In an era of “zombie lies” and weaponized misinformation, arguing harder is not making anyone more reasonable. Behavioral scientists are instead pointing to a quieter skill: changing minds without ever uttering the words “I disagree.” At the center of that shift is a simple conversational move that reframes disagreement as curiosity rather than combat.
Instead of meeting a claim head on, the approach invites people to feel heard, then gently explores alternatives. It is less about winning a point and more about keeping the relationship, and the evidence, in the same room long enough for someone to reconsider.
Why a behavioral scientist says to never start with “I disagree”
Harvard professor Alison Wood Brooks has been studying how people navigate tough conversations in a climate saturated with misinformation and what she calls “zombie lies,” the claims that refuse to die even after they have been debunked. Her core advice is disarmingly simple: at the onset of a tense exchange, do not lead with open conflict. Instead of announcing that someone is wrong, she recommends language that validates the other person’s experience and signals genuine interest, a shift that can be especially powerful when those “zombie lies” are driving the discussion, as she explains in a widely shared interview with misinformation.
Alison Wood Brooks suggests swapping “I disagree” for phrases like “I am so fascinated, and it makes sense that you might feel that way. I wonder if…” which keep the door open rather than slamming it shut. That small linguistic pivot, highlighted in a conversation with host Jan, turns a potential clash into a joint investigation, and it is designed to lower defensiveness before any facts are introduced, as the same exchange with Jan makes clear.
The science of feeling heard before you are persuaded
What Alison Wood Brooks is doing with that script lines up with a broader body of persuasion research that starts with accurate restatement of the other side. Communication scholars often point to Use Rapoport Rules, a set of guidelines that begin with an Attempt to re-express your counterpart’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that they respond, “Tha is exactly what I meant.” That first step, described in detail in a breakdown of Use Rapoport Rules, is not about conceding the argument, it is about proving you understand it.
When people feel accurately mirrored, they are more willing to entertain the possibility that they might be missing something. A longer exploration of how to change someone’s mind distills this into six research-backed habits, again starting with that same Attempt to summarize the other person’s view before offering any critique, a sequence that is laid out in detail in a guide to changing someone’s mind. The “never disagree” move from Alison Wood Brooks is essentially a conversational shortcut to that first step, signaling respect and curiosity so that any later challenge lands on more receptive ground.
Empathy, not pressure, as the engine of persuasion
Pressure is the reflex most of us reach for when we care deeply about an issue, but it is also one of the fastest ways to harden the very beliefs we are trying to soften. In a short explainer on how to help someone change their mind without the pressure, a creator named Jan spells out that overt pushing almost always results in resistance, and instead recommends questions that invite reflection rather than compliance, a distinction she underlines in a widely shared video.
Psychologists echo that advice with a simple instruction: Practice empathy. Whatever the other person shares, it is crucial to listen non-judgmentally and with empathy, as psychologist David M. emphasizes in guidance on navigating tough conversations, noting that research in Psychological Science finds that people are more open to influence when they feel understood rather than evaluated, a point he makes in a detailed discussion of how to Practice empathy.
How to disagree without invalidating: lessons from kids and conflict pros
Persuasion research on children offers a surprisingly sharp template for adult disagreements. In work highlighted by social scientist Jonah Berger, one experiment found that using a single word shift, turning a behavior into an identity, made children 30 percent more likely to cooperate. Building on that, Berger outlines Three steps to disagreeing with someone without invalidating them, starting with the reminder that You do not need to be certain, and that Even if you are right, acting like a prosecutor tends to backfire, a sequence he unpacks in a piece on Three steps.
Conflict specialists in the workplace echo that stance, but with a focus on perspective-taking. In a reflection on learning to manage conflict, one practitioner writes that it is about entering someone’s world, seeing through their eyes and making a case in terms of what they care about, rather than what feels most compelling to you, a shift he describes in a post about entering someone’s world. That is the same logic behind Alison Wood Brooks’s “I am so fascinated” opener: you are stepping into the other person’s frame before inviting them to step into yours.
Putting the “never disagree” hack to work in real conversations
To translate all of this into daily life, I start by noticing the moment my body wants to blurt out “That is wrong.” Instead, I borrow Alison Wood Brooks’s structure and say something like, “I am so fascinated by how you see this, and it makes sense that you might feel that way. I wonder if you have seen…” and then introduce a story, a data point or a personal example. That phrasing, which she models in her conversation with Jan, lets me share a different view without triggering the reflexive need to defend.
From there, I layer in the rest of the research: I try to Use Rapoport Rules by starting with an Attempt to restate their view until they say “Tha is what I mean,” a habit drawn from the same analysis of Use Rapoport Rules. I remind myself that one of the most challenging parts of persuasion is resisting the urge to correct at the onset of the conversation, a trap Alison Wood Brooks flags in her discussion of challenging conversations. I focus on Practice empathy, as David M. advises in his guidance on how to Practice empathy, and I keep Jan’s reminder that pressure almost always results in resistance in mind, a point she drives home in her short clip. Finally, I try to remember Jonah Berger’s Three steps so that You do not need to be certain, and that Even if you are right, the fastest way to change a mind is often to stop arguing and start listening, a lesson he distills in his piece on Three steps to disagreement without invalidation.
More from Morning Overview