Guide For Talking To Irrational People:

Whispering To The Elephant

Many struggle in dealing with people who have become attached to political viewpoints that
are irrational based on poor logic or on alternative facts. This how-to guide helps
you talk to such folks, whether they are sincerely mistaken or just deliberately
aggravating behavior known as trolling. The guide offers strategies informed by
psychology and neuroscience research, while laying out these strategies in a visually
engaging form. It is part of the bigger Rational Politics project at Intentional Insights
that uses effective communication strategies to promote rational thinking, truth-telling,
and wise decision-making in politics.

Whispering to the Elephant

You might be wondering about the elephant on the cover. First, what its not meant to
be is the GOP mascot it just aint, no way. Its a non-partisan elephantokay? Its
actually a metaphor for the dual nature of human intelligence. Dr. Gleb Tsipursky, the
Co-Founder of Intentional Insights, uses the term "autopilot system of thinking" to
describe this more primitive part of our minds (see the Glossary of Terms at the end of
the guide for more information).

Emotive, intuitive, and reactive, its what allows us to quickly respond to a threat,
whether its a venomous snake, a speeding truck, or a schoolyard bully. Its also the
part we use most often in our day-to-day lives. Although its an essential part of who
we are, and we do need to value and respect it, the autopilot system is not particularly
rational.

It needs a Rider, what is known as the intentional system, to manage it: as Dr.
Tsipursky puts it,, ...the intentional part of our mind is like a little rider on top of a huge
elephant of emotions and intuitions. That rider is the coldly rational part of our
intelligence, the part that relies on logic and scientific process. As youll see, in order
to effectively connect with a true believer, youre going to need to learn to speak softly
to his or her Elephant, while guided by your Rider which leads us to this meme:

Caption: Meme Whispering to the Elephant, by W. Straight for Intentional Insights.

Images courtesy of Clipart Library, and Pixabay.

But before we get to the true believers let's discuss...

Those Doggone Trolls!

Someone once asked me How do you deal with political trolls? Part of my response
was to Get them to state their values. If theyre unwilling or unable to do so, then end
the discussion.

That advice still stands. Dealing with a troll is simply not worth the time and energy it
takes. But you ask how will I know whether someone is a troll?

Fair question. First of all your troll will most likely be a male between the ages of 16
and 30 seems to go with the territory for some reason so Ill use masculine
pronouns to refer to him. Secondly, trying to pin him down to a firm position will be like
a game of Whack-a-Mole, with him dodging and weaving, leading you off on tangents
and trying to make you look like a fool. Thats his game, and you can take it to the
bank thats what it is to him. He thinks its fun, whether hes doing it for pay or not. The
name of this game is domination, control, and humiliation to prove that hes somehow
better, bigger, smarter, meaner than you. Hes a digital vandal, a sadist, a bully. Dont
let him draw you in.

Here are some specific red flags to let you know youre dealing with a troll:

If he tries to reword your argument with a different slant.

If he tries to make himself seem to be your superior in morality, patriotism, intellect.

If he tries to change the focus of the argument, change the subject, make accusations,
call you names, whatever it takes to distract you.

If he tries to introduce non-sequiturs subjects not related to the discussion.

If he tries to take over the conversation and side-line you.

If he tries to make you speechless with anger and outrage.

If he tries to confuse you.

(J. Bauers The Mountain Troll, 1904,

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.)

If you insist on engaging with him once you know hes a troll, there are a lot of good
online articles on how to deal. Heres a link to one of my favorites there are
additional useful urls listed in Addendum I.

The article cited above provides a classic example of how a troll does what he does.
Taken from the movie Thank You For Smoking, the character Nick Naylor, a lobbyist
for Big Tobacco, is telling his son Joey how he wins:

Son: What happens when youre wrong?

Dad: Whoa, Joey Im never wrong.
Son: But you cant always be right
Dad: Well, if its your job to be right, then youre never wrong.
Son: But what if you are wrong?
Dad: OK, lets say that youre defending chocolate, and Im defending vanilla. Now if I
were to say to you: Vanilla is the best flavor ice-cream, youd say
Son: No, chocolate is.
Dad: Exactly, but you cant win that argument so, Ill ask you: so you think chocolate
is the end-all and be-all of ice-cream, do you?
Son: Its the best ice-cream, I wouldnt order any other.
Dad: Oh! So its all chocolate for you is it?
Son: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Dad: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I
believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream,and that
Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.
Son: But thats not what were talking about
Dad: Ah! But thats what Im talking about.
Son: but you didnt prove that vanilla was the best
Dad: I didnt have to. I proved that youre wrong, and if youre wrong Im right.
Son: But you still didnt convince me
Dad: Its that Im not after you. Im after them.

Caption: Chocolate Animated Ice Cream (Image courtesy of DBCLIPART)

Do you see what Nick did there? He pulled an All-Lives-Matter style switcheroo,
redirecting the entire focus of the debate. He won over the audience, and diminished
his opponent in the eyes of that audience even though he never once provided any
evidence that "Vanilla is the best flavor ice-cream."

So, what can you do to defend yourself?

Know your stuff, do the research, have your ducks in a row.

Stick to your guns keep coming back to your original point.
Dont let him get you mad.
If he wants to make a fool of himself by calling you names, let him dont take the
bait.
Disengage as soon youre sure youve made your point.
Most importantly, dont put yourself down if you fail hes had a lot more practice at it
than you have.

This infographic may help you keep these points in mind:

Caption: Infographic Steps for Dealing with Trolls, by W. Straight, for Intentional
Insights.
Troll image is from watercolor by John Bauer, 1915, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Belief Is a Powerful Thing

At the beginning of the previous section I shared my response to a question on

dealing with political trolls. Heres the rest of my response:

"Get them to state their values....If they do, then ask how they think and his
policies impact their values. Its really about getting them to analyze the value of
for themselves on a personal, physical, fiscal, emotional, religious, ethical, etc.,
basis. Making definitive statements on your opposition to will only put them on
the defensive. Leading them to think you may be persuaded (or dissuaded) will open
them up. But once they have extended themselves, then its your turn to ask them (not
tell them), how such and such an action reflects a given personal value. It will take
patience..."

Yep, if that person is willing to share his or her values, no matter how woo-woo those
values may be, its a pretty good bet that youre dealing with a true believer
someone who, though mistaken, is sincere, and thus worth a conversation.

So, theyve expressed some far-out opinions and youd like to show them where
theyre wrong, right? Hold your horses, before you even think about getting them to
change their minds, youve got to get on their wavelength. In other words, youve got
to relate to them emotionally, not intellectually. Youve got to reach their Elephant.
caption: (Image courtesy of ClipArt Fest.)

This is the most important part of the whole process!

The bottom line is that you want to connect with them at a gut level. To do so takes
empathy, friendliness, discovering common threads between your lifestyle, history,
upbringing, and theirs; and then using that as a bridge to an honest but well
thought-out exchange of ideas and beliefs.

Remember that at the start, they wont know you from Adam youll just be a
faceless username on their computer or cellphone. For all they know, you could even
be a troll. Making progress will take patience and compassion.

Begin by expressing curiosity. Relate their responses to your own experiences, in

terms of what you and they have in common. If they respond favorably, continue
questioning. Avoid expressing any skepticism about their beliefs. Draw them out.
Ideally, this will encourage them to be more open and expansive.

They wont engage frankly with you until they feel they can trust you. They wont trust
you until they see you as something other than a potential enemy, critic, or threat.
Theyll see any criticism, argument, debate, or appeal to logic or rationality, as a threat,
thus making you the enemy.

Once youve broken the ice, you can dig more deeply into what specific experiences,
influences and dogmas may have shaped their viewpoint. Checking their online
profile(s), posts and friends list, is another good way to learn what makes them tick.
Ask recursive questions starting with what, how, where, why. Your goal here is
not to convince them of their error; but to get them to start questioning and
reassessing for themselves. Youll find excellent man-on-the-street examples of this
technique, called Street Epistemology, here.
Notice the type of questions the interviewer asks, and how theyre phrased:

Would you like to talk?

What do you believe in?
Why?
How confident are you?
How do you know?
How can you be 100% confident?
What is your definition...?
How big is your belief what %?
So you use faith for other things?
Like what...And so on.
(Image courtesy of Wiki Clipart)

Also notice how he first establishes a friendly connection Hi my name is... and
shakes hands, and asks whether Juan would like to be interviewed. Then using
recursive questioning, he gradually builds up to asking specific questions about
Juans particular belief system. The interviewer almost never makes a declarative
statement although he does repeat Juans statements back to him several times.
And he never criticizes that belief system. Yet he leads Juan to question his own
belief the same belief that Juan originally said he had 100% faith in.

Heres a specific political example, based on my own personal experience, of how not
to conduct such a conversation:

I was visiting the Facebook page of a friend. Both she and the bulk of the subscribers
to her page were avid supporters of Hillary Clinton. Understandably upset over the
election, and looking for someone to pin the blame on, several women were slamming
Jill Stein and the Green Party for causing their candidates defeat.

One was bashing Jill over stealing votes away from her candidate. Another was
trashing her for her anti-science policies. A third chimed in about how Jill had gotten
less than 1% of the vote, while the first one also said that if the Greens were serious
theyd be running candidates all the time not just during the presidential elections.

I barged into the conversation uninvited, and in my usual know-it-all manner,

proceeded to mansplain them on the issues, listing them in the order theyd been
raised, and providing detailed arguments like this:

"This is supposed to be a Democracy. As such were allowed to have more than 2

parties. Some Progressives didnt like Clinton and wouldnt have voted for her
anyway."

"Either Jill drew enough of the Progressive vote to have an effect or she got less than
1% of the vote. Its gotta be one or the other, it cant be both."
Verbatim quotes of what Jill actually said about vaccinations, GMOs, holistic medicine,
etc. (turns out that shes actually very pro-regulation vice anti-science.)

"The Green Party runs candidates in every election, up and down ticket. You just dont
see it because the media generally doesnt cover them."

They were all great, solid arguments, but fell completely flat because I had offended
and alienated the people I was trying to convince, without regard for their emotions or
sense of personal dignity. I responded to their emotive complaints with rational
arguments and I did so in a snarky way and without first earning their trust and respect.
Based on the strategy Ive outlined in this paper, how might I have handled that
situation better?

First of all, though Id contributed to conversations on that page, Id never talked

directly with any of those women before, so they didnt know me we had absolutely
no connection. Secondly, their candidate had just lost a crucial election. Theyd
invested a lot of time, energy, emotion (and probably money as well) in her campaign.
They were distraught and grieving. They were really just venting and I had no right to
interfere. But if I insisted on doing so, my side of the exchange might have gone more
like this:

"Hi folks, Your conversation really got my attention. Im especially intrigued by the
ideas that Ms. Stein might have stolen votes away from Hillary; that shes anti-science;
and that the Greens arent really serious about being a third party."

"Can you tell me more?"

How did she manage to steal those votes?
Do you think she could have made a difference in non-swing states?
Whats the consensus on the total vote she got?
How would that have made a difference?
Is she really anti-science?
What did she say to make you think so?
Is that a quote from her?
Why do you say they only run during presidential elections?
How did you find that out?
Do you have any sources I can check?

In any event, youre going to have to put a lot of thought, effort and practice into it (you
may want to practice with friends to perfect your technique). Expect to bomb-out the
first few times you try its hard not to share what you know to be true.

This infographic may help you reach that true believer:

caption: Infographic Reaching the True Believer, by W. Straight, for Intentional

Insights. Hands image courtesy of Clipart Fest,
For many of you, this is probably as far as you need to go. Go ahead and practice
your technique and good luck. For those of you who want more definitive explanations
or a more detailed perspective, please read on.

To recap, when first encountering someone who expresses outlandish opinions, a

rational persons default response (after gasping in utter disbelief), is to martial the
empirical evidence (Logos) to disprove his/her assertions. And, if we were all perfectly
rational beings, thatd be sufficient.

But, as Dr. Tsipursky has pointed out, were not wholly (or even preferentially) rational
beings. The Elephant is much bigger than the Rider: the autopilot is much more
powerful than the intentional system. A response based on evidence wont make a
dent in a cherished belief-system.

No, to have a hope of convincing the believer of the errors in their thinking we must
strive to relate emotively (Pathos).

To do so requires contextual understanding of the physical and psychological drivers

that are such a large part of what makes each of us who and what we are. They
determine what we "believe" - as opposed to what we know or can discern from
empirical evidence, and scientific procedures what we say, and how we act (Ethos)
and thus provide insight into human motivations.

For the purposes of this article (and to ensure that were all on the same page) Ive
identified and defined four distinct levels of drivers:

Impulses: urges, desires, non-rational thoughts or acts.

Needs: basic and secondary requirements for quality of life.
Values: intangibles that we hold most dear and inviolable.
Goals: targets, the ultimate endpoints were striving to achieve.

We gain insight into these aspects of the true believer through gentle, recursive
questioning, avoiding critique at all costs, with the goal of getting them to reconsider
their beliefs and actions on their own.

And so, on to the definitions needed to provide our context.

Impulses are psycho-physical urges to act or react in a particular way. Its useful to
distinguish the two kinds of impulses:

normative, i.e., instinctive urges such as those pertaining to survival (fight/flight), sex
(continuance of the species), territoriality (protection of the family, hearth, and home),
that have been selected for by evolution and...
non-normative, i.e., urges to perform acts that either: contradict evolutionary sense,
such as stepping off a 3rd story balcony without safety measures, or texting while
driving; or which violate social norms: for example, laughing in inappropriate social
circumstances.

A normative impulse, such as the urge to immediately argue with a true believer,
head-on, rather than to lead him to reconsider his beliefs, is likely to be common to all
or most of us. Non-normative impulses tend to be specific to the individual. Our focus
here is on normative impulses.

Needs can be categorized as shown by American psychologist Abraham Maslow's

classic Hierarchy of Needs, at right.

(Image courtesy of Simply Psychology.)

Using this model you can see that the true believer's desire for vindication of his
beliefs is an example of an esteem need. There have been many studies done on
needs using such approaches. Analysts have also explored how these needs relate to
various aspects of politics. While recent research shows that the reality of human
psychology is more complex than Maslow envisioned, this basic model serves our
purposes well. The various needs combine to form a basis for our next driver
values.

Values are the premises valid or not underpinning a belief-system. Based on

these premises, our rational self can, and often does, build a logical chain of
reasoning or "rationalization" with which to defend its belief. This logic might be
unassailable in and of itself, if one accepts the premises. Yet the logic fails if its
founding premise is faulty it's the old GIGO concept from the IT world ("Garbage In
Garbage Out").
Caption: (Image courtesy of The Spiral Staircase.)

As with needs, the concept of values has been thoroughly analyzed and assigned a
hierarchy, as the illustration shows. A prime example of a value is the importance we
accord to rationality in our discourse.

The values hierarchy shown above is the classic one proposed by German
philosopher Max Scheler. It scales from the physical or "sensual", up to those values
we deem most important and "sacred" both subjectively and objectively in our
lives.

In addition, heres a list of values actually enumerated by Values Voters, according

to my research in a variety of online forums and articles:

decency, marital fidelity & Christian virtue in public life

bedrock values of traditional marriage
religious liberty
sanctity of life
limited government that makes our nation strong
all lives matter
fetal personhood
opposition to abortion
support for praying in school, family values
a shared set of ideas
the ideas of the Constitution: personal liberty, equality, democracy & the rule of law
Christian heritage
love, charity & faith
cherishing the flag

(Image courtesy of THErightscoop.)

Our values are the primary source for our final driver, goals.

(Image courtesy of lifehacker.)

Goals are our consciously desired ends, the target of our actions. These actions
reflect our drivers, particularly impulses, needs, and values. My research shows that
goals too can be arranged in a hierarchy. This applies particularly to the business and
organizational arenas. But as we see here, its also relevant to the personal. An
excellent example of a goal is my desire to help you successfully engage with your
true believer.

Now that were on the same page about what drives us or anyone to believe
some of the irrational things that we do, how do we go about relating them to dealing
with the true believer?

To complement my earlier, very specific example, here are some more general
examples of possible questioning sessions relating to political beliefs. Youll have to
alter them to fit the situation. And in fact, many of your questions can be a simple,
open-ended, How?, or Why?:

What are your beliefs, core values, concerns and desires?

How does issue X relate to or reflect them?

Why do you think soevidence?

What about alternative explanations?

If so, why did you choose this oneevidence? If not, why not?

Would you like to discuss the alternatives now?

How does platform Y or candidate Z reflect your values?

In what ways behavior, history, speech?

How do Y or Z compare to available alternatives?

If so, how did they compare evidence? If not, why not?

Would you like to discuss such a comparison?

How does platform Y or candidate Z address your concerns on issue X?

Why do you think soevidence, history, behavior, speech?

How do Z's actions match his rhetoric evidence?

Is Z consistent in what he says about issue X evidence?

How do Y or Z compare to the available alternatives?

If so, how did they compare evidence? If not, why not?

Would you like to discuss such a comparison?

What are your goals, i.e., what is the final political/social/economic/religious result
you'd like to achieve or see?
How does issue X relate to these goals?

How does Z share these goals evidence?

Is Zs program the best way to reach these goals evidence?

How might another approach might work better?

If so, what convinced you that it was the best option? If not, why not?

Mnemonic

And here is a mnemonic that may help you keep all of this in mind. The Vitruvian Man
symbolizes the dual nature of our intelligence; the pyramid reflects the hierarchies of
drivers; the circle represents recursive questioning; the rectangle represents
structured methodology; the stellar background represents reality; and the reflection
represents the reflective nature of the questioner. The pyramid can just as easily be
seen as a path leading from impulses to goals via empathy (the Elephant) and
ultimately to reason (the Rider). The Rider, of course, sits above it all with the light of
rationality emanating from within.