Most arguments aren't a search for objective truth but an attempt to justify a pre-existing emotional state. People feel a certain way first, then construct a logical narrative to support it. To persuade, address the underlying feeling, not just the stated facts.
Related Insights
In intimate relationships, arguing over objective facts is a recipe for disaster. According to therapist Terry Real, "objective reality has no place in intimate relationships." Trying to prove your point with logic ignores your partner's emotional experience and only escalates conflict. Focus on feelings, not facts.
To defuse conflict, frame your perspective as a personal narrative rather than objective fact. This linguistic tool signals vulnerability and invites dialogue by acknowledging your story could be wrong, preventing the other person's brain from defaulting to a defensive, "fight or flight" response.
When facing a viewpoint you find incorrect, the instinct is to correct the facts. A better approach is to first validate the person's emotion ("It makes sense you feel X about Y"). This makes them feel heard and safe, preventing defensiveness before you present your own perspective.
Adults rarely change their minds on emotional issues through debate. Instead of arguing facts, create a positive, controlled personal experience related to the topic. This reframes their conceptual understanding, which is more effective than direct persuasion at shifting their position.
Winning an argument by proving a factual point (e.g., "you were technically yelling") is a losing strategy in relationships. Therapist Terry Real's framework suggests subjective perception is what truly matters. Establishing "objective reality" invalidates your partner's experience and derails resolution.
Instead of countering an objection, diffuse the conflict by relating to the underlying emotion. For a price objection, say, 'It sounds like you make really good decisions with money.' This shows empathy without agreeing their price is too high, lowering their defenses and making them more collaborative.
When confronting seemingly false facts in a discussion, arguing with counter-facts is often futile. A better approach is to get curious about the background, context, and assumptions that underpin their belief, as most "facts" are more complex than they appear.
When presented with direct facts, our brains use effortful reasoning, which is prone to defensive reactions. Stories transport us, engaging different, more social brain systems. This allows us to analyze a situation objectively, as if observing others, making us more receptive to the underlying message.
Research on contentious topics finds that individuals with the most passionate and extreme views often possess the least objective knowledge. Their strong feelings create an illusion of understanding that blocks them from seeking or accepting new information.
When meeting an influential person with opposing views, effectiveness trumps the need to be 'right.' The best strategy is to suppress personal indignation and identify a shared interest. Propose a policy or idea within that common ground that they might be receptive to and champion as their own.
