#📖

Content

One should look to focus the conversation around how someone came to the conclusion they have based on their prior experiences.[1]

By evoking a memory from someone's life that contradicts their current reasoning they'd shared, they may notice the conflict themselves. This remains a private challenge maintaining Psychological Safety in the conversation.[2]

By focusing on how someone arrived at their conclusion, it gives them an opportunity to re-assess their conclusion since the last time they'd thought about the topic in question.[3]

This process likely will enable Self-Persuasion

References

Quote

Once that real, lived memory was out in the open, you could (if done correctly) steer the conversation away from the world of conclusions with their facts googled for support, away from ideological abstractions and into the world of concrete details from that individual’s personal experiences. It was there, and only there, he said, that a single conversation could change someone’s mind. (Location 640) #✂️

Quote

According to the training, if he could evoke a memory from her own life that contradicted the reasoning she had shared, she might notice the conflict without him having to point it out. It would remain private, and she wouldn’t feel like Steve was challenging her. She’d be challenging herself. And if he threw his support behind the conflicting thoughts that favored the opinion he was there to champion, she might shift in the direction he wanted. (Location 730) #✂️

Quote

Once people see where their ideas come from, they become aware that they come from somewhere. They can then ask themselves if they’ve learned anything new in the time since they last considered them. Maybe those ideas need updating in some way. Deep canvassing is about gaining access to that emotional space, Steve explained, to “help them unload some baggage,” because that’s where mind change happens. (Location 682) #✂️

  1. ↩︎
  2. ↩︎
  3. ↩︎