pull down to refresh
284 sats \ 1 reply \ @knorozov OP 14 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: How bitcoiners should argue big state believers bitcoin
Good points, mostly agree. Indeed, as we all know, most people don't like to think, most people don't change their minds. And almost never after one conversation.
What I've noticed is this strategy changes the dynamic of a conversation. I feel more empowered and I speak with more confidence. Most people have never been approached like that and it can trigger something. They will not soon forget the conversation. And if it happens more often...
An essential point I made was 'as is appropriate in that situation'. I really mean that. To meet people where they are is key. Eg. find and call out things that you both agree on can help. And you can follow my strategy in a lighthearted way.
Also, often other people are present who are not so dug in / opinionated. They just want to live their life's and don't stick out, but deep inside they don't like all the state interference. From hearing you speak they may be encouraged to speak up more the next time.
often other people are present who are not so dug in
That's a really important dynamic. I've had several of these types of conversations swing my way because I was able to persuade the undecided people who were there. That's part of the tribal approval mechanism. Seeing someone else agree grants psychological permission to agree.
The other thing I thought of is that it's not really relevant what works best on most people, if they aren't going to be receptive anyway. Your direct/confrontational approach might actually be extremely effective on the set of people who can be reached. It's definitely what works on me.
reply