As the saying goes, everyone has an opinion. This saying is especially relevant in today's social and political environment when people can tailor-fit their news consumption to match their beliefs. Nearly every family can be affected by differences in opinion, especially when it comes to politics and religion. These differences can make communication more difficult, especially when so many political movements are maligned, or associated with negative stereotypes. Maybe you've tried to reason with people of opposing views, but even though you try your best to lay down the facts in a logical manner, the other party only grips tighter to their original belief. "What gives?" you may wonder.
Turns out that there is a name for this sociological phenomenon - the backfire effect. Turns out that by arguing against somebody's position, you can actually influence them to cling even more tightly to their original belief, which they perceive as "theirs", and must be protected. In other words, the exact opposite of what one intends to achieve. This phenomenon explains why some people don't believe in evolution, vaccines, or man-made climate change, despite the fact that researchers time and again have supported these ideas with various experiments and scientific evidence. This leads to the question of: how can one discuss such volatile subjects without invoking the backfire effect? The key, it seems, is to not only appeal to the other person's logic but their emotions as well.
A person will not react well to being told that their belief is wrong, even when presented with sound evidence. It isn't one simple fact being disputed; it's often their entire worldview they perceive as being threatened. That is going to evoke strong emotions, which don't respond to factual information. To remedy this, there are two things to remember when you facing this sort of argument.
1. Acknowledge the good points about their viewpoint, and
2. Let them discover alternative viewpoints and question logic on their own.
One of the major problems with arguments is that people will often take things personally, at which point the discussion will stop being about facts and data, and devolve into name-calling and emotions flaring. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about a subject, but if your main goal is to convince instead of be little, you need to be mindful of your words and tone.
A good way to start is by stating that they having a valid reason for believing as they do. "I know there have been really cold days this winter, which is hard to reconcile with the idea of the Earth as a whole getting warmer." Another example: "There have been lots of people worrying about mercury in vaccines on the news and internet, and you're right, mercury is a very toxic substance." You want to make it obvious that you have been listening to the other viewpoint, and that you aren't trying to make fun of them or shut them down.
Now the next bit is to not pelt the other person with facts and data but to let them come to a conclusion on their own. This is the tricky part because some people will cry "fake news!", and embrace alternative facts. These people aren't willing to consider other viewpoints, and trying to talk to them leads to nothing but frustration (though they may change their views later through their own experiences). But what you can do is provide neutral resources - avoid recommending organizations that are clearly biased, such as MSNBC or FOX News, which are known to have specific angles on different topics. Instead, news articles, primary experimental data, and testimonial from first-account witnesses - any resource which avoids bias or propaganda, and strives for honesty.
Letting people take control of their own worldview means you don't necessarily control the outcome of the discussion. They may choose to believe how they always have, or maybe even take a different viewpoint altogether. You can't control other people; however, you can educate them. Even better, you can inspire them to educate themselves.
