So if I read a personal narrative presented by a source that I can reasonably assume to have a particular political agenda, I can be fairly certain it is presen

So if I read a personal narrative presented by a source that I can reasonably assume to have a particular political agenda, I can be fairly certain it is presented as a cynical stratagem to manipulate my opinion, rather than any sort of objective presentation of the situation that is actionable. Got it. Explains why so much “sob story” anecdata gets presented by the two/several ends of the political spectrum. Studies like this say that they work to change opinion, rather than simply validate existing opinions. I can see it being effective in moving people from believing something is impossible to considering it as possible/plausible but not much past that. Nor can I understand how such a study as this can determine a change of opinion is “durable”. Wonder if this posited “result” holds true across all ages, genders, educational attainment, country of origin, etc.? I’d assume more influential folks would be older and thus less likely to be moved by a single narrative, since they can put the single personal narrative in the context of the hundreds of narratives they’ve heard and lived through in their longer lives.