I think we have to engage in a different and better way. Scott Adams points out that facts are terrible at persuasion.
I think one thing i will try (I've also tried everything, it feels like) is to have the person tell me what they know that goes into their belief. The things you are doing are next to impossible because they have to understand 50 layers to get to that even being a possibility. If you did something like fentanyl Floyd, the gender wage gap, 13/52, or m2f trans it is very cut and dry; they don't anything about it, and yet have such a strong opinion that they have the hubris to dismiss you.
That's right, facts are terrible, so use facts. But i think it is possible to at least get somewhere if you can get them to admit they are low information.
I’ve read about that, actually. It’s like peeling layers on an onion, you’ve got to get to the core of why they think the way they do.
Instead of blatantly telling someone something, you get a feel for where they are, then begin asking how they arrived at that belief/opinion/understanding.
That technique is just as important, if not moreso, than appealing to their emotions.
Edit: I forget if I’m confusing this for another persuasion method, but the gist is you want them to think they came to their conclusion all by themselves, and then you positively reinforce it by complimenting how brilliant they are for figuring it out. “Yes, anon, good job. Floyd was, in fact, a degenerate dopefiend.”
(post is archived)