Do you enjoy floating through an online world where you can expect Medium or Instagram or Facebook to select articles or videos you’ll like? Who doesn’t? I’ve discovered great like minded writers on this platform and found the perfect pair of shoes on Instagram based on my preferences and reading history.

But what if that were all you ever saw? And what if we only talked to people who agreed with us all the time? Remember: the others won’t be listening to you then either. Your argument to change their minds will be read by…like minded readers.

We all know the dangers of social media silencing debate. The funnel of information used by marketing and politicians as well as the algorithms online that help us see things we like take away the chance to understand our opposers. How can we progress without at least understanding the other side? At times, we might discover the reason for our conflict, perhaps through empathy. Other times, we may find fallacious reasoning that helps us understand where they went wrong. And — brace yourself — we might even admit we’ve been wrong.

A study reviewed by The New York Times discusses that although “the Internet has deepened the divide…the Internet reflects the offline world, where people have always gravitated toward like-minded friends and shied away from expressing divergent opinions. (There is a reason for the old rule to avoid religion or politics at the dinner table.)”

So, I’m not suggesting you change the algorithms. I wouldn’t have a clue where to begin, and I probably wouldn’t want to anyway. But we can easily seek out sources on the other side to help us understand an issue more fully. I imagine a lot of writers on this platform do. We do it by finding a news source that we know leans in a different direction or by searching information with a hashtag and listening to a multitude of voices.

Once we understand a range of perspectives, we will be better equipped to write our own articles. Not only will you know more, but you can help your reader to understand the opposite side…and then carefully explain why your opinion is better! In essence, you are playing Devil’s Advocate with yourself, and demonstrating the thought process for your readers.

Cambridge tells us playing devil’s advocate means:

someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support, in order to make people discuss and consider it in more detail

And The New York Times tells us its origins:

That name dates back to the 17th century, when the Roman Catholic Church created an office popularly known as the advocatus diaboli — a person tasked with making the case against the canonization of new saints, scrutinizing every report of their miracles and virtue. How could a claim be trusted, the thinking went, if it hadn’t been rigorously tested?

By using this method in a well thought out paper, you are helping to research and investigate an idea rather than the way some online respond to articles with one-off comments or memes that lack follow through and increase hate.

Look for research to question your thesis

Are there holes in it? Could it be possible? Even if there aren’t any, how would an opposer respond? If you are ready for this, you can write in a refutation of a comment you imagine being posted.

One thing to consider is if you or your opposers may be using fallacious reasoning. You can even mention the logical fallacies by name to give your point more credibility. The answer might not be black and white, but the nuances can be explained through this process. I can imagine sentences like this:

• “Although the speech is compelling, Dr. XYZ is using the straw man argument and misses the points about…”
• “The article makes a hasty generalization; if we consider the nuances of…”

If you’re using correlational research to back up your opinion, you’ll want to be especially careful of the causal fallacies. Consider the other explanations for the research’s conclusions. Good journalists or academics will do this already, so you can simply quote them on it.

There was a viral article last year from the Wall Street Journal about “Why Jeff Goldblum Eliminated Coffee from his Diet.” There’s nothing wrong with listening to people’s views, but what sometimes happens in anecdotal research like this is both causal fallacies (after all, it is just one person giving their view) and fallacious appeal to authority. Goldblum seems like a great guy and has had a good experience eliminating coffee. Maybe it’s a good idea for you, too. But he’s known for his acting, not his nutrition expertise. While he may be right, the celebrity of authority can be dangerous in swaying people’s opinions. So in this case, it’s not really appeal to authority (because Goldblum isn’t a nutritionist or scientist) but appeal to celebrity.

You can cite examples of this to help people understand why they have been falsely swayed. By lifting the veil, the reader can see more rationally.

Put on a different hat

Try to think about your topic from others’ perspectives. Might you think differently about your points if you were a different nationality, class, race, or gender? The reasons that young people might view climate change differently from those in their nineties is obvious; but it might be less obvious to consider those living in poverty and faced with perhaps more immediate threats.

Or, if we consider culture in the question of where to put tax money, the values of different groups or nationalities will change our answers. French may vote to keep more money in the arts while Aussies may focus on sport. Even though each country also values the opposite topic, try to research to think more like someone from these countries and why a particular value is important to them.

For gender, you might consider saying something like: “For male readers, it may seem strange to…but the majority of women…” or “For binary readers, it may be difficult to understand how non-binary citizens feel when they…, so this article interviews several non-binary teenagers.” By helping people feel like their wrong view (in your opinion) is normal and not something to be ashamed of, they can more easily shift their thinking to the view you are trying to convince them of.

Get to the root of it

Sometimes the answers aren’t so clear, and the more we research, the more we see the nuances as well as unclear motivations for thoughts. Besides reading, we can actually converse with someone who disagrees. You might also look at common cognitive biases to understand why we think differently.

Trying to understand motivating factors is tricky. Our ideas are formed from a matrix of information we read and hear. Even before we start seeking our own materials and friends, we may be influenced by our education or families or cultures. Figuring out our own motivations for thought are difficult enough; once we try to understand the way other individuals or groups think, the reasons may be really complex.

However, if we try to understand these complexities even a little, we might make more progress. Let’s look at tax money, again. There is a common belief that rich people don’t want to be taxed more in the US and a common opinion among liberal politicians that this could be an answer to our problems. It would be easy to assume that people simply don’t want to give up money (because…yachts) or that maybe there is a kind of ambition and power connected to the amount of zeros they can look at in each bank account. If we continue with these assumptions, there will be a forever back and forth battle without an answer. When some are in power, taxes will go up, with others, they will go down.

But what if the motivations were fear? Fear of mortality (if I’m rich, I can pay for health care!) or fear of communism (we don’t want to pay a bunch of tax and end up like the North Koreans!) or fear for their kids’ futures (I need to give them the best chance in life!). Then we can look at the points more clearly. Wouldn’t paying more tax fund universal healthcare and research about diseases? Why is North Korea really the way it is? Would my kids have a better chance if my tax money made society better?

Some rich people do think this way and want to pay tax. Listening to them can help to sway others (if that’s your goal). Dan Price has become a famous CEO for raising his company’s minimum wage to $70,000 and lowering his to the same amount. He often tweets about ways the rich can give back to the community, including a higher tax rate. Bill Gates has said the same (though hasn’t taken as significant cuts). One could argue his altruistic endeavors need the money he makes; it depends if you trust the government or not.

The rich who want to pay more tax argue that they would be making society better. In addition to some believing it’s fair, they don’t want to live in a crumbling society. They want clean streets, less crime, well educated teachers and doctors, nice restaurants and cafes…rather than living like they are under house arrest. Even if the house is an estate, we all found out during the pandemic that it’s no fun to be locked in.

The point is that things aren’t usually black and white. There are underlying reasons why people think in opposing ways due to experiences, culture, education, economics, and so much more. By trying to uncover the real reasons as we play devil’s advocate, we might find allies on the other side and different ways to sway opinion.

Imagine a reader who disagrees

Actually these are the people you most want reading your pieces! Identify these readers as you draft and try to work with pre-existing ideas they might have before you crumble them (kindly). Or, invite them to be included in a discussion. Perhaps you go with the angle that you’re not really sure, and you’d love to hear about others’ views and experiences.

How can you convince someone who comes to the start of your article with a questioning stance? You can write in reasons to contradict the claims your opposing views might make in their mind (or in the comments) as they read your article. Try to anticipate and even think aloud in the writing.

Writing it up

You might change your mind before you publish. That’s ok! That means you’ve really done your homework. Maybe you want to write instead about the evolution of an idea. It can feel difficult for a lot of us to consider that we’ve been wrong about something. But it’s also incredibly admirable…and convincing, if you can really articulate the reasons you changed your mind.

Additionally, you might find your argument is more nuanced than you once thought. The gray area offers further areas for consideration and is why we have judges who not only read but interpret the law.

If you feel the same way you did at the start, you should be able to be more convincing to your readers because you’ve considered the other side. Tell us about it. Tell us even exactly what other perspectives you sought out if they helped you to feel more sure of the stance.

Don’t stop at writing — ?

“Avoiding groupthink” is a researched benefit of devil’s advocate team members. Somebody using this strategy on your team can be good for business but it can also go too far.

What interests me as a writer about these research articles is that they focus on the group or work team. While some journalists and authors work in teams, most work alone. While I challenge you in this article to be your own devil’s advocate, it is difficult to do it without at least an editor. Maybe part of the answer besides listening and reading widely is to form writing groups that do such, whether online or in person.

What writers have changed your mind about an idea? What fascinating views have you read from the other side that made you realize why people think differently from you?

Too many times during the pandemic, I have heard people first start to debate mask wearing or vaccines or school closures only to cut themselves off: “Oh we disagree; we can’t talk about this.” Even if we can’t come to a single conclusion, it helps us to understand each other and the world when we listen. Your writing is the space to captivate and to unsettle people with knowledge that isn’t always so obvious.

Kathleen Waller is a novelist with a PhD in Comparative Literature. She previously taught literature, cultural studies, ethics, and epistemology to high school and university students for twenty years. Sign up now for her free Substack newsletter starting in August: The Matterhorn — intersections of literature & art

Twitter / Instagram @tournerlesmots