To persuade someone skeptical of evidence (e.g., on vaccines), confronting them with facts often backfires. A more effective, trial-tested approach is motivational interviewing: ask open questions about their concerns, listen without judgment, and gently offer accurate information, rather than trying to "win" an argument.

Author John Grisham, a longtime death penalty supporter, had a complete change of heart after a prison chaplain asked, "Do you think Jesus will approve of what we do here?" This shows that a well-posed, self-reflective question can be far more persuasive than a direct confrontation, as it bypasses defensiveness.

According to evolutionary psychologists, our capacity for reason didn't develop to be a dispassionate tool for finding truth. Instead, it evolved as a social mechanism to justify our positions and persuade others. This explains why factual evidence often fails to change minds and can even reinforce existing beliefs.

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.

When engaging with a vocal critic online, especially an influential one, the goal isn't to convert them. The strategic objective is to present your case for the "people on the fence" who are observing and might otherwise only hear the critic's unchallenged viewpoint.

When confronting beliefs unsupported by facts, directly arguing is ineffective. A better approach is to ask, "What evidence would change your mind?" This question forces the other person to define their own criteria for truth, creating a framework for a more productive, fact-based conversation on their terms.

In a group setting, the goal of debating a DEI skeptic isn't to change their mind, which is often impossible. Instead, the dialogue serves to educate and persuade the undecided onlookers who are listening. The real audience is the 'movable middle,' not the vocal opponent.

Despite being known for debates, Harris believes they are largely ineffective for changing minds in real-time. He asserts that people tend to change their core beliefs in private, not under the pressure of a live conversation. Witnessing a genuine change of mind during a debate is as rare as witnessing a supernova.

Daryl Davis and Jeff Scoop stress they don't convert anyone. Instead, they introduce new perspectives or personal stories that create internal cognitive dissonance. This "seed" allows the person to feel they initiated the change themselves, making it genuine and lasting.