Winning them over by "making it safe to be wrong"
Chase Hughes is a military and intelligence ‘behavior expert’ on TikTok who explains how to identify what motivates individual people, how to profile people and how to get information from them. As a person who often misreads people’s motivations, I find these clarifying or helpful (in spite of some annoying ‘mood music’). One video on how to win an argument says: ”If you argue with facts you’ve already lost”, “Reframe all of their positions as self protection”, and “Ask for clarification at the peak of emotion.” He concludes with “All of these work for the exact same reason: You don’t win arguments by being right, you win by making it safe to be wrong.“
Safe to be wrong? Is it ever safe to be so wrong? I think the point is to help them feel psychologically safe to admit to themselves and to others that they were wrong. People make mistakes, and they can change their mind about one thing or about many things, without losing their whole identity, purpose, and sense of self.
Another TikTok-er, Kylie Brewer, a former MAGA, had one similar message. Conservatives on average have a larger amygdala, and are more responsive to fear and anger, and to ‘categorical thinking’ including racist stereotypes, because they think if they can categorize people by something visible, then that’s going to make them safe. She suggests manipulating using emotion (which is what their own MAGA leaders are doing), by saying things like“Doesn’t it make you mad that we send $4 billion a year to Israel and they have free healthcare but we don’t?” Or “Doesn’t it make you upset that your tax dollars are going to invade a foreign country?”
We all need techniques to build bridges. This is now a matter of life and death, and of survival as a country. Why life and death? An essay today by Charlie Sykes (of all people) titled “Thinking the Unthinkable” had this to say:
Sykes’ whole essay is worth reading, but in particular he is haunted by ‘two core right-wing takes’ characterized by Nick Catoggio as belonging to a ‘violent ethos’ of Trump’s inner circle:
And Two: If you’re affiliated in any way with the left, you’re effectively a lawful combatant in a hot culture war in which, again, the good guys are entitled to kill you.
Consider that a sort of fallback rationalization for Republicans who watched the videos and found themselves struggling to justify what happened. Whether Good tried to “ram” the ICE agent or not ultimately isn’t important. What’s important is that she was part of a “left-wing network.” For many right-wingers, that’s justification enough.
Is it frustrating trying to lure trumpers to ‘slow walk to an epiphany’? Yes. Would we rather ignore them and hope the problem fixes itself? Yes. Is it beyond maddening that they are so conned? Yes.
But: Failure is not an option. We don’t need to — we can’t — convert 50% of them or even 30% of them. But when one is showing signs of a willingness to talk, do you know how to engage in a way that is effective?
We should all be trained or prepared communicate with the ‘other side’ effectively. If you have suggestions or can point to resources to help, please share here.
= new reply since forum marked as read
