The unconventional strategy of "extreme agreement" is a fascinating psychological tactic in conversations and debates, particularly effective in discussions with individuals holding radical views. This strategy involves not just agreeing with another's viewpoint, but asking probing questions that encourage them to explain the practical implementation of their ideas. For instance, rather than challenging a radical political idea upfront, asking the proponent "how" they would realistically execute their plan shifts the burden of proof onto them. This approach softens their stance by nudging them to consider the logistical, practical, and potentially massive implications of their proposed changes.
When you ask someone "how" instead of "why," it moves the conversation from abstract beliefs or desires to tangible, often complicated actions. This subtle shift can lead to a more moderated dialogue because it forces the person to transition from a possibly impassioned ideological position to think about real-world mechanics and consequences. For example, if someone advocates for a drastic reform like abolishing the police, asking "how exactly would we ensure public safety in your proposed scenario?" invites them to contemplate all the complexities involved in implementing such a sweeping change.
This method benefits the overall dialogue by reducing the emotional heat and encouraging a more analytical perspective. It can lead proponents of radical views to either reconsider the feasibility of their ideas or to think more deeply about step-by-step implementations, which often softens their initial stance. By engaging in this level of detailed inquiry, the conversation can become more constructive rather than confrontational. This not only fosters a deeper understanding but might also lead to discovering viable alternatives that address the underlying concerns without extreme alterations to the status quo.
Using "extreme agreement" effectively requires a genuine curiosity and an open mind. The goal is not to trap or embarrass someone, but rather to engage in a meaningful exploration of their ideas. When done respectfully, this approach can bridge divides and generate more nuanced discussions about contentious issues, ultimately leading to more thoughtful and balanced discourse.
