John Bowe

“Kahan devised a theory he calls “identity-protective cognition,” suggesting that when forced to choose between factual truth and group identity, most people choose the latter. “Individuals,” he concluded, “subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values.” The problem wasn’t that people are dumb, irrational, or even superficial, as I’d formerly assumed. We’ve simply evolved—as a species—in a different way than I’d imagined. “Once group loyalties are engaged,” Haidt says, “you can’t change people’s mind by refuting their arguments.”

“Your data might be convincing, but if you’re not engaged with it, why not just email a spreadsheet? Tell your audience how you feel and why it matters.”

“But every decision you make about your speech must demonstrate that you’re talking for their benefit, not yours. As you proceed through the different parts of your speech, explain at every transition where you are: I’ve told you now about how we eat noodles in Texas. Now I’m going to tell you about how those crazy Luxembourgers eat noodles! If it seems inefficient to waste precious time talking about how you’re talking, instead of using every available second to transmit your message itself, consider the age-old adage, “Tell ’em what you’re gonna tell ’em; tell ’em; then tell ’em that you told ’em.” To return once more to Aristotle, public speaking has less to do with conveying information than it does with demonstrating credibility.”