When you’re exposed to a viewpoint you dislike, or that threatens your own, then—and without any conscious deliberation—you’re likely to attack it. Even though it’s virtually impossible that such an attack will resolve anything, it may nonetheless be in your genes to transition into fighting mode. That reaction, however, is likely only to intensify an attitude that’s turned belligerent.
On the other hand, if, while still maintaining allegiance to your contrary perspective, you’re able to validate the other person’s viewpoint (i.e., from their point of view, not yours), you’ll maximize the possibility that they’ll take your opposing viewpoint more seriously than they would otherwise.
The difference is between reacting and responding: one is automatic and reflexive, while the other is much more thoughtful and reflective. And the more thought you put into your rejoinder, the more reasonable it will be taken by its receiver.
This may be no more than Communication 101. Still, when strong feelings are involved, you may struggle not to contentiously resist what, after all, is making you uncomfortable. And if so, this is where you’ll react not strategically but emotionally—hardly a winning formula for getting your points through to a disagreeing other.
If you think of this in terms of old brain/new brain, you’ll realize that your (inherited) old brain is incapable of accurately processing messages you’ve given negative connotations to. Only your more recently developed new brain can grasp the ambiguities or complexities commonly embodied in messages that are both delivered and received daily.
So if you want—and who doesn’t—to exert maximum influence on another’s (contrasting) position, you’ll first need them to, paradoxically, feel an alliance with you. That doesn’t necessitate your actually agreeing with them, but only letting them know that you can understand where they’re coming from and, too, perceive it as valid.
Most people more or less assume that supporting another’s point of view can’t happen independent of concurring with it. Yet it’s imperative to underscore that such support is viable regardless of whether genuine agreement is possible.
It should also be noted that attacking another inevitably defines them as your enemy, and in all probability they’ll return the favor.
Contrariwise, congenially offering them knowledge they may be lacking implies that you’re regarding them in a friendly manner. Or, at the very least, your response will remove you from enemy status to a more cordial ”frenemy” one.