> I don't buy the tacit premise that most political disagreements are primarily about issues of facts and knowledge. I don't think that's the premise at all, t

> I don't buy the tacit premise that most political disagreements are primarily about issues of facts and knowledge. I don't think that's the premise at all, tacit or explicit. I think the idea is that belief has very little to do with facts and evidence. That's why bringing facts and evidence to a political conversation often destroys the conversation and actually strengthens your partner's beliefs instead of instilling doubt. Trying to deliver a message to enlighten my ignorant, emotional partner isn't going to work. It's condescending, confrontational, and will instantly trigger every defense mechanism. Sometimes it's better to ask questions about why they believe what they believe, and how they know what they think they know. Instead of proving them wrong, ask them what evidence they would need to see to change their mind. Some people believe story of Noah's Ark is literally true. They can cite can many "facts" to back their belief. But, hypothetically, what evidence would they need to see to make them even 1% less confident that one boat actually sustained two of every animal on Earth for 150 days? Is there any evidence at all that would diminish their belief? Or is their belief not based on evidence at all? Perhaps they believe the story because if they didn't believe it, then it would mean the Bible wasn't literally true, which would undermine their faith and identity and make them a bad person. Conversations like this often turn up gaping holes in my own beliefs and rationales. So at the end of the conversation, I've learned something, whether or not I've changed my partner's mind about anything.