Nearly half a millennium before modern psychologists identified the three elements of persuasion — attunement, buoyancy, and clarity — French physicist, philosopher, inventor, and mathematician Blaise Pascal (June 19, 1623–August 19, 1662) intuited this mechanism as he arrived at a great truth about the secret of persuasion: Pascal came to see that the surest way of defeating the erroneous views of others is not by bombarding the bastion of their self-righteousness but by slipping in through the backdoor of their beliefs.
Pointer from Olivia Goldhill.
Borrowing a Hansonian locution, I would say that argument is not about changing minds. Instead, it is about playing status games. You make points that lower the status of those with whom you disagree, and this in turn raises your status among those with whom you agree.
As Popova’s article explains, if your goal is to change someone’s mind, then the best approach is to start by talking about what seems right about the person’s beliefs. Then allow the person to come around to the problems with their thinking and, ultimately, to the better alternative.
Perhaps my Three Languages of Politics can be useful in this regard.
I’ve sometimes thought that the secret to Scott Sumner’s success is something like this. Instead of directly challenging many of the assumptions or conclusions of mainstream monetary macro, he does the opposite and says that if you take them all extremely seriously and try to be consistent and coherent, they have very different implications than what the mainstream typically recommends for policy.
As far as other kinds of persuasion and influence go, it really depends on the social context of the attempted persuasion, and perceived status / sophistication differentials matter a great deal. Indeed, it’s a key tactic to begin an encounter by laying the status foundation and frame in which those critical first impressions will be interpreted, but trying to narrow the status differential if you are below, or expand the gap as far as possible if you are above. This requires all kinds of displays and signals on ones part, including credentials, affiliations, demeanor, presentation, clothes, etc. and, for more adept influencers, subtle ways to decrease the other person’s self-assessment of relative prestige, and to increase their consciousness of such.
Trying to persuade an equal or someone higher in status in a one-on-one encounter requires totally different techniques than, say, making a closing statement to a jury in a serious criminal case, where the lawyer enjoys greater presumptive prestige.
In the latter case, repetition with “theme and variation” is key. Enough repetition done the right way is quasi-hypnotic; it seems to reinforce the perception of something like Aumann’s “common knowledge”, (the confirming iterations of which get repeated in the private jury deliberations). This is probably even more important, and quicker, when delivered via mass broadcasts and then volleyed via social media.
Also important is comporting oneself with absolute confidence (but without being smug!) and leveraging the status of professional witnesses: Police Officers, Doctors, Academics, etc.
I’m a big fan of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerian_argument when it come to finding mutually agreeable resolutions or even mere persuasion.
I have heard ad absurbum can be effective, taking an even more extreme view than they until they reject their own, though I suspect this is for shallow thinkers.