Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong
I’m asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.
Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.
Not the MAGA people since I don’t live in the USA, but French conservatives, mostly through the diversity of background that exists in sports activities.
The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation
I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.
I’m asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.
Your way is assuming they will question the things with your push statements. What I’m saying is they believe they have solid foundation, and their alternative facts account for most pushes. They’ll bring up reasons. They’ll say “facts”(obviously not real ones, but they have them). They’ll feel they’re knowledge. Those things cause them to effectively counter soft pushes, in my opinion.
I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.
Fair enough that there’s not really a good reason to try both. I feel like a key to it is not being condescending, ehich soft pushes ring as to me.
My method has limited opportunities, but since I primarily utilize it at work, I’m meeting this people frequently
Your way is assuming they will question the things with your push statements. What I’m saying is they believe they have solid foundation, and their alternative facts account for most pushes. They’ll bring up reasons. They’ll say “facts”(obviously not real ones, but they have them). They’ll feel they’re knowledge. Those things cause them to effectively counter soft pushes, in my opinion.
My work hypothesis is that most people are actually not that solid, they think they are until you push them to explain, and then they get softer as you raise points they didn’t consider before.
You said this:
I’m asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.
Not the MAGA people since I don’t live in the USA, but French conservatives, mostly through the diversity of background that exists in sports activities.
I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.
Your way is assuming they will question the things with your push statements. What I’m saying is they believe they have solid foundation, and their alternative facts account for most pushes. They’ll bring up reasons. They’ll say “facts”(obviously not real ones, but they have them). They’ll feel they’re knowledge. Those things cause them to effectively counter soft pushes, in my opinion.
Fair enough that there’s not really a good reason to try both. I feel like a key to it is not being condescending, ehich soft pushes ring as to me.
My method has limited opportunities, but since I primarily utilize it at work, I’m meeting this people frequently
My work hypothesis is that most people are actually not that solid, they think they are until you push them to explain, and then they get softer as you raise points they didn’t consider before.