Party Conference Season is a salutary reminder that it is not MPs who are going to lead us out of the mire. With each hollow-chested speech, it becomes more apparent that more of us are going to have to put our back to the wheel and lean into uncomfortable conversations in order to change the fortunes of this once great nation. I was recently asked to speak to a group of women in Westminster about ‘How to Talk to Normies’. It coincided with a recent report from More in Common and University College London that unsurprisingly revealed 69% of people are afraid to speak their mind. Sadly we quieter folks are going to have to channel our inner Iain Duncan-Smith and turn up the volume. This is a shortened version of my talk on why and how to disagree agreeably.
Why bother?
1 It is personally liberating to speak the truth. Not speaking, pretending to agree with a group, telling half-lies, nodding along, staying silent, are all deeply corrosive to the human soul. Ask yourself, ultimately: how do I want to live my life?
2 Because we are the forces that move nations. At the end of War and Peace, Tolstoy writes a magnificent essay about freewill. His novel is a grand examination of why on earth millions of people across Europe and Russia started to kill each other. He examined the great man theory of history, divine predestination, inevitable flows of history, and lands on the understanding that the movement of nations is caused by the activity of all the people who participate in the events. Our silence around issues and events is just as impactful as speaking out.
3 We are the Normies. Always remember that in general, the British population is Right-leaning. The latest British Social Attitudes survey demonstrates only 36% think the Government should increase taxes and spend more, only 27% think the Government should spend more on welfare and only 32% think migrants have enriched the country’s cultural and economic life. Niche concerns, such as trans issues, have been pushed into mainstream by a very small vocal minority. By actual ‘normies’ speaking up, other ‘normies’ will find their voice and suddenly Left-wing nonsense is not being quietly waved through HR and dinner party conversations.
How to disagree when in a majority setting.
We’ve all been there, with a group of people either at work or socially agreeing with one another about something you think is completely insane. For me recently, it was a dinner where everyone was saying how amazing Andy Burnham was. Previously I would have blown my top, spoiled the evening by saying aggressively that he was Starmer2 with eyelashes. By dismissing everyone else’s opinion I would have soured the jolly atmosphere and put their heckles up. So instead:
Remember Socrates and ask questions. Knocking around in Athens in 2,500 years ago Socrates simply asked questions of the rich, powerful and apparently wise. He famously didn’t write anything down, but the records of his conversations by Xenophon and Plato are just devastating, with those he interrogated often ending up saying: “I don’t seem to have any confidence Socrates in my answers.”
Rather than aggressively sharing your opposing view, weaken the opposition by asking questions. In the case of Andy Burnham, I simply asked innocently: “What are you most excited about? How do you think he’ll pay for his National Care Service? Do you think he’ll get his backbenchers on side?” What initially seemed like the most vocal Andy Burnham supporter began immediately to flounder, having nothing to really go on but vibes. And then another dinner guest said she had reservations too. The whole conversation shifted and it turned out the pro-Burnham majority view was not actually the majority view at all.
How to give your opinions directly: remember your Aristotle
This is where things can get sticky. Your opinion is making itself felt: you begin to sweat, the heart races, your mouth dries. But don’t whatever you do just blurt it out. Here it is vital that we call upon Aristotle, who cannot be beaten when it comes to the art of persuasion. His unsurpassed book On Rhetoric is, for me at least, heavy going, but there are some absolute simplified nuggets of wisdom within that every halfway decent orator or speech writer knows about. Remember these when delivering opinions and you will be less likely to be called a far-Right thug.
Ethos: establish your credibility around the issue you are discussing so you don’t across as some pub bore or loud mouth. ‘I volunteer at a food bank’, ‘I work as a paediatrician’ – demonstrate that you have knowledge and insight into the issue under discussion, that you are coming from a place of goodwill. Show that you are not unhinged. Instead of saying: ‘this makes me angry, I am cross, I am furious” say: ‘I am upset, this makes me sad, I am troubled by, I find this really challenging.’
Pathos: use emotion to pull at the heart-strings of your audience. This is the area where the Right fail catastrophically. As a general rule, Right-minded people think common sense and a couple of facts are enough to win an argument. But as the trans issue amply demonstrated, facts are irrelevant: emotion is king.
Aristotle teaches us that we must pull at the heart strings of our audience. In order to successfully appeal to the emotions of those listening, you must be prepared to bring out a sad story about a victim before they do. We’ve witnessed Starmer’s inability to reform welfare by the simple fact of backbench MPs crying in the House of Commons about constituents who would lose out. It’s no good simply relying no arguments about finances or the moral disaster of having one million NEETs, there is not enough personal emotion to win the argument.
As novelist Josephine Tey wrote: “The sorrows of humanity are no-one’s sorrows. A thousand people drowned in floods in China are news: a solitary child drowns in a pond is a tragedy.” This is most obviously true where conversations about abortion are concerned. A reasonable suggestion that you find 250,000 abortions a year unsettling is immediately trumped by someone saying: ‘My daughter was raped when a teenager, are you saying she doesn’t deserve an abortion?’ It also explains why the rape gang stories have failed to grip the public imaginations: the vast numbers involved have become meaningless, and who can expect the victims to relentlessly tell their horror stories?
Alas emotion does need to be personal. When trying to convey an argument, do not be afraid of pulling out personal stories to support your case; the sadder the better. Those arguing for welfare reform need to counter emotional examples with emotional stories of individuals whose lives have been ruined by welfare, for example.
Logos: back up your argument with facts and figures. ‘I heard it on a podcast’ will not do. It’s worth just spending a few minutes memorising the relevant figures. I know no-one likes a try hard, but the artful deployment of a devastating fact to someone already impressed by your compassion and emotionally wrought by your sad stories is all that’s needed to win.
Good luck everyone!
Joanna Gray is a writer and confidence coach.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Climate change linked to human activity is 90% bs. Change my mind.
Many people seem to substitute emotion for thinking. Your feelings cannot tell you whether something is correct or incorrect. Just like all the senses, emotions are easily fooled.
An example is the ‘nice migrant’ fallacy, where people are asked to meet a migrant and recognise that they are a nice person, therefore all migrants in any numbers should be welcomed. It is irrational and illogical nonsense, but many still can’t think beyond it.
I enjoyed this article very much. I notice that people get angry if I come straight out with my opinion. Questions are great. I’d add that respecting every soul is my aim – quite hard, when ego is involved. I have also noticed that my X posts get many more views when I tell a personal story.
I see Joanna’s point, use their tactics or style against them, but that just isn’t me. For now, I avoid talking politics with people who cannot be trusted to be rational. Yes I also noticed how enthusiastic our cheerleaders were for Andy Capp, just as they were for 2TK. That balloon needs bursting.
“[P]ut their heckles up”. Hackles not heckles.
Ethos, Pathos and Logos, the three musky tears. Good mnemonics come in threes.
At any such social gathering I would quietly drift into mentioning sport, to see if I could change the subject and avoid all the predictable political and social prejudices on display. They have nothing to teach me, and presumably they think the same, so it’s V10s versus Hybrid engines for me, or ‘is foiling proper yachting?’
I think I would be taking one step further and leaving early and declining further invitations. Life is too short.
Off topic for which I won’t apologise much because the comments section is pretty dead:
Lidl BLOWS UP The Entire Food Market With Latest Announcement!
Apparently the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) gives supermarkets “classification” based on the range of products, and Lidl because of its expanded range is now classified on a par with Sainsbury’s et al as a supermarket not a discounter. Apparently this can affect planning decisions. We have free markets… They sent people to check the variety of products in the stores. We pay for this crap.
If only…
Crikey! Another NGO that can go.
“Always remember that in general, the British population is Right-leaning.”
Ah good, for a moment I was worried given that we’ve been creeping towards big government woke socialism since 1945, and the only possibly right leaning party is polling at just over 20%
We voted to leave the EU
Yes, but most worryingly to me, that vote only just made it.
If polls are to be believed, there’s a majority in favour of rejoining. The leave vote was a good sign, but the left wing parties, in which I include the Tories, are still the vast majority of seats and votes.
I just finished watching an interview with Jonathan Sumption. He is an intelligent man who one has to presume has had access to a wide range of ideas and opinions. And as a judge you would think him amenable to hearing out all sides on any issue.
His views on climate change and Trump are completely run of the mill, bog standard delusional. Thinks climate change is an important urgent issue. Thinks Trump and Farage are just hate merchants who criticise and offer no solutions.
My bet is that there is no measure of ethos, pathos or logos that will shift the minds of certain people.
Indeed. I spent a lot of time and energy trying to engage with people at the time regarding “Covid” – I think I had a good deal of personal credibility with many of them. A tiny number engaged, the rest shut down completely or insulted me. I certainly will express my views if asked, and debate if that is what is on offer, but I don’t go around trying to convert people and I don’t expect anyone to change their mind based on anything I say.
A bee doesn’t waste its time trying to convince a fly that honey tastes better than sh1t.
An interesting example. I few nights ago I was at a quasi-social event, among friends and felt lulled into stating that the mRNA jabs had killed numbers of young people. (Which can readily be demonstrated, if not absolutely proved, by looking at ONS death statistics over the last 10 years.) A man whose intelligence I respect immediately dismissed my observation as a fiction. There seemed no chance to pursue the matter without unpleasantness, so I dropped it. I often ponder about such interactions, and how one deals with them. No doubt Joanna’s advice is sound, as far as it goes, but for my own part my inclination is to stand back and observe human folly with all the detachment I can muster.
I don’t think quoting statistics works any more. When I’m on the receiving end, I find ways to question the methodology. I look at so many health and food studies, it’s easy to pull them apart. And nowadays statistics are designed and used as weapons to bludgeon the opposition, and the official figures (ONS etc.) are known to be dodgy.
We all know that statistics can be twisted in order to produce the result that is desired. In the 1970’s, my civil servant sister used to give out copies of Darrell Huff’s “ How to Lie With Statistics “ on one of the courses that she taught. More recently, I have discovered Dr Malcolm Kendrick’s “ Doctoring Data “, which is a fascinating read.
Beyond basic arithmetic, I think understanding statistics and how they are misused is the single most important part of mathematics and should be taught to everyone from an early age
Agree, he got off to a promising start over lockdowns and liberty, but has fallen at the second fence with the rest of his claptrap
Sumption is a university educated socialist. He’s also spent decades in the regime ans is now paid a huge pension by it.
When someone is (effectively) paid to have certain opinions it’s very difficult to change them.
The entire Public Sector, welfare class and immigrants are (effectively) paid to have opinions which suit the Fabians and lefty Establishment.
Agreed – many of this generation work in completely captured organisations. My children work in the following: a University, for the UN, for Wind Farms and another about to start a Counselling business. I have no chance whatsoever of getting my views across so studiously avoid approaching political subjects when I am with them.
Since 2020 and yes reading the DS every day, I have learned a lot and inform myself as much as possible about what is going on in the UK. I talk with like-minded friends over these issues. So I feel now that my children have no idea of who I am.
Young people today, and for a long time, have been pushed towards NGOs, non-profit work, making the world better, helping others. Basically, away from production and towards redistribution.
They are subjected to a relentless drum beat of messages telling them how important it is to serve society, to work not for profit and implying that profit making is a bit sordid and exploitative.
If you get rich you are instantly a bad, uncaring person and had better making some very performative “wanting to help others and make the world a better place” gestures.
Sumption is a member of the Judiciary, intelligent but not an original or scientific thinker. His profession simply requires him to judge a set of arguments and facts against their counter, presented as evidence in law. He will not have the knowledge of Physics or Medicine to judge the inherent truths or falsehoods of the establishment sponsored Climate Change or vaccination arguments, hence his being persuaded towards the establishment push for mandatory vaccination during the dark times of 2020.