The simple trick to change other people's minds
People will be far more open-minded than you realise if you adopt these simple conversational techniques.
"The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement," claimed the philosopher Karl Popper. He was writing about the dangers of dogma in science – but his words could equally apply to anyone's worldview. And if you want a disagreement to end by changing someone's mind, you have to do it in the right way.
As I found in my recent book on social connection, new psychological research can help us to have more constructive conversations about controversial issues.
Some of the strategies surprised me. While some social media users are keen to remind us that "facts don't care about your feelings", studies suggest that people are considerably more likely to listen to our arguments if we talk about our personal experiences of the issues under discussion.
Be curious
One of the main drivers of serious disagreement was apparent in the recent Friendship Study, which comprised a questionnaire I devised with psychologist Ian MacRae, offered to BBC.com readers in July and August of last year.
In one section, participants were asked to imagine a discussion with someone who disagreed with them about certain political or social issues. Afterwards, each participant was asked about their intentions – whether they aimed to persuade the other person, learn from them, or argue with them – and also their impression of the other person's intentions. Overall, the 1,912 participants overestimated how much other people wanted to persuade them of their point of view, and how much they were looking for an argument. At the same time, they underestimated how much the other person wanted to learn and understand the different opinions.
This is worth remembering whenever we find ourselves in a conflict: the other person may be more open to a good-faith discussion than we think, and we should treat them with the respect that entails.
Given that our conversation partner might underestimate our curiosity about their views, we should also make more effort to express our interest in their views. By demonstrating our good intentions to learn and understand, we will encourage them to lower their defences so that they are more open to an honest exchange of ideas.
Often it is as simple as asking the right question. In the late 2000s, Frances Chen and colleagues at Stanford University invited students to engage in an online debate about whether the university should introduce a new set of exams. Unsurprisingly, many students were dead set against the idea. Crucially, they thought they were chatting to their peers, but their debating partners were really the experimenters themselves – who followed very rigid scripts that varied depending on whether the participant was in the experimental group or the control group.
While exchanging opinions, you shouldn't be afraid of sharing your first-hand experience of the issue at hand; indeed, it may just strengthen your argument
In half of the conversations, the experimenters asked the students to elaborate on their views. For example, they might listen to a student's argument and respond: "I was interested in what you're saying. Can you tell me more about how come you think that?" For the other trials, the conversation did not include any request for more information on the participants' beliefs.
It was a tiny change in the script, but the addition of the single question changed the whole tone of the debate by provoking a considerably more open-minded response from the participants. They were more willing to continue the conversation and to receive further information on the other person's arguments, for instance.
We might be a little sceptical of the results from a single experiment, but Guy Itzchakov at the University of Haifa in Israel and his colleagues came to very similar conclusions in a series of studies involving hundreds of participants. Actively asking questions about people's beliefs and the reasons they hold those views leads them to lower their defences, so that they are considerably more receptive to alternative opinions.
After these kinds of conversations, participants were considerably more likely to agree with statements such as "I feel that I ought to re-evaluate the event now, after the conversation" – suggesting that they had become more thoughtful about the issues that they had discussed.
Get personal
While exchanging opinions, you shouldn't be afraid of sharing your first-hand experience of the issue at hand; indeed, it may just strengthen your argument.
This fact does not seem to be widely recognised. When Emily Kubin at the University of North Carolina and colleagues asked 251 participants to describe the best ways to present their opinion on an issue such as same-sex marriage or abortion, 56% chose the presentation of facts and evidence, while just 21% selected the expression of personal experience.
We saw similar patterns within our Friendship Study. When we asked people to rate seven persuasion strategies, "civility" was number one, followed by "logic and reason". "Personal experience" came in at number five.
Kubin's experiments, however, suggest that it can be a potent tool of persuasion. Her team asked 177 participants to read about three people's opinions on topics like taxation, coal mining or gun control, before rating their respect for each person, and that person's rationality. No matter what their initial stance, the participants gave considerably higher ratings if they knew that the person had personal experience of the issue at hand.
Reading short texts online may seem a far cry from real-life encounters, but Kubin has also tested the principle in face-to-face dialogues on gun control, using a further sample of 153 local people who lived near the university. Once again, someone using a personal experience to portray their views commanded more respect from their conversation partner and was perceived to be more rational in their views.
There are, of course, good reasons to be wary of purely subjective accounts if they are not accompanied by any statistics, and an overreliance on an emotional appeal could raise the other person's suspicions. But the two approaches do not have to be mutually exclusive, and your point of view may be better received if you combine the two.
By demonstrating genuine curiosity, sharing your personal experiences, and maintaining a civil attitude, you may be surprised by your potential to connect – and gain a wiser worldview in the process
Consider a recent examination of the 2018 midterm elections demonstrated. The study measured the progress of 230 canvassers, conversing on a range of political issues with 6,869 voters across seven US locations. Some were asked to make their case using purely statistical arguments – concerning, for instance, the common fear that immigration increases crime – while others were asked to exchange personal stories, in addition to presenting factual evidence.
More like this:
• Friendship in divided times: People don't want to argue with you as much as you think
• Why do I feel so lonely even though I'm surrounded by people?
• Seven ways to improve your sleep according to science
Each of the voters took opinion polls before and after they met the canvassers. The researchers found that the mutually respectful exchange of experiences was more likely to shift opinion than conversations that focused more on impersonal facts and statistics.
While the overall effects were small – resulting in a five-percentage-point shift in views on immigration, for example – this should be taken in context. On average, the conversations lasted just 11 minutes in total, yet a significant number of people started to change strongly held views.
Listen and learn
Throughout your conversations, you should make sure that you maintain a basic level of civility – not only to your discussion partner, but also when you are talking about anyone else who may be involved in the debate, including public figures.
Research by Jeremy Frimer at the University of Winnipeg and Linda Skitka at the University of Illinois at Chicago has shown that rude behaviour is far more likely to alienate the person you wish to persuade than change their opinion, and it may even disaffect people who were already coming around to your point of view. They describe this as the Montagu Principle, named after the 18th-Century English aristocrat Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who declared that "civility costs nothing and buys everything".
By demonstrating genuine curiosity, sharing your personal experiences, and maintaining a civil attitude, you may be surprised by your potential to connect – and gain a wiser worldview in the process.
* David Robson is an award-winning science writer and author. His latest book, The Laws of Connection: 13 Social Strategies That Will Transform Your Life, was published by Canongate (UK) and Pegasus Books (USA & Canada) in June 2024. He is @davidarobson on Instagram and Threads and writes the 60-Second Psychology newsletter on Substack.
--
If you liked this story, sign up for The Essential List newsletter – a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week.
For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
23-05-2025
- The Sun
Psychologist reveals how to walk in, sit and what to say in ANY job interview… and 4-second rule for a big advantage
I THINK we can all agree - job interviews are nerve-wracking. Psychologist Ian MacRae tells The Sun exactly how to walk in, sit down, and the golden words to say in any interview. 3 Because - as the UK's job market continues to weaken and wages remain stagnant - it's never felt more important to nail that first impression. How to walk in "Be confident when you enter, and when you are speaking - but don't be overconfident or aggressive when the other person is speaking," says MacRae, a member of the British Psychological Society. "Aim to be confident in your own approach and your own answers without dominating the conversation." While humbleness is generally considered a good quality - and is absolutely necessary in some jobs, such as caring roles - it's not a good idea to talk down your achievements. "False humility is rarely well received," explains MacRae. "If you're talking about your accomplishments, be confident about them." There is a balance to be struck between being confident and warm. Confidence can easily be mistaken for cockiness if it's overdone, according to MacRae. "Research shows both confidence and warmth significantly improve social perceptions, so don't overdo the confidence so much that you fail to listen to the other person, or respond to them respectfully," he says. "Show that you're confident you can do the job, but that you're receptive to learning." Anger is a natural response to seeing an ex move on and have a baby, says tv psychologist 3 How you should sit Now you might not think you need tips on something as simple as sitting in a chair - but posture is important. According to MacRae, "it influences both how you are seen and how you feel". To really give off the best impression, MacRae suggests relaxing your shoulders, keeping your feet grounded and your hands visible. Try not to hunch forward. With your hands visible, you may be less likely to fidget. If you tend to fidget, don't take along props that you are more likely to fidget with. Ian MacRaePsychologist Most people fidget, especially when they're nervous. But "pronounced, loud and exaggerated" fidgeting can be a distraction to an interviewer, according to MacRae. "If you tend to fidget, don't take along props that you are more likely to fidget with," he says. "The last thing you want to be doing is spinning around a vape pen or constantly checking a mobile phone during an interview - this goes for remote interviews too. "If you tend to fidget, be very careful what you place around you on the desk. If your hands need to be busy, take notes." MacRae also suggests modelling your posture on whoever is interviewing you - without being an obvious copycat, of course. "Generally, when you are attentive to the other person's body language, you naturally mimic it to a certain degree," he says. "So don't consciously try to mirror their actions but pay attention to their posture, facial expressions and body language to pick up more clues and context about the questions they are asking." 3 The advert trick Now nobody can tell you what to say to win over an interviewer - not even ChatGPT. But there are some golden phrases you can use, quietly given to you by the hiring company through the form of a job advert. "Good job adverts - not all adverts - will give you some important clues and keywords about what matters," explains MacRae. "Learn the keywords and what they are often code for." Though preparation goes a long way in an interview. The best thing you can do is to demonstrate that you understand what's required for the role, what kind of challenges there will be, and that you have the capacity to solve those problems. As MacRae notes, there is no "set of magic words" that is going to secure you a job offer. But preparing some general talking points and questions relevant to the job will put you in better stead. "The best thing you can do is to demonstrate that you understand what's required for the role, what kind of challenges there will be, and that you have the capacity to solve those problems," MacRae adds. "Asking questions that demonstrate you understand what is required in the role can really help." These days, people have to go through multiple rounds of interviews to land a job offer. Another tip up MacRae's sleeve is to ask the recruiter what the next interviewer is looking for. "They'll often tell you," he says. "And that can really help you prepare. Write down what they tell you." MacRae continues: "If they can't or won't tell you, that's also an important piece of information if they don't really know what they're looking for." Try to practice common interview questions with a friend or family member to make any surprise questions feel less intimidating. The 4-second rule It's the big day - you've done all the preparation you can, all you need to do now is walk into the job interview and shine. But those pesky nerves creep in, and you're afraid your mind might go blank at a crucial moment. According to MacRae, mental prep helps just as much as prior notetaking about the role. He suggests a simple four-second rule that can help "reset your system" by quickly slowing your heart rate and lowering your cortisol - the stress hormone. "There is strong evidence that techniques like box breathing works, in for 4, hold for 4, out for 4, hold for 4," says MacRae. "Just a few rounds before the interview can help you relax." If you want this technique to be really effective - it's best to start practising it now. "The more you practise calming techniques before you need them, the easier they are to activate under pressure," MacRae explains.
The Independent
10-04-2025
- The Independent
Essentialism: how the disciplined pursuit of less changed my life
As a society we're busier and more overwhelmed than ever. According to Mental Health UK's 2025 burnout report, 91 per cent of adults have experienced high levels of stress in the last year. Seemingly less of a priority though, is asking ourselves why we continue to pile unsustainable pressure on the way we live our daily lives. Particularly when the outcomes are generally more detrimental to our physical and mental health than positive. It was a question I was forced to ask myself, after years of negative behavioural patterns affected my own ability to make any real dent in the game of life. The answer eventually led me to essentialism – a guiding set of 'less is more' type principles that have had a profoundly positive impact on the way I choose to live. What is Essentialism? The roots of essentialism can be traced back to Ancient Greece. It was however, a far more recent version of the philosophy that gripped my attention. Originally published in 2014, with an updated planner edition released last November, Greg McKeown 's book Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less encourages us to minimise the external noise in life and focus on what truly matters by following three core principles. Explore: identify what is most important to you, aligning with your goals and values. Eliminate: cut out distractions and say 'no' to tasks that don't align with your priorities. Execute: focus your efforts on the vital few tasks, making them easier to achieve by creating systems and routines. McKeown's modernised concept of essentialism grew out of his Stanford University course – Designing Life, Essentially. Today, he teaches business leaders around the world the principles of living with less. I discovered his books and online content after a therapist recommended them to me – more on that later. Similarly to following the tenets of minimalism, living the life of an essentialist is fixed around the simple and disciplined pursuit of less. It's an informed choice that has greatly enhanced the quality of my own life – a life that was entirely structureless and undisciplined when I first discovered essentialism. In my early thirties, the battle between my true inner self and the reality of the life I was living had hit a resounding stalemate. From flip-flopping between jobs with no real career path, to extended periods of unemployment, I moved back and forth from pokey, overpriced London flat shares to the spare bedroom (or sofa) of my old man's council flat more times than I care to remember. Then of course there was the regular 'recreational' drug use, followed by the post-weekend comedown to put any thoughts of self-starting on the back burner. It hadn't always been like that. As a once bright-eyed teenager obsessed with music and writing, the pursuit of a wholesome, creative life was my only goal. In many ways, I'd already nailed how to live a meaningful existence by the ripe old age of sixteen. Fellow minimalists and essentialists would have been proud. But when my first proper relationship, and my band of five years broke up the same week I graduated my English degree, I vividly remember feeling heartbroken. And that being skint and ancient at twenty three meant I had better bite the bullet and get a proper job. Any kind of job. Looking back now, it's clear this was a traumatic period for me and thus a pivotal moment in the trajectory of the next chapter of my life. The problem was I'd yet to develop the mental tools to deal with such matters. So, rather than earn a living and then write or play music in the evenings like millions do around the world, I cut the cord completely on my creative self – or as McKeown would describe it, my 'essential intent'. In its place, I went out drinking four nights a week, and remained skint at the end of each month. Sure, it was my twenties and it wasn't all doom and gloom. Sandwiched between the financial uncertainty and growing dread about the future, were some genuinely great times and life-affirming experiences. But underneath it all, I was moving further away from the person I really was. To compensate for this, I'd keep myself busy doing all sorts of different jobs and extra-curricular activities – most of which I never had any great interest in and so remained uncommitted. Why we overwhelm and distract ourselves Mindfulness expert and Associate Fellow at the University of Oxford Megan Reitz, explains that, 'the constant pursuit of doing and getting things done, without the guidance of spacious attention, leads to a lack of insight into what we should be doing in the first place.' Reitz's concept of 'spaciousness' goes some way to explain why we overcompensate and overload ourselves and why by McKeown's simple rules and stripped back approach, I was able to feel lighter, more focussed and more like my true self. 'The risk is that we end up being 'busy fools' because our brain's default network – the narrative network – goes into overdrive, focusing narrowly on threats, control, and prediction.' says Reitz. 'The 'doing' mode isn't wrong – we wouldn't survive without it. The problem arises when we solely rely on it. This leaves us unable to access the 'spacious' mode, which is where we gain insights and possibilities.' The gold medal winner of my own type of 'keep busy' behaviour was the three or four years I half-dedicated to stand-up comedy. Looking back, this was clearly me trying to access some kind of middle ground between pushing myself to do something creative, while still not having the courage to get back to my true passion of writing and making music. It all came to a head at the Edinburgh Festival in 2017. After clearing out an entire room of people four nights in a row in the profusely hot basement of an Edinburgh nightclub – I woke up the next morning to discover I'd also lost my wallet. Whatever rock bottom is, I'd hit my version of it. Driving back down the A1 at the end of that August, somewhere underneath the desire to crawl into a hole and never come out again surfaced that golden nugget of clarity I'd previously been unwilling to face head on. My life's stagnation was entirely self-inflicted and I therefore had the wherewithal to change it. My journey to a more simplified life had begun. The 90/10 rule On my return to London I sought the expertise of a therapist. They initially proposed I may have ADHD, which didn't seem out of the question. But as we talked more about my backstory and went deeper, I also mentioned I possessed lots of physical 'stuff', none of which bore any real meaning to me. As we finished the session, the therapist recommended McKeown's book. Applying McKeown's 90/10 rule immediately helped me separate what was absolutely necessary from what was not in order to move towards living a more meaningful life. The 90/10 rule is a decision-making framework whereby you evaluate and then score any decision (or item) according to its importance to you at that time. Anything that falls below 90 per cent can be deemed not important enough to hold onto. Needless to say, most of my physical possessions were abruptly binned or sold. I also said goodbye to the not-so-successful comedy career – I think comedy was as relieved as I was. Simplicity expert Chris Lovett explains that, 'there's a natural transitionary period when decluttering. Then when you finally let go of your possessions, within 24 hours you tend to forget you even had them.' It's one thing getting rid of stuff. It's quite another to get serious about what you really want in life, and how you're going to go about achieving it. But it was in this area where my newfound essentialist mindset really delivered. In removing much of the external noise that previously surrounded me, including taking myself off social media for over four years, I was able to approach important decisions with far more clarity. Within two months of applying the 90/10 rule to my client work, I was contracted to work on a large project for a healthcare company dedicated to saving and improving people's lives everyday. I also started to write individual pieces for consultants. I was earning and saving considerably more money than I'd thought possible just a few months before and in less than 18 months I'd managed to pay off credit card debt and save enough to buy my first property, all while renting on my own in London. 'Many people I coach have never said no to work before,' explains Lovett. 'They fear questioning authority because they've been conditioned not to. But when they experiment, like declining unnecessary meetings to focus purely on high-impact work, they soon realise nothing bad happens. In fact, their work improves and they see the benefits of genuinely working smarter, not harder.' Returning to my essential intent From an essentialist standpoint, McKeown describes how being clear on your essential intent provides you with clarity and focus on attaining what you want while remaining true to yourself. Conversely, this clarity also helps you eliminate what isn't essential. Finally feeling more stable, I began paying closer attention to matters of the heart. Living in London, like most singletons I'd embraced online dating up to a point. I'd been clear for some time that once I'd gotten back on two feet professionally and financially, I wanted my next romantic relationship to be for the long-term and completely free of chaos. Five years on and I've never felt more content. My girlfriend is my best friend and I'm grateful for every day we spend with one another. The same is true for how focusing on my essential intent spurred my return to a more creative life. I'd come to realise that I'd always attached a level of monetary or outcome anxiety to my creative endeavours. That anxiety had adversely affected my ability to just enjoy the process. It was ironic that during the external madness of the Covid lockdowns, with the encouragement of my girlfriend, I started to think about recording music again. This time I felt no burden of expectation – I simply wanted to record songs and create an album I could be proud of. I've since played festivals and shows around the UK. I'm not sure that I can thank essentialism, or minimalism, for every positive turn my life has taken over the last few years. I'd imagine simply growing up and making more mature decisions has equally played its part. But one thing is undeniable. 'The disciplined pursuit of less' is a design for life that works for many and it's worked for me. In a world where the external noise gets louder by the day, I'm grateful to essentialism for helping me turn down the volume and focus on what really matters.
BBC News
27-03-2025
- BBC News
The simple trick to change other people's minds
People will be far more open-minded than you realise if you adopt these simple conversational techniques. "The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement," claimed the philosopher Karl Popper. He was writing about the dangers of dogma in science – but his words could equally apply to anyone's worldview. And if you want a disagreement to end by changing someone's mind, you have to do it in the right way. As I found in my recent book on social connection, new psychological research can help us to have more constructive conversations about controversial issues. Some of the strategies surprised me. While some social media users are keen to remind us that "facts don't care about your feelings", studies suggest that people are considerably more likely to listen to our arguments if we talk about our personal experiences of the issues under discussion. Be curious One of the main drivers of serious disagreement was apparent in the recent Friendship Study, which comprised a questionnaire I devised with psychologist Ian MacRae, offered to readers in July and August of last year. In one section, participants were asked to imagine a discussion with someone who disagreed with them about certain political or social issues. Afterwards, each participant was asked about their intentions – whether they aimed to persuade the other person, learn from them, or argue with them – and also their impression of the other person's intentions. Overall, the 1,912 participants overestimated how much other people wanted to persuade them of their point of view, and how much they were looking for an argument. At the same time, they underestimated how much the other person wanted to learn and understand the different opinions. This is worth remembering whenever we find ourselves in a conflict: the other person may be more open to a good-faith discussion than we think, and we should treat them with the respect that entails. Given that our conversation partner might underestimate our curiosity about their views, we should also make more effort to express our interest in their views. By demonstrating our good intentions to learn and understand, we will encourage them to lower their defences so that they are more open to an honest exchange of ideas. Often it is as simple as asking the right question. In the late 2000s, Frances Chen and colleagues at Stanford University invited students to engage in an online debate about whether the university should introduce a new set of exams. Unsurprisingly, many students were dead set against the idea. Crucially, they thought they were chatting to their peers, but their debating partners were really the experimenters themselves – who followed very rigid scripts that varied depending on whether the participant was in the experimental group or the control group. While exchanging opinions, you shouldn't be afraid of sharing your first-hand experience of the issue at hand; indeed, it may just strengthen your argument In half of the conversations, the experimenters asked the students to elaborate on their views. For example, they might listen to a student's argument and respond: "I was interested in what you're saying. Can you tell me more about how come you think that?" For the other trials, the conversation did not include any request for more information on the participants' beliefs. It was a tiny change in the script, but the addition of the single question changed the whole tone of the debate by provoking a considerably more open-minded response from the participants. They were more willing to continue the conversation and to receive further information on the other person's arguments, for instance. We might be a little sceptical of the results from a single experiment, but Guy Itzchakov at the University of Haifa in Israel and his colleagues came to very similar conclusions in a series of studies involving hundreds of participants. Actively asking questions about people's beliefs and the reasons they hold those views leads them to lower their defences, so that they are considerably more receptive to alternative opinions. After these kinds of conversations, participants were considerably more likely to agree with statements such as "I feel that I ought to re-evaluate the event now, after the conversation" – suggesting that they had become more thoughtful about the issues that they had discussed. Get personal While exchanging opinions, you shouldn't be afraid of sharing your first-hand experience of the issue at hand; indeed, it may just strengthen your argument. This fact does not seem to be widely recognised. When Emily Kubin at the University of North Carolina and colleagues asked 251 participants to describe the best ways to present their opinion on an issue such as same-sex marriage or abortion, 56% chose the presentation of facts and evidence, while just 21% selected the expression of personal experience. We saw similar patterns within our Friendship Study. When we asked people to rate seven persuasion strategies, "civility" was number one, followed by "logic and reason". "Personal experience" came in at number five. Kubin's experiments, however, suggest that it can be a potent tool of persuasion. Her team asked 177 participants to read about three people's opinions on topics like taxation, coal mining or gun control, before rating their respect for each person, and that person's rationality. No matter what their initial stance, the participants gave considerably higher ratings if they knew that the person had personal experience of the issue at hand. Reading short texts online may seem a far cry from real-life encounters, but Kubin has also tested the principle in face-to-face dialogues on gun control, using a further sample of 153 local people who lived near the university. Once again, someone using a personal experience to portray their views commanded more respect from their conversation partner and was perceived to be more rational in their views. There are, of course, good reasons to be wary of purely subjective accounts if they are not accompanied by any statistics, and an overreliance on an emotional appeal could raise the other person's suspicions. But the two approaches do not have to be mutually exclusive, and your point of view may be better received if you combine the two. By demonstrating genuine curiosity, sharing your personal experiences, and maintaining a civil attitude, you may be surprised by your potential to connect – and gain a wiser worldview in the process Consider a recent examination of the 2018 midterm elections demonstrated. The study measured the progress of 230 canvassers, conversing on a range of political issues with 6,869 voters across seven US locations. Some were asked to make their case using purely statistical arguments – concerning, for instance, the common fear that immigration increases crime – while others were asked to exchange personal stories, in addition to presenting factual evidence. More like this: • Friendship in divided times: People don't want to argue with you as much as you think • Why do I feel so lonely even though I'm surrounded by people? • Seven ways to improve your sleep according to science Each of the voters took opinion polls before and after they met the canvassers. The researchers found that the mutually respectful exchange of experiences was more likely to shift opinion than conversations that focused more on impersonal facts and statistics. While the overall effects were small – resulting in a five-percentage-point shift in views on immigration, for example – this should be taken in context. On average, the conversations lasted just 11 minutes in total, yet a significant number of people started to change strongly held views. Listen and learn Throughout your conversations, you should make sure that you maintain a basic level of civility – not only to your discussion partner, but also when you are talking about anyone else who may be involved in the debate, including public figures. Research by Jeremy Frimer at the University of Winnipeg and Linda Skitka at the University of Illinois at Chicago has shown that rude behaviour is far more likely to alienate the person you wish to persuade than change their opinion, and it may even disaffect people who were already coming around to your point of view. They describe this as the Montagu Principle, named after the 18th-Century English aristocrat Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who declared that "civility costs nothing and buys everything". By demonstrating genuine curiosity, sharing your personal experiences, and maintaining a civil attitude, you may be surprised by your potential to connect – and gain a wiser worldview in the process. * David Robson is an award-winning science writer and author. His latest book, The Laws of Connection: 13 Social Strategies That Will Transform Your Life, was published by Canongate (UK) and Pegasus Books (USA & Canada) in June 2024. He is @davidarobson on Instagram and Threads and writes the 60-Second Psychology newsletter on Substack. -- If you liked this story, sign up for The Essential List newsletter – a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week. For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
