Today I’ve had cause to think about the many discussions and arguments I’ve had with people who I know in advance are not going to change their minds, but nevertheless I go through the motions of disagreeing with them. One of the problems is that our attention is directed in so many ways that we don’t have time to give the time and energy to a particular conversation and work it out because our next engagement is already planned or we have to do this or that.
The poor old brain would love to work more, but we don’t give it a chance. A great example of people meeting for a discussion is this very long video that I’ve been watching, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA5GV-XmwtM&t=3576s which shows what the brain can do. It is a trick of the powers that be to distract us in so many ways that we don’t have the opportunity to use the mind to join the dots and to draw conclusions from things.
I came across an article about talking to (hopefully WITH people) to move an idea forward.
Facts rarely change people’s minds because persuasion is not primarily a logical process but an emotional and social one. We assume that better arguments and stronger evidence should convince others, yet in practice people often become more entrenched when confronted with facts that challenge their beliefs.
The core reason is that people usually defend identities, not just ideas. Many beliefs are tied to group belonging, personal history, and social connections. Changing one’s mind can feel like betraying a community or undermining one’s sense of self. This helps explain why it is easy to update views about neutral topics, like the weather, but extremely hard to shift opinions on politics or religion. Social identity theory shows that we naturally favour our own groups, and the “sunk cost” effect means that the more time and emotion we’ve invested in a belief, the harder it is to let it go.
Because of this, the article suggests that ideas don’t change through argument alone — contexts change them. For someone to reconsider a belief, they need to feel safe, have time, and trust the person they are talking to. Direct attacks on beliefs usually backfire because they feel like personal attacks.
Instead of trying to win arguments, the article recommends four more effective approaches. First, prioritise the relationship over being right; people are more open to influence from those they feel close to. Second, reduce pressure by choosing private, calm settings rather than public debates where pride and social standing are at stake. Third, be gradual, helping someone move step by step rather than expecting a dramatic shift. Finally, promote better ideas rather than repeatedly attacking bad ones, since constantly repeating an opposing view can actually reinforce it.
In short, persuasion works less like a courtroom and more like a garden: change grows slowly in the right conditions, and pushing too hard often strengthens resistance.
I find the challenges presented by this article on the face of it to require a huge change in my attitude that I don’t know whether I can achieve to the full, so I will do my best to digest the main points and at least try to move towards flexibility instead of dismissing the people who don’t have my views as idiots or unenlightened, as I could say more diplomatically.
Certainly a thought for this, a day when the rain never seems to stop for more than a few moments. We thought of going to Wells today and enjoying the market, but the thought of walking around in the rain was too much.
