What I was taught was try to take their conclusion and see how hard it is to maintain it. For example if someone were to argue with me about the truth of their particular branch of Christianity I should do is show how many assumptions I need to make to get to it. I.e. there is a god, this God is personal, this God favors human life, this God choose one particular tribe, this God waited all that time to send his son down.....
"Acting" implies you're pretending. Actually be curious. Ask questions to understand the other party's position. Maybe you'll get to learn more about what life is like in this other person's shoes. Maybe you'll find that there's actually no way that this person can verify that what you're arguing is true and the only way there is to trust someone who has repeatedly broken their trust. Maybe you'll actually learn that you're the one who's wrong.
When I'm in an argument I don't go in trying to prove my point. Instead I ask questions to figure out what our common ground is and then build logically from there. Like we agree with these things so this other this makes sense too right? It doesn't end with agreement but it does always end with us understanding each other and them feeling like I'm being reasonable.
I think that approach does what you're saying because it builds on top of things they already agree with
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
From a logical point of view, I tend to mostly agree. The issue is, however, that many people only really change their opinion when they figure something out by themselves. While, in an argument, they won't be able to come back with anything, they'll often still hold on to their original opinion. If your goal is to change somebody's opinion, it can often be more effective to drop subtle hints over time and make them come to their own conclusion.
save