Summary
Everyone should know this simple technique. It will help you make a connection with someone whose political positions are different from yours. It can help you deal with difficult people in general. It also has a secret sauce — it helps the other party make more sense than usual! A strange thing about it is that they can know exactly what you are doing without feeling manipulated, and it's all the better if they can use it on you, too. With some practice, you can even use this with people that are pretty far down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole or even folks buying into hate group ideology.
The book goes into more detail and provides an annotated transcript that explains the technique in action along with advanced skills.
Please note: Although my book, as you can see from the title, is mostly about dealing with insincere people in politically-charged situations, I have sections about reaching across political divides to create a more meaningful connection. The reason for this is that many thousands if not millions of Americans are suffering because of political division. The book explains important psychological, commercial, and cultural elements that are destroying common sense and dialog, which is helpful background info. But, for this article, let's just dive straight into the technique.
Truth-Based: Defeat Manipulators in Debates, Interviews, and Conversations
https://amzn.to/3rTmjum - Available as Kindle and paperback.
The Basics
The Essence
The overriding thing about the vortex, is that you refrain from pushing anything. On the contrary, you only give your discussion partner things for them to push against, if they are so inclined. Those things are the least supportable, most out there statements by your partner.
Secure Base
By not triggering, judging, or patronizing your partners, you avoid creating distraction or anxiety that would impair their ability to think and express themselves effectively. This idea is from secure base psychology.
The Benefits
In the book I cover a number of benefits. Consider these: If your conversation partner is down a rabbit hole, this approach avoids driving them deeper into it. Your own mental health can benefit, because you will learn to relax into a more positive and hopeful state of mind. One reason for this is that you are using “relationship conditioner” to move your connection in a constructive direction. You are cultivating the relationship and planting seeds. This can salvage the bonds of family and friends. You also build a better understanding of your conversation partner, because this technique paves the way to discovering underlying values.
From that point of understanding, you can see how each of you moved from your values to very differing conclusions. Finally, if you are going to influence the person, you are more likely to do so with a trusting, non-inflammatory connection. One reason that it is non-inflammatory is that, if they wish, your conversation partner can learn and use the same technique in responding to your views.
The Five Essential Ingredients: This is the Technique
Commit these five ingredients to memory, and you are ready to start using the Vortex. Of course, you will want to begin your practice in low-stakes situations.
1. Zero push: Don’t give your subjects anything to push against, certainly not a rational argument—not even a disapproving look.
2. Rewards: Respond favorably to anything rational or constructive that they say. Very briefly highlight whatever is most positive about it.
3. Unsupportables: For anything said that is irrational or unconstructive, bring out the negative essence of what they said or implied, but in a way that may be hard for them to agree with. You do this with zero sarcasm. Not even a hint!
When they disagree with your attempt to reflect what they are saying, you show that you are interested and receptive, because this is your opportunity to better understand them. They are using their own words. You have used zero coercion and, thus, created no pushback, only correction of your misunderstanding of them.
Let’s do two examples, one for folks on the left and one for those on the right.
Examples, One Left, One Right
An Example: Anti-Masker
Here is an example folks on the left might want to respond to. Consider this statement made during the pandemic:
"No, I won't wear a mask there. That's for the zombies."
Let’s start with skill #3: recognizing what is unsupportable.
For one, it implies that there can be no rational reason for wearing a mask. Make the unsupportable statement, with ZERO sarcasm, in a way that he might push against. Maybe this?
"So there's no rational reason why someone would wear a mask." Since "zombie" implies that mask wearers are just being mindless, this is a good interpretation. If your partner pushes back, it might be like this, "Well, I know people are afraid, but it's just the flu."
Now let's look for what to reinforce (skill #2). Instead of taking umbrage at the silly "flu" part of the statement (which would violate skill #3, zero push), reinforce the fact that your partner acknowledged fear of Covid as a reality. "Yeah, I think it's honest to recognize the fear, even if it seems overblown."
Keep the conversation rolling, using just these three skills, and I bet you’ll end up somewhere better than getting arrested for making a public disturbance.
Example: Anti-Rittenhouse
This example is for folks on the right. Consider these two statements made by a thought leaders on the left. This is about the then-teen who shot three individuals during the protests in Kenosha.
“Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to kill people. He is a monster.”
Let’s start with skill #3: recognizing what is unsupportable. Let’s say you are aware of no information that supports this view. You are pretty sure your conversation partner is mouthing something they picked up from impressions and media bias. That means the unsupportable is that they have reason to be sure of this. You can translate that into: “Sounds like you have solid information as to his intentions, since that is a very intense statement.”
If your partner pushes back, it might be like this, "Those were crocodile tears he shed on the witness stand. He has been seen with Proud Boys.”
Instead of taking umbrage at the extreme moralism and shabby evidence, let's look to skill #2, Rewards, for what to reinforce.
You might say, “I can see, after events like that horrible car attack at the Charlottesville rally, you would have very strong feelings about a Proud Boys connection."
With just these three skills, you can keep the conversation rolling and you have good odds of ending up somewhere better than mud wrestling.
A Deeper Dive
Two Helpful Principles
4) Dialing it in: Steps two and three involve paraphrasing things they have said, framed positively as a reward, or in a way that they may resist. As you paraphrase them, be ready for them to correct your phrasing. Show your appreciation when they correct you. Show enthusiasm about them helping you get it right. This is very important.
5) Ego free: You must get snugly into an impartial frame of mind, willing to allow them to be themselves. Focus on the fact that you are practicing an important skill. It isn't urgent, it's practice. Have fun with it. You may just have a spiritual experience.
If at First You Don't Succeed
What if your first try seems to get you nowhere? When you said, "So there's no rational reason why someone would wear a mask." He says, instead, "Exactly!"
Then make it a little tougher for him to agree. "Those folks, then, are wrong; the mask affords zero protection."
I said zero since this makes it harder to agree with. He is likely to say, "I'm not saying zero, I just am not willing to let the government put us under their thumb in one more way." Again, you side-step the temptation to conflict with the unsavory part. Reinforce what you can: "Sure, it's open-minded to acknowledge that they have an effect that some people would feel is worthwhile." You can see I fed in some extra info. It's a little risky, that business about "some people." But, with "some" and "feel," I'm using softer, more ambiguous words that are less likely to trigger.
But the Sources!
At some point you may bump into what philosophers call epistemology, that is, our beliefs as to where knowledge comes from. If your conversation partner is likely to defend sources that have been proven wrong over and over again, it's tempting to point this out with numerous examples. During Vortex conversations, however, continue using the three skills. Another time, if you feel your conversation partner can handle a more provocative discussion outside of the vortex method, then give it a shot. Maybe offer it as a form of exchange, as in, "If I read that article you mentioned about masks, would you go over this list of where Fox News (or Q or MSNBC or the Press Secretary or whatever) got it wrong? That might make for an interesting coupla conversations."
An Advanced Skill: Going for Abstract Values with Rabbit Hole Dwellers
Since you've read this far, I'll offer a taste of the more advanced side of dialoging with conspiracy theory people. What if you have someone who has really gone all the way down the rabbit hole? In the more extreme cases, no matter what you come up with, they agree!
Find something that you can agree with as a metaphor instead of a reality. This may create enough overlap to help enhance your bond and ability to lead to firmer ground. For example, "I have to say something about this. As I watch how our economy has changed over the years, even if that concentration camp thing never happens, in a way, it's already happening, just without the barbed wire. I mean, have you seen those charts showing were we are compared to other countries as far as education, health, economic well-being of citizens and stuff like that? You know, stuff like debt peonage?"
Now, this not only creates overlap, but stirs the pot a bit, because it's reframing things. You'll get to know your partner even better this way. Where will she go with that? You have injected some complexity, but it a way that won't make her work hard to understand it. Perhaps she will develop some interest in the actual mechanisms of the economy that affect people in a verifiable way. Enough of these kinds of exploits and she might start hearing the news with fresh ears.
If this sounds idealistic, consider the ingredients that are in play. You are cultivating a bond that makes your words more meaningful, so long as you are consistent with the principles in this article. You are going beyond the basics to show that you actually have some form of overlap to share (even though it's metaphorical, as in the concentration camp idea). You are also beginning to add ideas that expand the range of political topics you can talk about.
You are also going against the programming that you get from mainstream and much of the alternative media; all the gossip and the geek show drivel. You are not objectifying your partner for the sake of your own feelings of being superior and right. You are seeking ways to heal the divisions from which so many elements of our culture profit. And wouldn't that be an interesting topic to move to at some point? Start with players your partner might feel comfortable seeing in that light, then, eventually, move on to others that are closer to his neck of the woods. Again, she might start seeing things from a fresh perspective.
I've taken us into a deep subject that deserves a lot more ink. But remember that the basic technique is easy to learn and is all there at the top of this article.
Good luck!