Advocacy & Public Discourse
Section updated .
Four practices help advocates talk across disagreement: deep conversations that start with the other person's experience, moral reframing that presents your position in values you share with the listener, corrections that lead with the fact, and conversational receptiveness that shows you heard the other view first. Each rests on published studies, and each page says how small or contested the effects are.
Advocacy runs on conversations: at a door, at a hearing, in a group chat, in a comment thread. The research here is more modest than the confidence of the field. Effects are often small, short-lived or measured only in surveys, and several well-known claims have not held up as first stated. These pages say so plainly.
The practices are written to be usable on any side of an issue. The examples use neutral topics such as a park fee, a library budget or a school schedule. Every practice passes one test: it still works if the listener knows exactly what you are doing and why.
Practices in this section
Deep conversations: experience first
Ask for the person's story, listen, share one true story and ask for their reflection. What the field experiments measured and where they stop.
Read the guide →Moral reframing in their values
Present your position through a value you share with the listener, say that you are doing it, and know how thin the evidence is.
Read the guide →Correcting misinformation
Lead with the fact, name the myth once, explain the error and give the accurate alternative, with what the backfire research found.
Read the guide →Conversational receptiveness
Acknowledge the other view, name real agreement and hedge your claims before you state yours.
Read the guide →How to use this section
Start with conversational receptiveness, because it is a few sentences you can use in your next disagreement. Add correcting misinformation when a false claim is circulating among the people you talk to. Use moral reframing when you have a case to make to someone with different leading values. Save deep conversations for situations where you can give a person ten patient minutes.
After any of them, check the observable signs listed on the page: what the other person says or asks next. Revisit the practice you used least well.
Frequently asked questions
Do these practices change people's minds?
Sometimes, a little. The studies behind these pages mostly report small changes in survey attitudes, and several measured perceptions of speakers instead of changes in position. Each page states what was measured.
Are the practices partisan?
No. They describe how to talk, and each page uses neutral examples such as a park fee or a library budget. The same steps serve a person arguing for a proposal and a person arguing against it.
What is the Disclosure Test?
It asks whether a technique would still work if the listener knew exactly what you were doing and why. Every practice here comes with a sentence you can say out loud that announces what you are doing.
Which practice should I try first?
Conversational receptiveness, because it needs only a few sentences and no preparation. Deep conversations ask for the most time.
How do I know whether a practice worked?
Each page lists observable signs within 24 hours, such as an accurate restatement of your point, a follow-up question, or a longer reply.
Be first when the email edition starts
The briefing is published on this site every day. The email edition is not sending yet. Leave your address and you’ll be among the first told when it starts. Nothing is sent in the meantime.