A Strongly Held Identity Prevents You from Persuading Others
Galef argues that scorn can make persuasion harder by leaving a person’s actual concerns unaddressed. When distrust of an institution is central to a disagreement, citing that institution alone may not resolve it.
THE IDEA
A STRONGLY HELD IDENTITY PREVENTS YOU FROM PERSUADING OTHERS
In March 2014, television actress Kristin Cavallari announced that she and her husband had decided not to vaccinate their child. They had done a lot of research, read a lot of books, and they felt the risks were not worth it. In response, a journalist sneered, “Oh, books—you read books, you say?” He then addressed his audience: “For the last time, stop listening to bubble-headed TV stars and start listening to doctors. Vaccinate your f*cking kids or you’re a shitty parent. Period.”13
But who, exactly, is his audience? What hypothetical person will be won over by being sneered at and called a shitty parent, without even being given any convincing reasons their fears are unfounded?
Another journalist reacted to Cavallari’s announcement by writing an educational guide to vaccines.14 Sounds like a promising step, at first pass—but the guide’s language drips with scorn for vaccine skepticism (“anti-scientific gibberish”) and condescension to its readers (“Vaccines are safe. Yes, read that again.”).
It also completely misses the point. To make the case for the safety of vaccines, the journalist cites the Department of Health and refers to “scientific testing” that has proven vaccines to be safe. But a vaccine skeptic already knows that mainstream medical institutions claim vaccines are safe. The problem is that she doesn’t trust those institutions. Citing them as authorities won’t do anything other than confirm her suspicion that you don’t get it.
Bottom line: it’s hard to change someone’s mind when you feel morally and intellectually superior to them. As Megan McArdle memorably put it: “It took me years of writing on the Internet to learn what is nearly an iron law of commentary: The better your message makes you feel about yourself, the less likely it is that you are convincing anyone else.”15
When to use it
Political debates where each side feels morally superior and cites opposing institutions.
Public health campaigns attempting to persuade vaccine-hesitant parents.
Climate change discussions where skeptics distrust mainstream science.
Workplace disagreements where one party feels intellectually superior, blocking collaboration.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Vaccine Debate: Sneering at Skeptics
Galef criticizes a journalist who sneered at Kristin Cavallari’s reading and called non-vaccinating parents 'shitty.' Her objection is that the response insults its audience without addressing the reasons behind their fears.
Educational Guide with Condescension
Galef argues that an educational guide undermines its persuasive purpose with phrases such as 'anti-scientific gibberish' and 'read that again.' Citing institutions the intended reader distrusts may also leave the underlying objection unresolved.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Recall a time when you felt morally superior during a disagreement. How did that affect your ability to persuade the other person?
How can you avoid sounding condescending when trying to persuade someone who distrusts expert sources?
What strategies can you use to understand the perspective of someone you strongly disagree with, especially when their views seem based on distrust of authorities?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Scout Mindset (Julia Galef)