How do you change someone’s mind?  Your first reaction, in this polarized era, might understandably be ‘you don’t’.  Especially on the endlessly argued issues of the day, especially on political issues, or anything that can be made political (aka everything), it seems that people are more set in their ways than ever.  And angrier about them than ever.  How can we even think about bringing them from the darkness to the light?  Modern brain research shows us a way to make this difficult task easier.  But first, a nod to the ancient Greeks.

The ancient Greeks knew something about feats of argumentative prestidigitation.  In response to a litigious society that liked to argue about everyday issues we would easily recognize today, such as property rights of competing landowners, they developed the first courts, and the first advocates, and thus the first insights into disputation.  Their idea was that the persuasive act took two steps.  First, you had to agree on the problem.  Then, you could discuss the solution.  This problem-solution structure has served people at cross purposes for two and a half millennia.

The Greeks even had a more advanced model, a problem-solution structure 2.0 if you will, for particularly thorny problems.  That model was known as the Residues Method.  It’s a slightly confusing name for an elegant development.  In this case, the residue is the important part.  What you do is first talk about the opposing point of view (or several if there are more than one).  You fairly represent that other argument, in brief, and then talk about one or two of the problems with that other position.  The key is to present that opposing argument fairly.  That can be difficult – try it.  You may find yourself squirming, logically speaking, when you have to argue for something that you passionately disagree with.  But it’s wonderful practice and good for the brain, so go ahead anyway.

Once you’ve presented the opposing point or points of view and given a reason or two that they might not be sound positions, then you present your POV.  And you leave it standing.  No rebuttal.  The effect is both to appear fair to the other positions and to be dispassionate about your own.  You’ll find that it defuses a good deal of the tension that usually surrounds these debates.

And yet, even the wisdom of the ancient Greeks is not always enough to bring the sweet light of reason to a dark and divided world.  In that case, you need a third step, revealed by modern research, and undertaken before the other two.  This step rather surprisingly makes people behave better when they’re arguing.

Here’s how it works.  Instead of jumping right into the argument, you ask people to talk about their values.  It doesn’t have to be complicated.  You might simply offer them a list of good things, like family, honesty, thrift, obedience to the law, helping your neighbors, and remembering to vote, and then ask them to put them in rank order from most important to least.

That’s it.  Get them to reflect on their values, and the tigers of argumentation become kittens, more or less.  Apparently, people who have talked and thought about their values feel centered and heard, and more secure.  All of that makes them more reasonable.

And wouldn’t it be nice to bring a little more reason into today’s debates?