There are two categories of opinions someone can have: value opinions or identity opinions. An attempt to change someone’s opinion without knowing which category the opinion belongs to will lead to frustration on the part of the proponent and defensiveness on the part of the target. Usually that frustration and defensiveness will lead to more harm than if the proponent never tried to convince the target in the first place.

Opinion Category 1: Value Opinions

Definition

Value opinions are those between held by both sides of an argument who...

• see the same set of data,
• have the same motivations,
• but have different values (certain data is more important than other data)
• so their opinions differ.

These opinions tend to be action oriented, à la “what should we do now”.

Examples

• We should go out to eat at Taco Bell or Cheesecake Factory?
  • Data: Cheesecake Factory tastes better, but Taco Bell is less expensive and faster.
  • Values: Which is more important, taste or cost?
• In Super Bowl 49 between the Seattle Seahawks and New England Patriots, on the last play of the game, the Seahawks should have handed the ball off to star running back Marshawn Lynch or attempt a pass.
  • Data:
    • Marshawn Lynch is nearly unstoppable when running small distances,
    • Everybody, including the New England Patriots, knows that Marshawn Lynch is nearly unstoppable when running small distances,
    • The New England Patriots defense is probably expecting that Marshawn Lynch is getting the ball, and will probably aim the focus of all 11 of its players at stopping Marshawn Lynch.
  • Values: Is running a good play with misdirection and deception more effective than running your best play with your best player when everyone is expecting it?
• Snapchat should or should not redesign its app to increase revenue.
  • Data:
    • Our most engaged users are teens, because they use the app dozens of times a day.
    • Our most lucrative customers are adults, because advertisers care more about showing ads to people with money.
    • Adults that are new to our app don’t stick around very long, saying that our app is too confusing
    • Teenagers are VERY temperamental when services change their designs.
  • Values:
    • Is it better to have fewer users that are worth more money or more users worth less money?
    • Is it better to stay the course and make incremental changes, or to make grand, sweeping changes?

Identity Opinions

Definition

Identity opinions are like value opinions, with one wrinkle: The success of the opinion in an argument is tied to the self-perception of the opinion holder.

Few Cheesecake Factory lovers would feel personally attacked if someone said Taco Bell was a better choice than Cheesecake Factory. Few Cheesecake Factory lovers would feel deep conflict going to Taco Bell, and self-loathing if they ordered something and liked it. But these caveats come with most Identity opinions.

Identifying Identity Opinions

Identity opinions usually have at least one of the characteristics:

• One side has given a name or label to the opposing side
• One side has given themselves a label or name
• The opinion HAS a single, opposing side
• The opinion mentions the opposing side
• The opinion is about religion, politics, parenting/family dynamics, or money.
  • This is because they are already cooked into labels (see first bullet point) we identify with. For example, "I’m a Rich, Mormon, Republican mom" vs "I have money, go to the Mormon church, vote for republicans and have kids.”.
    • Identity Opinions trade all other verbs (I have, I vote, I go) for one (I am)

Examples

• Labels: Deplorables, Nasty Woman
  • Identity Opinion: [Trump/Clinton] is corrupt and attracts bad people to them.
• Labels: Pro-[Choice/Life], Pro-[gun-rights/ gun-control]
  • Identity Opinion: The other side is ignoring the deaths of innocents so they can protect their selfish, less important desires.
• Snowflake, Social Justice Warrior, Libtard, P.C.
  • Identity Opinion: [insert minority group] is [taking advantage of / being taken advantage of] the system.
• Fake News, Deep State, Swamp, Liberal Media
  • Identity Opinion: The news report I just read is [true/false]
• We are the 99% vs the 1%
  • Identity Opinion: Corporation should have higher taxes
  • Identity Opinion: Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to make political contributions
• Mormon, “Utah-Mormon", Christian, Catholic, Atheist
  • Identity Opinion: The [Insert Religion Here] is the correct religion
  • Identity Opinion: The [insert religion here] needs to change [insert policy or behavior]
• Stay-at-home mom, working mom
  • Opinion: Being a working mom [helps / hurts / is benign to] child development

Attempts at Conversion

Attempting to change a target's identity opinion without first recognizing their desire to protect their “identity” or “team” will end in disaster. The agent must recognize the underlying fear of honestly engaging in an argument like this, which is:

“If I’m wrong about this, does this make me a stupid / bad person?”.

It’s an uphill battle, because we psychologically gravitate toward evidence that makes us feel good about ourselves.[1][2] If an argument doesn't address the identity portion of the opinion, the conversation feel combative and personal. Both sides will retrench themselves in their identity opinions as an effort to protect themselves from feeling bad, stupid or embarrassed. Most of the time, this process happens without either side being aware of it. Usually, the only conscious though is “man, the other side is so wrong”.

Examples of Identity Opinion Retrenchment

Here is an example of what identity entrenchment might look like on two sides.

Person A: “We should arm teachers with guns in order to prevent school shootings”

Person B: “We should have stricter gun control in order to prevent school shootings”.

Let’s think of all the ways both sides could feel personally attacked by the suggestion of the other’s opinions.

These aren’t to be read as verbatim thoughts, but are more like attempts to capture some sub-conscious emotional feelings either side might have that could make someone feel defensive.

• Person A
  • “I have a gun in my house to protect my family. If I’m wrong about teachers abilities to protect classrooms with guns, does that mean I can’t protect my family[A]?"
  • "I own a gun. If Person B is right that guns need controlling, which means guns are dangerous, does that mean I’m dangerous[B]?"
  • "Guns make me feel safe and powerful. If Person B is right that there need to be fewer guns, and they take my guns, does that make me unsafe and weak[C]?"
• Person B
  • “Guns are too powerful. If person A is right about arming teachers, does that mean I am unable to protect myself without the help of someone else[D]?"
  • "Gun control seems like the right answer in other countries. If I’m wrong, does that mean there is no solution and that I’m unsafe and weak[E]? Does it mean I was stupid[F] for believing what I read?"

Person A has the potential to feel weak, dangerous, and unsafe if they change their opinion. Person B has the potential to feel stupid and out of control. Any attempt to convince that doesn’t at least touch on these “am I bad” feelings will cause a retrenchment that usually projects those fearful emotions onto the other person:

• Person A: “Person B wants to make everyone unsafe and weak [A, B, C] because of the actions of a few crazy people."
• Person B: “Person A is stupid [F] for not realizing we need take responsibility [D] for what has happened and not do the same old, same old thing we do every time

Conclusion

Without addressing the identity or person parts of an opinion, we will cause our target to retrench, most of the time causing more harm than good. Luckily, there is a method to form an argument that take down people’s guards so they can listen without any fear of self-loathing (coming soon).

Footnotes:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority