I've certainly been inclined not to engage people who are very different from me because they are not persuadable. It seemed like a poor investment in time, but your post has me reconsidering, especially considering the potential for keeping people from becoming even more extreme. The situation I more often encounter is the extreme progressive who attacks me for not being as extreme as they are. I know they alienate some liberals and moderates, but I've not been affected that way. On the other hand, I no longer want to be affiliated with extremely progressive organizations. I've become a quiet liberal. Maybe I need to re-engage these folks and help them lighten up. I'm actually on their side.
"Research on "deep canvassing" -- a technique developed by LGBTQ+ organizers, led by Dave Fleischer , and studied by political scientists David Broockman and Josh Kalla
-- shows that human connection can change attitudes in ways facts and logic alone often can't."
"But the reality on the ground of what this intervention looks like is quite different. They have been working every month since 2009 to figure out how to talk to people in a way that got them to open up and express less prejudice towards LGBT people, trying lots of different approaches with trial and error. Ultimately they settled on something that looks a lot like cognitive behavioral therapy in a certain way, in that it involves asking the voters to tell stories from voters’ own lives and ruminate on them aloud in response to active listening and good questions. Canvassers are trained on it for ~2 hours before going out and it is a skill they get better at. What they do definitely isn’t easy or simple in a “this one weird trick!” way. Consistent with that, in the data we find experienced canvassers who have canvassed with them for a while are ~2.5x more effective (noisy estimate, but our best guess) than first-timers. In that sense, it is probably rather like therapists — it is hard to cure alcoholism, and first time therapists probably aren’t great at it, but it is a skill they can hone with the right theoretical approach and get relatively good at. I have no doubt most conventional canvassing would have much lower effects (although we’re working to examine that view in follow-up studies and better isolate the mechanism)."
When the study was first published, many were doubtful, but since then the results have been replicated repeatedly under a variety of conditions. Political scientists no longer doubt that these findings are real and organizers are using these methods in campaigns across the country.
It's definitely interesting - but per above elaboration, it seems more like salesmanship by trained, if not professionals, at least somewhat talented practitioners. Not a "conversation" between average people. There's a kind of fallacy of ambiguity here on the word "conversation" in this case. The fact that the best salesmen in a company can land a huge contract via a "conversation" with a prospect, does not mean that sending an engineer to have a "conversation" will have the same outcome.
My efforts to persuade anyone of anything are basically failures. And I know why at least in part, because I'm a technical person and I have very little ability to do interpersonal psychology. This will not change, because my mind just works a certain way. That there are people who are good at such persuasion says nothing about my ability to do it, or others - and hence whether such attempts are effective as a general, not special circumstances (cherry-picking), proposition.
I find this article persuasive and very well thought put and researched, and worth considering. One question, though. I'm curious what kind of research us out there that you may be aware of that looks at cross-currents. Or maybe a pendulum is a better description. What I mean is, yes, people do tend to consider stances they may be opposed to, if engaged in a personal, non-combative way. But is it possible to have a debate where two people, or groups, actually strengthen each other's positions but they still come away with a respect that was absent before? Or can respectful conversation sometimes also deepen divides on issues, without damaging the relationship? I'm probably overthinking this...
we need to get beyond conversation, to consensus. it's not about persuasion (you can keep your facts and your opinions). it's about what we can agree to do together to fix our common problems. "will you be there to help fix potholes on Main Street next Saturday?"
Hi Gary, thanks again for taking the time to comment. I’m genuinely curious—what specifically in this article feels like an attempt to trick rather than communicate?
As I mentioned in our previous exchange, my personal standard for evaluating whether a persuasive strategy is ethical is simple: would I be okay with someone I strongly disagree with using it on me? In this case, I absolutely would. I’d be comfortable sharing this article with Trump voters, because it doesn’t rely on manipulation or coercion.
What I’ve described here isn’t about undue influence—it’s an account of how attitudes shift in society and how people can support that process in thoughtful, humane ways. Humans have always done this to create social change.
That said, I might be wrong—and I’m open to that. I welcome further conversation if you’re willing.
The whole piece is about how to manipulate public opinion from a specific side of the current polarization. It's not about trying to understand the other side.
You seem smart, so I believe you must see this too.
Why not actually communicate with others and maybe you'll find some common ground to move forward with together.
No matter how you rephrase to me, your intent to change opinions a certain way is obvious to a somewhat neutral, detached observer.
Just say it as it is, trying to appear neutral damages your credibility.
If you're an activist, just accept it. Nothing wrong with that truth, it will set you free.
I've certainly been inclined not to engage people who are very different from me because they are not persuadable. It seemed like a poor investment in time, but your post has me reconsidering, especially considering the potential for keeping people from becoming even more extreme. The situation I more often encounter is the extreme progressive who attacks me for not being as extreme as they are. I know they alienate some liberals and moderates, but I've not been affected that way. On the other hand, I no longer want to be affiliated with extremely progressive organizations. I've become a quiet liberal. Maybe I need to re-engage these folks and help them lighten up. I'm actually on their side.
Are you sure about this?
"Research on "deep canvassing" -- a technique developed by LGBTQ+ organizers, led by Dave Fleischer , and studied by political scientists David Broockman and Josh Kalla
-- shows that human connection can change attitudes in ways facts and logic alone often can't."
I recall that was disproven, https://retractionwatch.com/2015/05/20/author-retracts-study-of-changing-minds-on-same-sex-marriage-after-colleague-admits-data-were-faked/
"Author retracts study of changing minds on same-sex marriage after colleague admits data were faked"
Hi Seth, thanks for taking the time to comment. You're right. There was an earlier version of the study by different researchers in which data was fabricated. However, subsequent research found that the original hypothesis was accurate nonetheless. Here's a link: https://www.wired.com/2016/04/political-sciences-whistleblowers-rebunk-gay-canvassing-study/
Thanks for that link - it appears there's actually some substance here, though it's got complexity:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2016/04/07/gay-persuasion-update/
"But the reality on the ground of what this intervention looks like is quite different. They have been working every month since 2009 to figure out how to talk to people in a way that got them to open up and express less prejudice towards LGBT people, trying lots of different approaches with trial and error. Ultimately they settled on something that looks a lot like cognitive behavioral therapy in a certain way, in that it involves asking the voters to tell stories from voters’ own lives and ruminate on them aloud in response to active listening and good questions. Canvassers are trained on it for ~2 hours before going out and it is a skill they get better at. What they do definitely isn’t easy or simple in a “this one weird trick!” way. Consistent with that, in the data we find experienced canvassers who have canvassed with them for a while are ~2.5x more effective (noisy estimate, but our best guess) than first-timers. In that sense, it is probably rather like therapists — it is hard to cure alcoholism, and first time therapists probably aren’t great at it, but it is a skill they can hone with the right theoretical approach and get relatively good at. I have no doubt most conventional canvassing would have much lower effects (although we’re working to examine that view in follow-up studies and better isolate the mechanism)."
When the study was first published, many were doubtful, but since then the results have been replicated repeatedly under a variety of conditions. Political scientists no longer doubt that these findings are real and organizers are using these methods in campaigns across the country.
It's definitely interesting - but per above elaboration, it seems more like salesmanship by trained, if not professionals, at least somewhat talented practitioners. Not a "conversation" between average people. There's a kind of fallacy of ambiguity here on the word "conversation" in this case. The fact that the best salesmen in a company can land a huge contract via a "conversation" with a prospect, does not mean that sending an engineer to have a "conversation" will have the same outcome.
My efforts to persuade anyone of anything are basically failures. And I know why at least in part, because I'm a technical person and I have very little ability to do interpersonal psychology. This will not change, because my mind just works a certain way. That there are people who are good at such persuasion says nothing about my ability to do it, or others - and hence whether such attempts are effective as a general, not special circumstances (cherry-picking), proposition.
I find this article persuasive and very well thought put and researched, and worth considering. One question, though. I'm curious what kind of research us out there that you may be aware of that looks at cross-currents. Or maybe a pendulum is a better description. What I mean is, yes, people do tend to consider stances they may be opposed to, if engaged in a personal, non-combative way. But is it possible to have a debate where two people, or groups, actually strengthen each other's positions but they still come away with a respect that was absent before? Or can respectful conversation sometimes also deepen divides on issues, without damaging the relationship? I'm probably overthinking this...
Hi Wayne, great question. That’s basically the topic of last week’s article. https://open.substack.com/pub/karintamerius/p/why-debating-republicans-almost-never?r=g6x5x&utm_medium=ios
we need to get beyond conversation, to consensus. it's not about persuasion (you can keep your facts and your opinions). it's about what we can agree to do together to fix our common problems. "will you be there to help fix potholes on Main Street next Saturday?"
Again, your purpose is obviously not to communicate, but to trick someone.
It should be clear by now that the jig us up on talking point persuasion.
We can all readily see and hear what goes on in the world.
Real communication is the new method.
Hi Gary, thanks again for taking the time to comment. I’m genuinely curious—what specifically in this article feels like an attempt to trick rather than communicate?
As I mentioned in our previous exchange, my personal standard for evaluating whether a persuasive strategy is ethical is simple: would I be okay with someone I strongly disagree with using it on me? In this case, I absolutely would. I’d be comfortable sharing this article with Trump voters, because it doesn’t rely on manipulation or coercion.
What I’ve described here isn’t about undue influence—it’s an account of how attitudes shift in society and how people can support that process in thoughtful, humane ways. Humans have always done this to create social change.
That said, I might be wrong—and I’m open to that. I welcome further conversation if you’re willing.
The whole piece is about how to manipulate public opinion from a specific side of the current polarization. It's not about trying to understand the other side.
You seem smart, so I believe you must see this too.
Why not actually communicate with others and maybe you'll find some common ground to move forward with together.
No matter how you rephrase to me, your intent to change opinions a certain way is obvious to a somewhat neutral, detached observer.
Just say it as it is, trying to appear neutral damages your credibility.
If you're an activist, just accept it. Nothing wrong with that truth, it will set you free.