Persuasion

There's got to be a better way!

Is it better to be technically correct? Or is it better to be heard and understood?

What is the point of entering into a debate in the first place, if not to persuade the other person?

And if the point is to persuade, why is the majority of modern discourse consist of people talking past each other? Repeating tired old arguments and reflexive responses like two amateur chess players that memorized the same strategy book.

Modern discourse does not seek to understand, connect, identify, or resonate with the other person, simply to "win" in the eyes of some nonexistent judge, and gain the approval of the already convinced on social media.

The Importance of Persuasion

The debate of science versus superstition and misinformation is one of the most important debates in human history. It is of the utmost importance that enough people are convinced of this before nuclear war, climate change, or some other existential global calamity is caused by humanity's inability to come together as one.

Strategies for Political and Theological Persuasion

When dealing with core identity topics like politics and religion, a number of strategies should be employed to avoid emotional and reflexive reactions instead of considered attention to evidence and reasoning.

Avoid Attacking Someone's Core Identity

This point should be obvious but apparently it is not, given how many atheists start their conversations with theists by attacking religion right out of the gate. The only reason to do this is to elicit a reaction, since there is obviously no persuasive power in such a tactic. This is not discourse, it is trolling.

No argument that is presented in opposition to someone's core belief systems, be they supernatural, libertarian, or trauma-induced, will get any traction. The only way to be persuasive is to identify as part of the in-group of your counterpart. This lets you leverage in-group bias in your favor, and avoids out-group skepticism and contrarianism.

To start your conversation by establishing yourself as a member of the in-group, you must first find common ground before you can address the points where you already know you will disagree.

Focus on Common Goals

Behind every opinion is a goal, some objective the person is trying to achieve that they think will be better served if we do whatever they are saying. But what is that goal? it is often unstated and assumed. By focusing attention on the goal, you usually end up establishing common ground, because we are all humans and we all share the same ultimate goal of increasing happiness and quality of life. If you trace each intermediate goal back to its original purpose, all roads lead to this one true goal shared by all of humanity.

Now you are part of the in-group and you are ready to have a totally different conversation.

How Can Atheists and Theists Find Common Ground?

The first thing that most atheists and theists can agree on is the fact that literalism is a false and dangerous way to interpret scripture and allegory is the correct way. Atheists tend to be biased and assume most theists are fundamentalists, because many of them come from those backgrounds. They will be surprised to find common ground if they really explore the topic of literalism versus allegory with most believers.

It works in reverse, too. Theists who wish to find common ground with an atheist can also employ this tactic.

The other really good way for atheists to find common ground is to stop being atheists and start being Pantheists. The atheism page lays out the many rhetorical and psychological benefits of doing this.

The technique of metaphor mapping is also employed to show how religious beliefs are allegories for real, observable phenomena in the universe, and rituals can elicit the placebo effect to heal us psychologically.

And, of course, you can always focus on your common goals.

How Can Progressives and Libertarians Find Common Ground?

Having extensively explored and actively campaigned on both sides of this issue, this author feels uniquely qualified to address the question of where these two political philosophies have common ground.

The first is in the concept of freedom, which is a core libertarian value that progressives also share as a common goal. Exploring what it truly means to be free in a capitalist society where billionaires often have much more power and control over your available life choices and free will than the government, is an effective way for progressives and libertarians to have a productive discussion.

The second is the concept of the non-aggression principle, which is another core libertarian value that most progressives can get on board with. I don't know a lot of progressives that are gung-ho about the police state and support the prosecution of victimless crimes like drugs and prostitution for consenting adults.

Many libertarians have been heavily influenced by capitalist propaganda and assume that anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan is an authoritarian communist that ultimately wants to destroy capitalism. When you know what their core values and goals are, and demonstrate that you share them, you can now be seen as part of the in-group instead of a commie bastard.

Likewise, most progressives are not actually authoritarian communists, and actually support capitalism as long as it has nothing to do with whether or not you can get healthcare. If you are a libertarian and want to find common ground with a progressive, this tactic is equally effective in reverse.

What If We All Debated This Way?

If the tactic of finding common goals and establishing a shared in-group prior to discussing sensitive issues about our belief systems were to become widespread, it would form a new generating equation could significantly accelerate the creation of a universal in-group.

Social media has created a generating equation that has accelerated trolling, contrarianism, misinformation, and grift through the systematic promotion of outrage. What if we systematically promoted the idea of finding common goals?

In an era of polarization, persuasion is desired by all, but often viewed as a lost cause. Those on the other side of the debate are too far gone to even agree on a shared reality, much less engage in an evidence-based debate that requires a shared acceptance of facts.

There is ample evidence for the efficacy of these persuasive tactics. They can be promoted on either side of the political divide, since both sides would ultimately like to persuade the other to their position. But if they all start using the common ground tactic in order to do this, it will completely change the shape of discourse and the entire political landscape as a result.

Tactics are non-partisan. If we want to heal political polarization, changing tactics is far more effective than collecting and presenting more evidence for your side.

Persuasive Videos

If these videos don't convince you of the power of persuasion then nothing will!

The psychological trick behind getting people to say yes