Thanks for sharing this. I specially like this part: > They may have more luck communicating if, in addition to presenting facts and figures, they appeal to em

Thanks for sharing this. I specially like this part: > They may have more luck communicating if, in addition to presenting facts and figures, they appeal to emotions. This could mean not simply explaining the science of how something works but spending time on why it matters to the author and why it ought to matter to the reader. I'll try to apply it. As for "changing the frame, instead of repeating what you're trying to refute", I noticed that's something that Trump applied effectively. E.g. when he came up with the wall idea, people started pointing out the many reasons why it was a bad idea. One of those reasons was cost, and he came up with "Mexico's gonna pay for it", which is even more egregious than the wall itself. So people changed the focus to that, and whether the wall itself was immoral, or ineffective, wasn't discussed further. "Who's going to pay for the wall?" was a good frame for Trump, because it takes for granted that the wall's desirable.