Convincing the Inconvincible

Guy Kawasaki will devote one of his “Remarkable People” upcoming podcasts to the question: “How do you convince the anti-vaxxers to get a vaccine?”. Guy is inviting a set of 10 or so behavioral or perceptual change experts to provide their opinions and debate the question at a time when the nation needs a high rate of vaccine participation for it to operate safely again.

So, it got me thinking, how do you convince people with set positions to change their minds? More difficult, how do you convince them when they ignore or distort facts that do not align with their current position? 

My argument draws from two books.

George Lakoff’s book, Don’t Think of an Elephant, posited that “you are wrong” facts and logic is not an effective route to persuasion because the issue is not who wins the argument, but, rather, who frames the argument. Is the argument about infrastructure investment or tax relief, vaccine risk or the virus experience? When one frame wins, the argument is over. Facts and logic will then seldom change anything. The challenge is to only talk about the right frame using the right symbols and language. And if the frame is wrong, change the frame, do not try to argue within the wrong frame.

My own book, Creating Signature Stories, observes that facts and logic rarely win because they are ignored or precipitate skepticism and counter-arguing. Signature stories breakthrough and distract from counter-arguing. They make the point indirectly and have a “Wow” reaction.  If your argument is presented in the context of or motivated by a powerful signature story, it will, as hundreds of studies have shown, have more success at opening minds.

My take on convincing anti-vaxxers

Do not argue about the safety of the vaccine. Lakoff would say that such an argument only reinforces the wrong frame. Instead, I would put forward a new frame around the virus experience. Dial-up the outcomes connected to the virus. Tell the story of the tragic experience of losing a loved one from a distance or a real person living with debilitating long-term effects of the disease. That is the frame in which the anti-vaxxers will be comfortable.

And I would communicate this with powerful, personal stories that dramatically show the unbearable grief over a virus-caused death or the destructive effect of lingering symptoms. These stories should be graphic, emotional, personal and memorable. They would create or reinforce the right frame.

We have been here before when there was institutional and personal denial about the level of risk associated with smoking. But when the tobacco industry was confronted with dramatic, personal stories about the end game for those that got tobacco-caused illnesses, some of the current or potential smokers listened. Many dozens of studies showed that these stories did get meaningful groups of people, including teens, to stop smoking or to avoid starting.

Let’s get people to start listening to stories again.