How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide
- Downloads：5308
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-06-06 08:57:20
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：Peter Boghossian
- ISBN：0738285323
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
"This is a self-help book on how to argue effectively， conciliate， and gently persuade。 The authors admit to getting it wrong in their own past conversations。 One by one， I recognize the same mistakes in me。 The world would be a better place if everyone read this book。" -- Richard Dawkins， author of Science in the Soul and Outgrowing God
In our current political climate， it seems impossible to have a reasonable conversation with anyone who has a different opinion。 Whether you're online， in a classroom， an office， a town hall -- or just hoping to get through a family dinner with a stubborn relative -- dialogue shuts down when perspectives clash。 Heated debates often lead to insults and shaming， blocking any possibility of productive discourse。 Everyone seems to be on a hair trigger。
In How to Have Impossible Conversations， Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay guide you through the straightforward， practical， conversational techniques necessary for every successful conversation -- whether the issue is climate change， religious faith， gender identity， race， poverty， immigration， or gun control。 Boghossian and Lindsay teach the subtle art of instilling doubts and opening minds。 They cover everything from learning the fundamentals for good conversations to achieving expert-level techniques to deal with hardliners and extremists。 This book is the manual everyone needs to foster a climate of civility， connection， and empathy。
In our current political climate， it seems impossible to have a reasonable conversation with anyone who has a different opinion。 Whether you're online， in a classroom， an office， a town hall -- or just hoping to get through a family dinner with a stubborn relative -- dialogue shuts down when perspectives clash。 Heated debates often lead to insults and shaming， blocking any possibility of productive discourse。 Everyone seems to be on a hair trigger。
In How to Have Impossible Conversations， Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay guide you through the straightforward， practical， conversational techniques necessary for every successful conversation -- whether the issue is climate change， religious faith， gender identity， race， poverty， immigration， or gun control。 Boghossian and Lindsay teach the subtle art of instilling doubts and opening minds。 They cover everything from learning the fundamentals for good conversations to achieving expert-level techniques to deal with hardliners and extremists。 This book is the manual everyone needs to foster a climate of civility， connection， and empathy。
Reviews
Li Kerren
，
A nice book for the person that enjoys having challenging conversations with people of different viewpoints。 I'd recommend it to anyone who finds themselves in the conversations that frustrate you or you feel like "the other person" doesn't get you。 This book gives tools to break through that communication barrier， help the other person understand you but most of all helps you to understand them。 The takeaway is: "Think about what you want to say and why" A nice book for the person that enjoys having challenging conversations with people of different viewpoints。 I'd recommend it to anyone who finds themselves in the conversations that frustrate you or you feel like "the other person" doesn't get you。 This book gives tools to break through that communication barrier， help the other person understand you but most of all helps you to understand them。 The takeaway is: "Think about what you want to say and why" 。。。more
Kirsten
，
Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations （moral epistemology） have extended and added a sixth。 Peter Boghossian concludes this crucial， extremely useful book with Haidt's theoretical framework。 Theses six are:1。 Care vs harm （self-determination）2。 Fairness vs cheating 3。 Liberty vs oppression 4。 Loyalty vs betrayal （individualism）5。 Authority vs subversion （egalitarianism）6。 Purity/sanctity vs degradation Parentheses are mine - I LOVE this theoretical frame and have loved it for WELL over a decade。 If Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations （moral epistemology） have extended and added a sixth。 Peter Boghossian concludes this crucial， extremely useful book with Haidt's theoretical framework。 Theses six are:1。 Care vs harm （self-determination）2。 Fairness vs cheating 3。 Liberty vs oppression 4。 Loyalty vs betrayal （individualism）5。 Authority vs subversion （egalitarianism）6。 Purity/sanctity vs degradation Parentheses are mine - I LOVE this theoretical frame and have loved it for WELL over a decade。 If we can embrace these foundations in their neutral forms and can recognize where we fall on each of these scales， we have a CHANCE at communicating with others who seem irrational to us。 This book is north simple and hugely complex。 I intend to make this an anchor in addressing philosophy as a social study and also double down on Haidt crossing into social psychology。 😊If you think only about half the world is insane， you NEED this book。 Now。 If you recognize that most people are floundering， then you REALLY need this book。 If everything seems fine to you， then please contact me and let me know what your secret is。 。。。more
Richard Spear
，
Alot of this builds nicely on the work of Psychologists like Jonathan Haidt on the lack of evidential objectivity which is behind our beliefs。 Have to say that the authors treatment of religious belief is a little superficial at times， but otherwise this is a useful book for thinking through how to navigate difficult conversations。 Our current culture sorely needs to be better at this， myself included。
Barbara
，
When I began reading this book， I realized I do NOT have any interest in having impossible conversations with people who have substantially different opinions than I do。Life is too short for that。Started this book but stopped reading it。
Genia
，
Dnf at 20%The book has some good concepts。 However， all the examples were of a man arguing with a woman。 Which made me very irritated and I decided to stop reading it
David Ochabski
，
Amidst what has arguably been some of the most socially and politically divisive years in American history， wherein attempts made to engage in respectful and meaningful conversations between people with radically different beliefs and ideologies has become increasingly difficult， Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay have proposed a path toward countering this cultural devolution of dialogue。 In their book， How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide， they provide an accessible， st Amidst what has arguably been some of the most socially and politically divisive years in American history， wherein attempts made to engage in respectful and meaningful conversations between people with radically different beliefs and ideologies has become increasingly difficult， Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay have proposed a path toward countering this cultural devolution of dialogue。 In their book， How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide， they provide an accessible， step by step， guide on how to develop strategies for engaging in effective conversations with people that disagree about deeply held beliefs on religion， politics， and morality。 Boghossian and Lindsay do not just desire to offer practical strategies， but through these， they also seek to guide their readers into navigating some philosophical， epistemological， and moral foundations to belief so that they are equipped to approach a seemingly impossible conversation with sensitivity， respect， and openness toward various perspectives。Book reviewed for Eleutheria， Liberty divinity journal。 。。。more
Shadman Abdal Joarder
，
"What would it take to change your mind？"At times it felt repulsive， at times enlightening。 The book was difficult as I had issues with the authors' preconceived notion that some people are wrong and their beliefs need to be changed， be it religious or political。 Reading more though， I began to think they seem harsher than they actually meant to be。 They do understand that different people experience things differently。 My takeaways from this book were: Be civil （even when the other person isn't "What would it take to change your mind？"At times it felt repulsive， at times enlightening。 The book was difficult as I had issues with the authors' preconceived notion that some people are wrong and their beliefs need to be changed， be it religious or political。 Reading more though， I began to think they seem harsher than they actually meant to be。 They do understand that different people experience things differently。 My takeaways from this book were: Be civil （even when the other person isn't）Golden bridges （build rapport through commonalities）Always assume the other person has good intentions Half of the book is common sense like that。 The other half is quite frankly frightening。Altercasting and Disconfirmation questions were eye-openers。 It is terrifying how they can be used to influence people and nudge them into decisions。 These alone were worth finishing the book for。 。。。more
Amanda
，
I've never read a how to book in my life。 And now I kind of regret that！ This book has revolutionized one （or two！） important corners of my life。 It comes out of the recent， extreme political tension in the U。S。 While the country has been increasing its polarization for a while， I think it's most extreme point has been the last few years。 This is both sad and dangerous。 The authors， knowing this， wrote this book。 If you want to have good， worthwhile， effective conversations with those who think I've never read a how to book in my life。 And now I kind of regret that！ This book has revolutionized one （or two！） important corners of my life。 It comes out of the recent， extreme political tension in the U。S。 While the country has been increasing its polarization for a while， I think it's most extreme point has been the last few years。 This is both sad and dangerous。 The authors， knowing this， wrote this book。 If you want to have good， worthwhile， effective conversations with those who think differently from you （there's no point in talking to those who think the same as you！）， then read this book！ My personal opinion is that Americans have an obligation to save their country。 And it starts between our houses chatting with our neighbors， at work with coworkers， and at home with crazy Uncles。 Who carries the most weight with your friends and family？ You！ Avoiding them is like avoiding your duty。 But how to do it？ First， and most importantly， read this book！The first third of this book is basically how to have a relationship。 Reading these chapters was a bit embarrassing for me。 I could see that our collective problem in the United States is that we don't know how to have a relationship。 It's like we're all children！ And no， children can't rule countries （effectively）。 Most chapters end with an encouragement for you to practice the principles in that chapter before you move to the next chapter。 Why？ First， the principles are hard。 It takes work and practice。 But second， these principles build on each other。 I've been trying them on my sweet father。 So far， so good！ And that's saying a lot！The content is kept to a minimum。 It is concise。 The authors， while highly educated， use very accessible language。 They use examples， which is key！ They include many actual conversations which illuminates the ideas。 The content is well organized， taking you from introductory skills （which are actually the most important！） to the more advanced。 The last two thirds of the book are about how to intervene in someone else's thinking。 This may sound horrible or invasive， but if you read the first few chapters first， you'll have compassion， humility， kindness， gentleness， and other unnatural （but wonderful） things drilled into you before this point！ （And they make sure to say in the later chapters that all of this depends on you actually understanding/incorporating the first few chapters。） Again， I was embarrassed reading these things！ I should know to behave like this， but my default setting in a contentious conversation is combat and protecting my ego。 Which is the worst possible mindset I can occupy！ This book will revolutionize your thinking！The authors make it very clear that， as much as you may want to change someone else's thinking， you must be open to your thinking changing。 They model it themselves！ They record times where their thinking was changed！ Seeing this humility was extremely helpful。 These guys deserve a medal in human goodness。 And I say that as a practicing Christian who is fully aware that both authors are outspoken atheists。 They're good guys and this is content the U。S。 needs now。 Enjoy！ Share it with friends！ I've bought it for two friends and will likely buy it for more！ And I will be referencing this book for years to come。 Thank you Peter and James！ 。。。more
Samantha Shenton
，
I read this book around this time last year in 2020。 Just not exactly sure on specific dates。 It’s pretty straight forward and a lot of the tips in there are good and have been trying out in my conversations。
Jessica
，
This is going to be a regular re-read for me。 I originally bought it as an e-book and ended up getting a paperback copy as well to make it easier to review and refer to。 An excellent aid for all those conversations that you want to but don't want to have。 Highly recommended in these polarized days for suggestions on how to civilly engage with people。 This is going to be a regular re-read for me。 I originally bought it as an e-book and ended up getting a paperback copy as well to make it easier to review and refer to。 An excellent aid for all those conversations that you want to but don't want to have。 Highly recommended in these polarized days for suggestions on how to civilly engage with people。 。。。more
Beth Barnett
，
This book is readable and has some useful advice about how to approach contentious conversations， and even how to discipline one’s attitude toward such conversations。 It was a pretty quick read， and definitely contributes some tools for the conversation toolbox。 My 3 stars is really 3。5。 Worth recommending， overall。
Fletcher Neal
，
One of these authors has gone full-bore conspiracy theory anti-vaxx and worse since this was published。 The other is Peter Boghossian。
Mark Mallah
，
This is an excellent book on having conversations across a political or ideological divide。 It provides a number of approaches to simultaneously build connection， develop rapport， and gently challenge。 It drives the point home that data and logic alone don't change minds， and when minds do change， they generally do so under introspection。 This book is very timely amid the currently polarized times。 This is an excellent book on having conversations across a political or ideological divide。 It provides a number of approaches to simultaneously build connection， develop rapport， and gently challenge。 It drives the point home that data and logic alone don't change minds， and when minds do change， they generally do so under introspection。 This book is very timely amid the currently polarized times。 。。。more
Debbie
，
A useful resource。
Erin Brothers
，
As someone who is sensitive to the tension of conflicting opinions in conversations challenging， I enjoyed this book。 Lots of simple， practical steps for being a better conversation partner and for engaging others with other beliefs。 I have lots to practice and could benefit from additional reads after some practice。
Susan Hamm
，
Should be titled How to Debate， Argue， and Politely be an Ass。
Aaron
，
I thought this book was very helpful and practical， so much so I expect I'll pick it back up to get some refreshers。 It was easy to read and understand， albeit a little dry。Much of the first several chapters resonated with pretty obvious lessons I had learned from personal experience in difficult conversations （such as: practice listening， assume good intentions， find agreement， ask clarifying questions， model humility in your own beliefs， restate your partners views charitably to make sure you I thought this book was very helpful and practical， so much so I expect I'll pick it back up to get some refreshers。 It was easy to read and understand， albeit a little dry。Much of the first several chapters resonated with pretty obvious lessons I had learned from personal experience in difficult conversations （such as: practice listening， assume good intentions， find agreement， ask clarifying questions， model humility in your own beliefs， restate your partners views charitably to make sure you really understand them， desire learning， let people be wrong; basically be empathetic and don't be an asshole） but it still helped to illuminate just where I am prone to go wrong。 What I got out of this is that impossible conversations should be approached more like you are a team player with your conversation partner， mutually seeking truth。 Using language that reflects this goal， like "we" instead of "I" and "you"， is helpful。 Focusing on epistemology -- questioning how we come to know what we think we know -- is a key point throughout。 I immediately recognized these questions as how I've come to change my own mind about deeply held beliefs， but it's much harder to learn how to graciously weave this into a conversation with others。 Some example questions include:• "What leads you to conclude that？" （As opposed to demanding "explain to me。。。"）• "Would every reasonable person draw the same conclusion？ How would [person with contradictory belief] think about this？" （Inviting thinking as an outsider）• "On a scale of 1 to 10， how confident are you about。。。" （Helps give perspective to beliefs beyond binary true and false）• "What evidence would change your mind？" （Identify evidence based beliefs from dogma）• "How would a neutral outside observer figure out what source of information to trust？" （Identity expert based outsourcing）• "Under what conditions could [belief] be wrong？" （Seek disconfirmation， aka falsifiability）• "Is there any circumstance that might make you act inconsistently with that belief？" （Probing the limits of a belief to uncover disingenuity）The authors go so far as to say we should avoid facts and "delivering messages" （lecturing via information in a one way transaction）。 This is jarring to see stated as such， but ultimately makes sense to me， since it does seem that impossible conversations usually are a difference in epistemology， not available evidence。 The backfire effect and confirmation bias are not easily overpowered by arguments。 An interesting term I hadn't heard before is the "unread library effect"， the tendency to think one's knowledge is deeper than it really is because you know there exists a library of information （books and experts） on the topic， despite having never read on it yourself。 （Similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect or the "illusion of explanatory depth" bias。） Focusing on epistemology is a way to shine light on this。I appreciated the final chapter on dealing with idealogues （defined as "one who is unwilling to revise their （moral） beliefs"）， which starts with recognizing that beliefs tied to ones identity are particularly hard to examine critically， and almost always have a moral value at its foundation。 I was thrilled to see Moral Foundations Theory （Jonathan Haidt/The Righteous Mind） summarized quite well to help navigate moral epistemology。 A key takeaway for me here is that we are motivated to believe things that we think a good person should believe。 Asking epistemological questions about what makes a good person can dislodge your doxastic closure （unwillingness to revise your belief。） The footnotes on the last chapter are dense and invaluable， I will definitely read this chapter again。Overall， despite a few bits that bordered on manipulation tactics I'm less enthusiastic about， I read this book as a guide to examine your own epistemology with humility as well as partnering with others in a Socratic dialogue to do the same， and found it very useful to that end。 。。。more
Jake Byrd
，
A Good Guide for Improving DialogueThe step by step methodology of this work is helpful for both helping one to learn how to have productive conversations， even when dealing with non-productive conversation partners。 Approaching conversation idealistically as a partnership in dialogue， the authors simplistically and relatable bring the reader into the world of epistemological presuppositions and linguistic nuances that can be identified and utilized strategically for having a beneficial and educ A Good Guide for Improving DialogueThe step by step methodology of this work is helpful for both helping one to learn how to have productive conversations， even when dealing with non-productive conversation partners。 Approaching conversation idealistically as a partnership in dialogue， the authors simplistically and relatable bring the reader into the world of epistemological presuppositions and linguistic nuances that can be identified and utilized strategically for having a beneficial and educational two-way conversation。 The issue of presenting facts and “evangelizing” ones view of truth claims is cautioned， although， perhaps with not enough explanation as to how the presentation of facts or evidence for ones belief is essentially “negative”， while being void of much explanation as to how the ones “facts” could be positively asserted。 This is notable since a goal of the authors is to present ways to help someone to respectably instill doubt in their conversation partners beliefs and help them to identify their own fallibility in holding to those beliefs that may be a barrier to genuine conversation and receptivity。 But some facts and beliefs are almost unavoidable to assert to achieve this goal in conversation at times。 The authors do well to present a give and take attitude in conversation without being ideological “messengers” in conversation， all the while advocating for steps to aid in ones assertion of their message （albeit very subtly） into conversation。 。。。more
Lou
，
While the first one to two thirds was not new to me， the building of logical steps did support the veracity of the last section。 Good book， great advice。
Mark Lund
，
Lots of good strategies here to deal with difficult people and conversations。 I just felt it is unnecessarily complicated and by the end I am not sure if such an approach is viable。 I think by just listening， asking good questions and not taking things personally will get you far。 This book is kind of making a mountain out of a mole hill， even if that is what it appears to have become in much of the political conversations and in academia。 Just be a good person。 Eat your veggies。 Make and do gre Lots of good strategies here to deal with difficult people and conversations。 I just felt it is unnecessarily complicated and by the end I am not sure if such an approach is viable。 I think by just listening， asking good questions and not taking things personally will get you far。 This book is kind of making a mountain out of a mole hill， even if that is what it appears to have become in much of the political conversations and in academia。 Just be a good person。 Eat your veggies。 Make and do great things that actually help people。 Study the world。 Pay attention to your experience and stop being a slave to your circumstances。 Nevertheless， a good book to have in the arsenal and to possibly delve into further by reading/applying one chapter at a time as the author suggests。 I kind of breezed through it as not much opportunity to apply the techniques during the pandemic except online。 I would like to have my own podcast at some point and talk with people I don't agree with or understand。 Some of them even love this book but refuse to talk because they are afraid of something this book does not address。 Time to read some easier books for a few months， all this academic stuff is a little exhausting。 。。。more
Aurora M
，
In non-political settings， the advice here is mostly sound but also rather obvious unless you're very young or naive。In political settings， the advice here is not only moot but rather dangerous given so much of the contemporary right engages in bad faith arguments。 （And yes there are some people on the far left that are like that， but they don't have nearly the power or platform that the mainstream right wing does due to funding。） Also， some of the author's arguments are illogical to the point o In non-political settings， the advice here is mostly sound but also rather obvious unless you're very young or naive。In political settings， the advice here is not only moot but rather dangerous given so much of the contemporary right engages in bad faith arguments。 （And yes there are some people on the far left that are like that， but they don't have nearly the power or platform that the mainstream right wing does due to funding。） Also， some of the author's arguments are illogical to the point of hilarity。 One great example is his combating the argument "asking women to dress more conservatively to avoid rape is asking the rapist to rape someone else is like asking people to clutch their purses more tightly to avoid mugging is like asking the mugger to mug someone else"。 Yes， Peter， those two arguments are indeed actually the same because rapists and muggers don't go "oh that person is an easy target therefore I will not mug or rape -- I think I'll just go home"。 The main idea is that we as a society and our values create depravity and inequality， and that increases the likelihood of certain criminal behavior。 Just because crime is motivated by ease of opportunity does not mean lack of opportunity will obliterate or even decrease crime。 Perhaps the nadir of this -- and also the most hilarious part of the book -- is when Boghossian and Lindsay give the example of his university colleague who said "If a straight white man told me 2+2=4 I wouldn't believe it。" Boghassian's solution: asking the woman "would you board a plane if the pilot was a straight white man？" "What if a straight white man was saving your life？" LMAO。The cluelessness of the authors in this regard， taking this woman literally and offering these up as solutions， show that they not only are deaf and unwilling to change *their* minds about how marginalized women of color are in society， so much that this woman would make this quip， but that they see their condescending arguments as some kind of solution shows they are indeed a part of the problem。 Honestly， if I were that woman and they asked me those questions， I'd troll them and tell them no I would not board a plane flown by a straight white man nor would I let one save my life and see how far I can mess with them。Lordy。At the end of the day， understanding someone with a completely different and sometimes volatile world view is not about unlocking how they reason， but how they feel and what their life has been that has led them to have such feelings。 And if you don't care how other people feel， including the weird， ugly， bizarre， irrational things those feelings lead them to believe， all you're going to do is come out of a conversation feeling better about yourself， not that it led to genuine interaction with another human being and seeing life through their eyes。 。。。more
Karen
，
I am going to buy this book！ I need to reread and reread and practice， practice， practice！ I should also mention that I need to do a lot of reflecting and exploring。
Grant
，
In what starts out as a somewhat great guide for having "impossible" or hard conversations quickly turns into a guide for tone policing， sprinkled with commonsense and some ahistorical takes。Some of this book is worth the read but Peter assumes that all people need calm， rational discussion to change their minds or to gain an understanding of the opposing sides， as if all forms of anger or even any emotion is useless。 Depending on the situation it is highly likely that a calm and collaborative d In what starts out as a somewhat great guide for having "impossible" or hard conversations quickly turns into a guide for tone policing， sprinkled with commonsense and some ahistorical takes。Some of this book is worth the read but Peter assumes that all people need calm， rational discussion to change their minds or to gain an understanding of the opposing sides， as if all forms of anger or even any emotion is useless。 Depending on the situation it is highly likely that a calm and collaborative discussion will help change minds more effectively but to act as if it's the be all and end all is pretty funny。 It sets some pretty narrow parameters as to how people learn and has a very Tim Pool vibe to it。 This book would probably benefit being condensed into a pamphlet。 Is it worth the read， not really， it's not very practical and uses mostly political and religious examples as if that's all people disagree about in this world。 。。。more
Gregp
，
7 out of 10
Jessica
，
Excellent approaches to dealing with discussions during today’s divisive times。 Will keep this out for a bit to reread sections as needed and practice some techniques to strive toward better understanding those with whom I disagree。。。and perhaps become better at explaining my own POV。
Fred Johnson
，
This book is a primer for people who want to cut through the decisiveness of today’s political and religious rhetoric。 But you must be committed to the task。 Boghossian and Lindsay take the ideas presented in the unfortunately titled book， “A Manual for Creating Atheists，” and then ups the ante into taking on dialogues with morally motivated ideologues。 There is almost no situation that fails to receive very helpful suggestions for how to build “Golden Bridges” with your discussion partner。 It w This book is a primer for people who want to cut through the decisiveness of today’s political and religious rhetoric。 But you must be committed to the task。 Boghossian and Lindsay take the ideas presented in the unfortunately titled book， “A Manual for Creating Atheists，” and then ups the ante into taking on dialogues with morally motivated ideologues。 There is almost no situation that fails to receive very helpful suggestions for how to build “Golden Bridges” with your discussion partner。 It would be easy to put these techniques aside as a quaint philosopher’s guide; but that would be a wasteful shame。 Do a quick read， then go back and apply the method step-by-step IRL。 It can only help bridge the divide。As Kurt Vonnegut， Jr put it， “Love may fail， but courtesy will prevail。” 。。。more
April
，
I would give it 3 except that I give most things 3 and this was below average。 It was fine。 The title is false advertising。 This isn't about how to have a conversation， this is about how to manipulate someone into doubting their beliefs。 Granted it has some useful stuff like， listening， asking open-ended questions， don't try to do this while angry， and other stuff you may already know from previous trainings。 However， in no way are they advocating "conversation" as you may think of it - a give a I would give it 3 except that I give most things 3 and this was below average。 It was fine。 The title is false advertising。 This isn't about how to have a conversation， this is about how to manipulate someone into doubting their beliefs。 Granted it has some useful stuff like， listening， asking open-ended questions， don't try to do this while angry， and other stuff you may already know from previous trainings。 However， in no way are they advocating "conversation" as you may think of it - a give and take。 So， the whole thing leaves me feeling a bit gross and the first sentence of the conclusion makes me wonder if they're not aware of what they spend the whole book doing。 But whatever， can be useful if you're tired of having fighting matches with that relative who just doesn't agree with you。 However， you won't find a "solution" here， instead you'll learn to stop expressing your ideas and start learning theirs。 。。。more
Timo
，
There are lots of good tips in here for how to talk with people who hold strong views that are different from your own。 It talks about the obvious ones like be civil and curious， but less obvious ones like trying to instill doubt works better than preaching。 Do that by asking lots of questions about how they know something， or get them to explain it。 Make it more abstract such that they don't feel threatened by explaining the other point of view。 There are lots of good tips in here for how to talk with people who hold strong views that are different from your own。 It talks about the obvious ones like be civil and curious， but less obvious ones like trying to instill doubt works better than preaching。 Do that by asking lots of questions about how they know something， or get them to explain it。 Make it more abstract such that they don't feel threatened by explaining the other point of view。 。。。more
Alicia
，
Pretty straightforward and obvious stuff in this （especially the lower levels）。 DNF。
David
，