Winning Hearts and Minds in the Misinformation Age

How do you convince those who only trust “their” cherry-picked sources?

Sadly, here in the 3rd decade of the 3rd millennium AD, we’re regressing in our ability to communicate because few of us trust the same sources.

Self-customization of news sources (and social media circles) have only made people become “experts” in what they already believed, closing them off to any external enlightenment, especially with regard to where they might be wrong. News gathering has become little more than self-imposed brainwashing, turning people more into mindless robots who just regurgitate what their favorite pundits say. Critical thinking is dead. For most people the “information highway” has become the bias-confirmation highway.

The most cursed effect of this has been the establishment of highly groomed / cherry-picked datasets and data sources. What are the latest pandemic numbers? It depends on the dataset. What are the employment numbers? Again, it depends on the dataset. Global temperatures? Again… dataset. That’s always been a problem, but it has never been as problematic as it is today. Opposing datasets are now carefully cherry-picked through the investment of billions of dollars to support whatever narrative people believe in, so that anyone can claim absolute certainty no matter how far fetched it may be. They have the data to prove it.

All cherry-picked datasets really do (often under the false claim of a “comprehensive review”) is break the scientific method.

Recently a friend told me, “You’re an engineer for heaven’s sake, why can’t you see the statistical significance of your error?!” It never entered his mind, not once, that his chosen dataset was entirely different than mine, and that I had good reasons to mistrust his dataset more than my own. So it’s no wonder why he’s outraged. Self-induced myopia generally is.

Cherry-picked datasets destroy confidence in each other’s arguments

The result: People forever arguing while never actually learning anything new, and it’s an ever worsening phenomenon. As a society we’ve become self-validation experts, but self-evaluation morons.

The Art of Persuading the Skeptic

Can anyone bridge this ever more divisive culture?

Yes, but you have to change your approach to really persuade.

Persuasion goes well beyond debate. Debate is a fool’s errand when using different datasets. A debate presumes that we’re working from the same datasets. In most cases in social media we’re not working from the same datasets. So debate is not winning hearts and minds, and it certainly doesn’t resolve differences.

Persuasion is hard. Very hard. Mostly because people consider their beliefs to be core to their being, their personality, their soul. You can’t separate someone from who they are, but if you can demonstrate that they are more than a certain belief … well, that’s persuasiveness.

Persuasiveness works when it’s done right, and some people are very good at it. I’m not talking about popular debaters like Richard Dawkins, or Jordan Peterson. Such people are only good at validating, substantiating, and confirming the beliefs of like minded people, to which they owe all their success. They don’t convert skeptics into believers.

Most of the real persuasion happens quietly by people who are not on a stage, and who do not mentally keep a score to measure whether they’ve brow beat the other person into submission. They don’t interact with others as if they’re enemies or idiots. Effective persuaders use different methods… more personally-persuasive techniques, which have a real lasting effect on those they know and associate with.

Changing hearts and mind requires more personally-persuasive techniques

So I’ve taken it upon myself to research what those techniques are, and what exactly makes a persuasive discussion, and I have boiled those things into 10 fundamental persuasive techniques to those who are skeptical of your beliefs:

1) Use only sources that the skeptic trusts. In general, their trust in your sources defines your level of persuasiveness with them. Important features of this strategy are as follows:

• The skeptic’s mistrust of the sources that you regularly use will eventually cause a similar mistrust in *any* of your opinions. So choose sources wisely.
• The skeptic may find it offensive, even insulting, if you continue to send them untrusted sources *after* they’ve expressed mistrust in that source. Doing that suggests that you’re just on a bull horn with your ears plugged. That will alienate, not persuade.

Examples of things that with further alienate a skeptic:

• Your source’s associations with others whom they mistrust is alienating. If the source is an established republican and it’s a political issue then democrats won’t listen, and vice versa.
• A source with inadequate authority is alienating. Example: A medical claim made by a politically charged source which doesn’t have any more medical authority than a 3rd grader. Or pretty much anything some actor, some billionaire, or some artist says about … anything (although that might be convincing to some people, but someone so wishy washy won’t stay convinced for long).
• A source that stands to profit in some way from their claim is alienating. This source’s bias will be a sticking point for the skeptic, even if the skeptic’s sources are just as financially incentivized in their own positions.
• A source who abuses their certifications or qualifications is alienating. For example, being a public leader does not also make them a climate scientist. Maybe they’re in the right field, like a family practitioner is in medicine, but that doesn’t make them an authority on say … a specific epidemiology question, despite whatever study they’ve read. Or a successful investor who presumes that makes them an expert on any investment, that’s an abuse of their qualifications and the critic will pick up on this qualification-abuse immediately.
• Or if it is published in a source that they don’t trust (say a politically charged source) then they will find the claims alienating, regardless the trustworthiness of the individual or organization from which it came.

FWIW, people with very one-sided views often only trust one-sided sources, and persuading them to think differently is very challenging, if not impossible. Your only hope is likely the “long game” … see point #10 below: ie. pick and choose your battles as you nurture trust over time.

Their trust in your sources defines your level of persuasiveness.

2) Demonstrate interest in their position first, act interested even if you think you already know and (and don’t agree with) their position, otherwise you may seem judgy and dismissive, which will kill persuasiveness.

• Start with, “what are your feelings about …”. Try first to see it from their perspective. This demonstrates open and respectful discourse on your part, which prepares their mind to consider new possibilities.
• Saying “I see where you’re coming from” and especially “you have a point there”, demonstrates you are reasonable and respectful. Even better yet, restate their position to their satisfaction. There’s probably something that you don’t understand about them that will at least help you justify giving them the benefit of the doubt. Find out what that is.

3) Only after validating their position (above) start with common ground and build from there.

• The art of persuasion is *not* a negotiation where you set a high bar (extreme position) and negotiate to a middle ground with your goal being to get yourself the best deal possible. That strategy is *not* persuasive, but rather it is alienating, polarizing, and it can even ruin relationships. More likely if they seem to acquiesce, they probably just want to get away from you.
• “What led you to believe this?” is a question that exposes any biases on their part in a way that is not offensive, and it demonstrates your compassion and understanding which can lower their resistance to new ideas.
• Vocalizing commonalities can make them less defensive and more open to your experiences and insights.

Persuasion is practically the opposite of negotiation. Negotiation is about finding some point of agreement by starting at extreme (usually ridiculous) positions and then devolving down to some common denominator. It’s about pitting differences against each other. It usually includes put-downs, hearsay, half-truths, innuendo, value judgements, canned artificial speech, and hard-sell tactics like logical fallacies. Most people communicate this way and it’s marginally useful at best. It doesn’t win hearts and minds.

4) Briefly share a personal experience that helped form your belief. If done humbly and respectfully (let them do the same) this can provide the conditions where the other party can see your views as being justifiable in that situation. This build trust and understanding which is fundamental to persuasion. But don’t make the story full of self-justification, presuming to make you an expert in general, such as “I grew up in the ghetto so I know black people” (yes, I actually heard that one recently).

In the above example, your argument would then be better served by “I grew up in the ghetto, which has influenced my thinking in that situation. What has your experience been?”

5) Practice emotional intelligence. Be the grownup, trying first to understand and only thereafter seeking to be understood. Come across as a trustworthy friend. This can not be faked … you need to find someway to adjust your paradigm of them so you can do this naturally and authentically.

• Presume that their opinion comes from reasonable and justified insights that would come naturally given experiences different than your own.
• Use a tone and approach that demonstrates that you respect their intelligence. Try to keep the pitch of your voice in the lower registers, at a low volume and using calming intonations.
• If it gets tense, imagine they’re at their wit’s end and that what they need is a loving helping hand, not a corrective blow. This in fact might be the case… I have a friend who when dealing with an abusive customer says in his mind “I love you” which he insists transforms the situation for a peaceful and productive resolution. Mentally saying this doesn’t transform the customer though, it transforms himself, which so changes his own interactions which the customer can sense immediately, so that a productive solution can be mutually discovered and administered.
• Most persuasion is best done in person where the persuader’s thoughtful tone and manner can be emphasized. A demeanor is very difficult to share in an email or written medium. If a skeptic can’t see your face or hear the intonations of your voice then they will always presume a harsher and more bullying manner for you than what you feel, even if you have nothing but the kindest feelings for them. Kindly offered enlightenment will be received as a tongue-lashing. So pick up the phone, better yet, do a face-to-face online, or even better yet: have lunch with them.
• Demonstrate respect, don’t just say “respectfully, I disagree”. This is not a bad thing to say, but it is sometimes code for “I expect to be considered respectful without actually being respectful, get ready as I’m about to lambaste you”, and hearing it nearly always puts others on the defensive. Instead, prove your respect through recognizing their strengths and demonstrating understanding and compassion. Meet them on their terms. Show appreciation where warranted. Without conveying respect even a sincere compliment can seem to them like sarcasm.

6) Discover their circle of influence and leverage assets within it.

• Assume nothing. Their circle of influence may be entirely different than what you thought it was (pay attention to this fact, parents).
• Note that you can’t insert someone into their circle of influence. That’s something they can only do on their own, but you can encourage them to consider inserting a certain person, but don’t count on it (again, pay attention to this fact, parents).

7) Be fair in your criticisms.

• Be specific and use reliable sources, like “[person] was convicted of [specific dollar amount] tax fraud, here’s the court proceedings”.
• Avoid name-calling and value judgements like “[so-n-so person] is a Jerk”, even if it’s true. Name-calling does the opposite of persuasion.

8) Don’t just forward stuff. Forwarding randomly sent emails without preemptively critically analyzing them is guaranteed to do more harm than good. It can demonstrate a lack of respect for the time and intelligence of the people to whom you send it.

• You should know what the 10 most common logical fallacies are and make sure your sources don’t employ them, because even though skeptics probably doesn’t know them explicitly, they will know dirty pool when they see it and that makes enemies, not impressionable friends. Even if the email has good content mixed in between the logical fallacies, it won’t matter. Any logical fallacy should mark it for deletion.
• Don’t forward if the content is tabloid-like, just flings dirt, or uses tawdry guilt-by-association methods. When discussing a controversial person (like a politician during an election), that person’s character is in fact very important and it should be discussed, but if character judgements are based on hearsay, innuendo, half-truths or rumors … that’s worse than dirt, in fact it’s mud. Mud just turns skeptics off rather than converting them, and they can loose respect in you. You can’t pass mud along without getting it all over your hands.
• Avoid opinion pieces that involve mind-reading of bad motives like “Apparently Senator [so-n-so] thinks his constituents are morons.” Mind-reading an effective way to loose persuasiveness among skeptics.
• Don’t forward it if it is written by or uses sources that they won’t trust (see item 1 above)
• Don’t forward if the headline is not supported by the content (aka clickbait), or if it is stretching the truth. They will feel frustrated and offended because you apparently forwarded it without giving them the same consideration that you’d expect from them.
• Don’t try to trick them into reading something with some disingenuous word or phrase, like “interesting…” or “something worth considering...” as if you think they’d be interested when you know they won’t be. That kind of prefacing can be outright insulting. If you are their friend then prove it by treating them like you ACTUALLY KNOW THEM. Otherwise it’s a cheap-shot… and you’re ruining that relationship over a stupid email. Do you think they’re going to trust you after that? If you must send it then precede it with something honest. Try “Sorry, you’re going to hate this, but I’m curious how you feel about the bigfoot argument involving satellite imagery, at 2:45”. At least that is honest and considerate. And they’re more likely to watch it. They’ll be forgiving that you sent them something they think is junk, they’ll give it a fair shake, and they won’t cringe next time they get an email from you.

Skeptics might not explicitly know the 10 most common logical fallacies, but they’ll implicitly know when they’re being taken for a fool when a logical fallacy is employed against them. This is a guaranteed way to turn them off to your efforts, and put unproductive strain on your relationship.

9) Use simple arguments rather than complex ones.

• Occam’s razor is not only true, it will also help you identify a persuasive argument. If the only argument that you have is convoluted or seems incredible then you’re just going to dig a hole for yourself. The key is to be able to see your argument from the perspective of your skeptics. This can be very hard when you have certain confidences evolving from your paradigm that they don’t have.
• One of the most misused phrases used in an argument is “I understand but…”. Chances are that you don’t understand that your argument is contingent on a whole ecosystem of beliefs that the skeptic doesn’t embrace like you do. Expecting them to accept your entire paradigm is not simple, and thus not reasonable. Your persuasiveness lies in your ability to adequately support your position using their frame of reference and belief paradigm.
• Leading to the last item…

10) Make the goal to build trust and influence, instead of getting them to say “Uncle” out of a desperation to make you shut up. This might mean that you’re happy to even concede a point or two, or even the entire argument because it’s not about the argument. It’s about becoming more than a friend … it’s about becoming a trusted resource. Play the long game. If you clearly aren’t going to have an impact then don’t risk losing your influence by arguing a position that will only drive them away.

• If they’ve made their position clear that nothing will persuade them, then know that continuous efforts to do so will only hurt your log time influence with them in other more weighty matters. This doesn’t mean that you occasionally state your position respectfully, but learn to read their readiness to field such comments before you do so.
• Ask yourself, “Can I LEAVE IT ALONE so I can then start lifting, inspiring, and building a stronger relationship? If they won’t do that, then can I be the better person in that respect by letting it go?” Or will you sink to their level and help burn this relationship over something neither of you likely have much power (like who’ll get elected)? It’s up to you, do the math and act accordingly. The serenity prayer might help here.
• Point blank ask them, “Is there anything that will convince you of what I believe?” Listen and remember when they answer that question, and honor their response.

Many people, perhaps most people, may see these techniques as tedious and painful, and they might just conclude that they would rather just injure or malign with their same old approach, or disengage entirely. I fear we are heading that way as a society.

But I believe most people don’t want to just alienate, polarize, insult and injure. They do want to persuade, especially those they love, and they just need a little insight on how to do that.

And here’s a side benefit: Unlike debating (which is only self-validating by nature), communicating persuasively by employing the above principles has the added benefit of increasing learning for both parties, the persuader as well as the skeptic. These techniques actually require the persuader to listen and learn to appreciate the skeptic, and god-forbid… maybe even come closer to the truth themselves.

But for argument’s sake, let’s presume that you are always right, all the time, and you just need a better way to convince others of that. If so, the bottom line is that these techniques are the ones that win hearts and minds. And creating a better world is just a pleasant side effect.

Happy persuading!