You care about this person. Their opinion makes you angry.

A shared meal. A message in the family group. Suddenly someone says something you cannot let pass. And the person saying it matters to you.

Both can be true: you can care about them and firmly reject their claim.

Which claim are we arguing about?

“You are always like this” turns a claim into a judgment about an entire person. Try being specific: which statement seems wrong? Which number, generalisation or conclusion?

One possible beginning:

“This is where I disagree. Can we look at this particular claim?”

That is an invitation to talk. It is not a formula that resolves every conflict.

Understanding is not agreement

Ask what lies behind the statement. An experience? A concern? A source the other person trusts?

You do not have to find an explanation convincing to hear it out. Then you can explain what you see differently, and why. If a claim can be checked, it needs evidence. A feeling alone cannot settle it.

What personal conversations can achieve

In three US field experiments by Kalla and Broockman (2020), personal conversations reduced certain exclusionary attitudes towards unauthorised immigrants and transgender people. The tested approach combined non-judgmental conversation with the mutual sharing of personal experiences. The changes were small; in the immigration experiment they remained measurable several months later.

These were prepared one-to-one conversations. The findings cannot simply be transferred to other countries, topics or comment threads. They do not prove that a friendly question resolves every argument. The internal processes explaining the changes also remained partly uncertain.

In your own conversation, that might mean asking: “When have you felt excluded yourself?” Then actually listening. A personal story still does not settle a factual question. The specific claim needs examination afterwards. You do not have to disclose private experiences or continue a hurtful conversation to do this.

Equal dignity. Consistent standards.

My position: people deserve equal dignity. Claims deserve fair scrutiny. That does not give every position equal evidential weight.

You do not have to accept dehumanisation or threats as merely “another opinion”. You may set boundaries, take a break or end a conversation.

A question to take away

What would I need to learn to change my own mind on one point?

That question matters even when the other person does not ask it. Fairness begins with the standards we apply ourselves.

Written with support from generative AI. Editorial responsibility: Marcus Machon.