The science of influencing people: 6 ways

to win an argument David Robson

When asked about government policies and their consequences, most people
believe they could explain their workings in great detail. If put to the test, however,
their explanations are vague and incoherent. (This is known as the “illusion of
explanatory depth”)

Our knowledge is also highly selective: we remember facts that support our beliefs
and forget others. People fail to notice the logical fallacies in an argument if the
conclusion supports their viewpoint; if they are shown contrary evidence, however,
they will be far more critical of the tiniest hole in the argument. (A phenomenon
called “motivated reasoning”).

Education doesn’t protect us from these flaws. Graduates often overestimate their
understanding of their degree subject: although they remember the general content,
they have forgotten the details. That false sense of expertise can lead them to feel
that they have the license to be more closed-minded in their political views (i.e.,
“earned dogmatism”).

The following are evidence-based approaches to achieve more fruitful discussions.

Be kind
You are more likely to achieve your aims by arguing gently and kindly, and
affirming your respect for your opponent. People are generally more willing to
own up to the limits of their knowledge and understanding if they are treated with
respect and compassion. Aggression, on the other hand, will make them feel that
their identity is threatened, which in turn can make them closed-minded.

As a bonus, you will also come across better to onlookers.

Ask ‘how’, rather than ‘why’

Many political arguments are based on false premises, spoken with confidence but
having minimal understanding of the issue. Simply asking why people support or
oppose a policy has little value, since those reasons could be shallow. A better way
of deflating someone’s argument is to ask for more detail: force your opponent to
explain how something would play itself out, in a step-by-step fashion. By
revealing the shallowness of their existing knowledge, this prompts a more
moderate and humbler attitude.

If you are debating the merits of a no-deal Brexit, you might ask someone to
describe exactly how the UK’s international trade would change under WTO
terms. If you are challenging a climate change denier, ask them to describe exactly
how their alternative theories can explain the recent rise in temperatures.

Fill their knowledge gap with a convincing story

If you are trying to debunk a falsehood, make sure that your explanation offers a
coherent narrative that fills all the gaps in the other person’s understanding.

Consider the following experiment. Subjects read stories about a fictional senator
allegedly under investigation for bribery, who had subsequently resigned from his
post. A letter from prosecutors confirming his innocence did little to change the
participants’ suspicions of his guilt. But when offered an alternative explanation
for his resignation – to take on another role – participants changed their minds. The
same can be seen in murder trials: people are more likely to accept someone’s
innocence if another suspect has also been accused, since that fills the biggest gap
in the story: whodunnit.

It’s often useful to discuss the sources of misinformation, so that the person can
understand why they were being misled in the first place. Anti-vaxxers, for
instance, may believe a medical conspiracy to cover up the supposed dangers of
vaccines. Stating the scientific evidence will not be persuasive. You are more
likely to change minds if you replace that narrative with an equally cohesive and
convincing story – such as Andrew Wakefield’s scientific fraud, and the fact that
he was set to profit from his paper linking autism to MMR vaccines.

Reframe the issue to separate it from their identity

Each of our beliefs is deeply rooted in a broad and complex ideology. Climate
change denial, for instance, is often linked to beliefs about capitalism, free trade,
and the dangers of environmental regulation. Attacking one issue may therefore
threaten to unravel someone’s whole worldview – a feeling that triggers
emotionally-charged, motivated reasoning. It is for this reason that highly-educated
Republicans deny the overwhelming evidence.

You’re not going to alter someone’s whole ideology in one discussion; a better
strategy is to disentangle the issue at hand from their broader beliefs, or to explain
how the facts can still be accommodated in their worldview. A free-market
capitalist will be more receptive to the evidence of global warming if you explain
that the development of renewable energies could generate economic growth.

Appeal to one of their alternative identities

When talking about politics, our primary identification will be our support for a
particular party or movement. However, besides being a conservative or a socialist,
we associate ourselves with other traits and values – our profession, or our role as a
parent. When people are asked to first reflect on their other, nonpolitical values,
they tend to stop viewing facts through their ideological lens and become more
objective while discussing highly partisan issues.

Try to use this to your advantage during a heated conversation, with subtle flattery
that appeals to another identity and its set of values; help them recognize that they
can change their mind on certain issues while staying true to the other important
elements of their personality. If you are talking to a science teacher, you might try
to emphasize their capacity to appraise evidence even-handedly.

Persuade them to take an outside perspective

If you are considering policies with long-term consequences, ask your opponent to
imagine the situation through the eyes of someone in the future. Or, in a discussion
about presidential candidates, ask them to imagine the viewpoint of someone from
another country. This strategy increases “psychological distance” from the issue
and cools emotionally-charged reasoning so that they will see things more
objectively, and are subsequently more willing to accept the limits of their
knowledge and to listen to alternative viewpoints.