as smart or good or worthwhile as they believe, myself included. That makes true rational implementation of policy extremely unlikely .