[wsxcde]

> Most people making arguments for "the other side" haven't actually had to defend them against real criticism.

If you go into a conversation with a condescending viewpoint like that, don't be surprised if you don't get anything out of it.

Even if the person you're arguing isn't an expert on the issue you're talking about, they are an expert on why they feel that way. And understanding that can be helpful.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a right winger in rural Indiana. We somehow ended up talking about global warming and he told how me how he didn't believe in it. I probed a bit further. He told me when he was younger people were talking about a food crisis and then he saw wheat yields increase by a factor of 3 or something. His main point was that we've heard stuff like this before and somehow it all turned out okay, so we'll probably be okay this time too. And this viewpoint is a lot more reasonable than he's just a fool who is repeating what Trump and his cronies are feeding him.

[alsetmusic]

> Even if the person you're arguing isn't an expert on the issue you're talking about, they are an expert on why they feel that way.

Not always. Sometimes we may be experts on knowing that we feel strongly one way or another without having thoroughly explored the potentially complex ideas and experiences that have shaped us. I was just having a conversation tonight with a family member about self-destructive patterns that we both get into and trying to analyze where they come from. Our society doesn't really cater to deep self reflection and a lot of times a response may be fairly reflexive if not deliberately considered. That doesn't mean the person making the argument would change their mind after further deliberation. Just that a lot of people actually cannot explain their feelings out loud.