A couple of days ago, the inimitable Igor Chudov started an effort to organize his readers into a brainstorming workshop to try to figure out how to convince or at least plant seeds of doubt in the minds of supporters of the mainstream COVID narrative, especially with respect to the vaccination program.
It is very hard to do but I’m practising using David’s techniques and getting better at it. Burying people in data definitely does not work! You have to get the other person talking and questioning their own knowledge and belief. You have to get past their emotional attachment to their belief in the vaccines and get them to tell you the factual information they are relying on. Ask them gentle, non-threatening questions. Do you think the vaccines are effective? How effective do you think they are? What are you basing that on? Why do you think we need mandates? If the vaccine protects you and anyone else who chooses to be vaccinated, why must others be forced to be vaccinated when they have concerns? Would you want to be forced to have a medical treatment you didn’t think was safe? If the vaccine DOESN’T protect you why do you or anyone need to be forcibly vaccinated? Why shouldn’t it be a choice? Do you think the vaccines are 100% safe? How safe do you think they are? These are just sample questions I have used. You have to be very calm, gentle and patient in having the discussion. Don’t be tempted to jump in too soon or answer your own questions. Let them find the answers. It’s powerful to watch when it happens 😊
Great approach. The gentle aspect is so key. People's primary systems (safety) get triggered when they feel threatened. This is def one of the most important aspects.
Added to that, the "we are on the same side" context Josh talks about are two absolutely essential steps that cannot be skipped.
One thing we have added to open the listener up, even more, is to replace 'you' with 'we' / 'us' or even use passive language with questions.
It really allows their ego not to feel threatened such as "Do we know if the vaccines are 100% safe?" and "How safe are they?" This is key for orientation, if someone feels like they need to defend a concept they often will. Hope this makes sense and helps.
Really feels to me that you have the concepts and I trust that you are really seeing people open up more.
Thanks David. I have tried to do that too - opening with a comment like “we’re on the same side - I just want people to be healthy and safe” or something similar. I also try very hard to make my questions less direct and more gently probing but it really does go against my nature as I’m a lawyer and we’re trained to be direct and get to the point quickly! But I am practising what you suggested in your video with Dr Tess Lawrie and finding people are more willing to at least engage in a conversation with me if I don’t just barrage them with a load of what I think is totally obvious, compelling and damning data which was my previous entirely unsuccessful approach! Having watched your video with Tess I now completely understand why that would never work!
It is so fascinating that some basic foundation concepts can make all the difference.
I imagine if I tried some represent a legal matter, I would make an absolute hash of it. You would only have to watch a few minutes to see so many ways to improve it.
This is one reason this work is so essential, getting that bridge down, so people like yourself can deliver the information.
To be honest I’m now using your technique in both my professional and personal life too. Asking more open questions which results in longer but richer and more enlightening conversations. It’s been great! Sometimes people even persuade me of their position on an issue - although not on the COVID vaccines 😊
Having an open and honest discussion is very important, not only regarding vaccinations/public health. Do you think that this is possible? Are you open to really having a discussion?
But if you frame it as convincing those who disagree with you, your starting point is not of having an open discussion.
Yes, I am open to having a discussion. Would you say you are?
I do not start with the frame of convincing, this is clear in my videos. I have the frame of allowing the facts and data to arise.
One thing is very clear to most in this, those challenging the narrative pushed by governments and media are not open to being questioned. The marketing is clear.
There are literally many academics and scientists silenced in each country if they dare ask a question. Does this seem rational?
I want to throw “Non Violent Communication” in the tool bag. It also stems from the fact that behind every argument, there is an unmet need. Thank you for sharing your resources.
Hands down, the best persuasion I have read is the essay "Needle Points" by Norman Doidge in Tablet magazine. He does a fantastic job of getting the reader (pro or anti) to open up mentally, before softly, delicately and thoroughly eviscerating the trustworthiness of the pharmaceutical companies. I've actually had a vaxxed friend contact me on their own after reading that essay. A masterwork of persuasion.
One way I've had success as a US expat is by comparing the response there to my current country of residence. For example sitting around the lunch table at work, someone made some comments about the crazy anti-vaxxers in America. Then I made my argument like this:
1. My neighbor got a stroke from the Astra Zeneca vaccine
2. The national government here was paying attention to the side effects, and ended up pulling AZ from the market as the dangers of strokes and blood clots became more apparent. This increased trust locally that the health authorities were paying attention.
3. In the US, the health authorities refuse to acknowledge that there are any potential side effects, they just keep on insisting that they're totally safe (this was last year).
4. When people know they're being lied to, it's easy for them to become conspiracy theorists.
Obviously this approach doesn't bring a person to go full antivax, but it does do a couple things that I see as very important:
1. Acknowledgement that severe side effects are a real thing (confirmed by personal experience and government officials, but soften the blow by praising their home country)
2. Plants a thought that maybe those crazy conspiracy theorists at least have a bit of legitimacy to their complaints and that government corruption is real.
Hey, I'm speaking at the June 28 VRBPAC meeting. Any chance you could forward me a copy of the recent FOIA you got back from the CDC for use on one of the slides? If it's not doable by tomorrow morning don't worry about it; the slide deck is due tomorrow afternoon. Sorry for the short notice (they just got back to us yesterday)
Let me know if that doesn't work for you for some reason.
Also see my remarks to another VRBPAC meeting on boosters. They want to treat them like flu vaccines -- they're not! They want to create an endless cycle of boosters without any clinical evidence of efficacy or safety. It's nuts!
Thanks David. I have tried to do that too - opening with a comment like “we’re on the same side - I just want people to be healthy and safe” or something similar. I also try very hard to make my questions less direct and more gently probing but it really does go against my nature as I’m a lawyer and we’re trained to be direct and get to the point quickly! But I am practising what you suggested in your video with Dr Tess Lawrie and finding people are more willing to at least engage in a conversation with me if I don’t just barrage them with a load of what I think is totally obvious, compelling and damning data which was my previous entirely unsuccessful approach! Having watched your video with Tess I now completely understand why that would never work!
How wonderful if the medical fascists had tried this gentle, non-threatening approach instead of bribery, shaming, coercion, punishment, fines, and calls for imprisonment. I am too angry to lead the sheep to the water of truth without wanting to drown them in it.
I don't really see that - what I see is a desire to be seen as correct, even more than to convince others. Every attempt to reach others has to begin with listening to the other person. Are you really up for that?
It is very hard to do but I’m practising using David’s techniques and getting better at it. Burying people in data definitely does not work! You have to get the other person talking and questioning their own knowledge and belief. You have to get past their emotional attachment to their belief in the vaccines and get them to tell you the factual information they are relying on. Ask them gentle, non-threatening questions. Do you think the vaccines are effective? How effective do you think they are? What are you basing that on? Why do you think we need mandates? If the vaccine protects you and anyone else who chooses to be vaccinated, why must others be forced to be vaccinated when they have concerns? Would you want to be forced to have a medical treatment you didn’t think was safe? If the vaccine DOESN’T protect you why do you or anyone need to be forcibly vaccinated? Why shouldn’t it be a choice? Do you think the vaccines are 100% safe? How safe do you think they are? These are just sample questions I have used. You have to be very calm, gentle and patient in having the discussion. Don’t be tempted to jump in too soon or answer your own questions. Let them find the answers. It’s powerful to watch when it happens 😊
Hi Free French,
Great approach. The gentle aspect is so key. People's primary systems (safety) get triggered when they feel threatened. This is def one of the most important aspects.
Added to that, the "we are on the same side" context Josh talks about are two absolutely essential steps that cannot be skipped.
One thing we have added to open the listener up, even more, is to replace 'you' with 'we' / 'us' or even use passive language with questions.
It really allows their ego not to feel threatened such as "Do we know if the vaccines are 100% safe?" and "How safe are they?" This is key for orientation, if someone feels like they need to defend a concept they often will. Hope this makes sense and helps.
Really feels to me that you have the concepts and I trust that you are really seeing people open up more.
Thanks David. I have tried to do that too - opening with a comment like “we’re on the same side - I just want people to be healthy and safe” or something similar. I also try very hard to make my questions less direct and more gently probing but it really does go against my nature as I’m a lawyer and we’re trained to be direct and get to the point quickly! But I am practising what you suggested in your video with Dr Tess Lawrie and finding people are more willing to at least engage in a conversation with me if I don’t just barrage them with a load of what I think is totally obvious, compelling and damning data which was my previous entirely unsuccessful approach! Having watched your video with Tess I now completely understand why that would never work!
Brilliant.
It is so fascinating that some basic foundation concepts can make all the difference.
I imagine if I tried some represent a legal matter, I would make an absolute hash of it. You would only have to watch a few minutes to see so many ways to improve it.
This is one reason this work is so essential, getting that bridge down, so people like yourself can deliver the information.
To be honest I’m now using your technique in both my professional and personal life too. Asking more open questions which results in longer but richer and more enlightening conversations. It’s been great! Sometimes people even persuade me of their position on an issue - although not on the COVID vaccines 😊
Great post! Added to my pinned reply. I will write another article with a summary of findings.
Great, look forward to it!
Hi Igor,
Be great to catch up and some point and brainstorm. I couldn't find contact details for you.
Feel free to email me at info@reachingpeople.net
Emailed. I was hoping that we can collaborate on a document. We can make it open source under a creative commons license.
Having an open and honest discussion is very important, not only regarding vaccinations/public health. Do you think that this is possible? Are you open to really having a discussion?
But if you frame it as convincing those who disagree with you, your starting point is not of having an open discussion.
Yes, I think it is possible.
Yes, I am open to having a discussion. Would you say you are?
I do not start with the frame of convincing, this is clear in my videos. I have the frame of allowing the facts and data to arise.
One thing is very clear to most in this, those challenging the narrative pushed by governments and media are not open to being questioned. The marketing is clear.
There are literally many academics and scientists silenced in each country if they dare ask a question. Does this seem rational?
This is exactly what we need. Thank you so much Josh
Hi Meryl,
Great to see you at the General Assembly on Monday. Great presentation.
I am grateful for those that stand up in the face of strong reasons not to. You have been doing so for many years now.
Successfully communicating a counter narrative is a real challenge, easily bungled. Just citing facts and data will most likely fail miserably.
Agreed!
Josh - this is great. Will spend some time at this site.
Great resource! Thank you!
I want to throw “Non Violent Communication” in the tool bag. It also stems from the fact that behind every argument, there is an unmet need. Thank you for sharing your resources.
Hands down, the best persuasion I have read is the essay "Needle Points" by Norman Doidge in Tablet magazine. He does a fantastic job of getting the reader (pro or anti) to open up mentally, before softly, delicately and thoroughly eviscerating the trustworthiness of the pharmaceutical companies. I've actually had a vaxxed friend contact me on their own after reading that essay. A masterwork of persuasion.
One way I've had success as a US expat is by comparing the response there to my current country of residence. For example sitting around the lunch table at work, someone made some comments about the crazy anti-vaxxers in America. Then I made my argument like this:
1. My neighbor got a stroke from the Astra Zeneca vaccine
2. The national government here was paying attention to the side effects, and ended up pulling AZ from the market as the dangers of strokes and blood clots became more apparent. This increased trust locally that the health authorities were paying attention.
3. In the US, the health authorities refuse to acknowledge that there are any potential side effects, they just keep on insisting that they're totally safe (this was last year).
4. When people know they're being lied to, it's easy for them to become conspiracy theorists.
Obviously this approach doesn't bring a person to go full antivax, but it does do a couple things that I see as very important:
1. Acknowledgement that severe side effects are a real thing (confirmed by personal experience and government officials, but soften the blow by praising their home country)
2. Plants a thought that maybe those crazy conspiracy theorists at least have a bit of legitimacy to their complaints and that government corruption is real.
Hey, I'm speaking at the June 28 VRBPAC meeting. Any chance you could forward me a copy of the recent FOIA you got back from the CDC for use on one of the slides? If it's not doable by tomorrow morning don't worry about it; the slide deck is due tomorrow afternoon. Sorry for the short notice (they just got back to us yesterday)
Hi Mike, cool! The pdfs of all the documents are at the bottom of my post about it: https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/new-foia-release-shows-cdc-lied-about
Let me know if that doesn't work for you for some reason.
Also see my remarks to another VRBPAC meeting on boosters. They want to treat them like flu vaccines -- they're not! They want to create an endless cycle of boosters without any clinical evidence of efficacy or safety. It's nuts!
https://rumble.com/v1464tl-may-10-2022.html
Thank you!!!
If it's at all possible, my email is friendoftheunderdog@gmail.com
Thanks David. I have tried to do that too - opening with a comment like “we’re on the same side - I just want people to be healthy and safe” or something similar. I also try very hard to make my questions less direct and more gently probing but it really does go against my nature as I’m a lawyer and we’re trained to be direct and get to the point quickly! But I am practising what you suggested in your video with Dr Tess Lawrie and finding people are more willing to at least engage in a conversation with me if I don’t just barrage them with a load of what I think is totally obvious, compelling and damning data which was my previous entirely unsuccessful approach! Having watched your video with Tess I now completely understand why that would never work!
How wonderful if the medical fascists had tried this gentle, non-threatening approach instead of bribery, shaming, coercion, punishment, fines, and calls for imprisonment. I am too angry to lead the sheep to the water of truth without wanting to drown them in it.
'Reaching across the divide' is a great thing.
I don't really see that - what I see is a desire to be seen as correct, even more than to convince others. Every attempt to reach others has to begin with listening to the other person. Are you really up for that?
Oh wow, thank you. I can't say I'll wade through all the available vids on thst site,but I'm always grateful for provided ways for positive growth.
My stack if 'Stacks is making me selectively edit who geys attention on what dday... and this is a attention worthy time-sink.