I’ve often noticed that when people get very established in their viewpoints, it is hard to break them away from their established positions. Most will agree that they have one viewpoint, and it is different to the “other side” but because it is entrenched they find it hard to get away from their own thinking. In the worst of cases this degenerates into thinking the other side is “stupid” etc.

Can be used in low trust environments although does require a willingness (and consent) to play along.

Taking an idea from debating, state a specific version of the sides as a proposal, and then have the people in various positions divide into a “for” side, and an “against” side, stating that we are going to now debate these positions.

Before the debate begins, swap sides so that the “for” people are required to argue for the “against” position and vice versa. Give them a couple of minutes to prepare, and a couple of minutes to present.

Now whatever you think, what will not happen is that magically there is a moment where everyone agrees. That is not the purpose of this technique. What it will do is help people to understand at a deeper level the opposite position.

You should have an environment where you can start talking about how you might generate the objective evidence we need to make a more informed decision or set up an experiment.

• NA