Political arguments often stall because people use loaded terms like 'critical race theory' with entirely different meanings. Before debating, ask the other person to define the term. This simple step often reveals that the core disagreement is based on a misunderstanding, not a fundamental clash of values.

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.

The widespread and instinctual revulsion toward incest provides a strong case for emotivism. When pressed for a logical reason why it's wrong (beyond pragmatic concerns like birth defects), most people fall back on emotional expressions like 'it's just gross.' This suggests the moral judgment is rooted in a fundamental emotion, not a rational principle.

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.

According to emotivism, when someone says 'murder is wrong,' they are not stating a verifiable fact about the world. Instead, they are expressing an emotion of disapproval. The moral component ('is wrong') functions like adding an angry emoji or a disapproving tone to the word 'murder,' conveying feeling rather than fact.

People often agree on the facts of a political event but arrive at opposite conclusions because their internal 'threat monitors' are calibrated differently. One person's 'alarming authoritarian move' is another's 'necessary step for order,' leading to intractable debates.

Most people (88%) agree on fundamental values but remain silent, fearing ostracization. This allows the most extreme 5% of voices to dominate 90% of public discourse, creating a false impression of widespread disagreement and polarization where one doesn't exist.

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.

People look at the same set of facts (stars) but interpret them through different frameworks, creating entirely different narratives (constellations). These narratives, though artificial, have real-world utility for navigation and decision-making, explaining why people reach opposing conclusions from the same data.