It helps in such a discussion to move beyond the surface fear to get to the root fear and then make an affirmative argument instead of a negative one.

In this particular case, the truth of the matter is that you really do have to trust strangers to be kind instead of randomly malicious. Instead of making an argument that the fear is unfounded, it would be more effective to make a case affirming the fearful person's trust in their community.

I find the same attitude has now permiated American politics. You can say something as neutral as, "I'm very cautious of getting riled up by overblown narratives that lack factual evidence or are presented in an obviously inflammatory manner" and suddenly you're the anti-Christ.

Right, the second you are skeptical of their “source” you are the enemy. No room for doubt.

I find that generally it helps, counterintuitively, to start with what the DBT[1] literature calls "validation" - reassuring the person that their fear makes perfect sense in light of their priors.

You can call this "affirming the emotional truth of what they're saying" if you want, and -- here's a part that took me years to learn -- you can do it without being dishonest.

For example, dialog between Them (T) / You (Y):

T: I don't think I'll let my kids trick or treat this year, what with all these sickos putting razor blades in chocolate bars, and weed in gummy bears, and did you hear about those AIDS-infected needles being left in coin return slots? There's all this danger around, it's just so awful, what a horrible place this world is, I mean what kind of person poisons children? [etc for 5 more minutes]

Y: Yeah definitely, I see what you mean - there are so many really crazy and evil people in the world. I mean with these shootings, and bombings, it's like we never get a minute to just rest and not be scared of something!

T: Right, exactly!

Y: I'm trying to remember though, what was the halloween candy thing? I mean I thought I heard something in the 80s about that but it went away, or was a hoax or something. Did something happen last year?

T: Well I can't remember but I mean the news was just saying a minute ago to look out for marijuana-laced gummy bears

Y: Yeah, weed candy would be pretty bad. I tried edibles once and got pretty fucked up, I mean, it wasn't really a pleasant experience. But then, some people really seem to like it. .... wait a minute, drugs are expensive. who wastes them on random kids? ... Did the newssay they found some somewhere, or just that it was a thing that could theoretically happen?

T:

Y: And the other "scary candy" stuff - do you know ifthere are any stats on how often this happens? I mean I 'm sure somebody did it at some point, because people are insane, right, but considering the way idiots drive, I wouldn't be surprised if kids have a higher chance of getting picked off by a bad driver, than killer candy. Which is scary too of course, but I mean, we're already living with that, and don't keep them inside.

Actually come to think of it ... I can't think of a single case I've ever heard of where an actual specific kid got hurt from poisoned candy. Maybe there are a bunch of em but it's kind of weird that we wouldn't have at least some detail - was it a boy or a girl, where in the country, how old etc? I mean it would have to be all over the news if it happened, so I wonder if this is just one of those cases where the media likes to scare the shit out of everyone all the time to get attention?

T: I don't know, it still seems dangers

Y: Yeah, I mean, we should all take reasonable precautions in the world and stuff, but ... tell you what, let's google for reports of poisoned candy from last year and if it's really low, then figure we probably have better odds than from bad drivers, and let the kids have their fun?

T: ok

[off to google you go, snopes is first-ish hit followed by other less entry-level but more-authoritative sources, and pretty soon they're coming around]

===

It certainly doesn't work that way every time, or even most times, but it can. And this has applications far beyond halloween candy. (Dungeons and Dragons. Immigration. Drug legalization. Rock music. Video games.) The person probably isn't insane; they probably heard a bunch of scary stuff, and got scared. Telling them "don't be scared" isn't going to help, but joining them on their side of the fence, then guiding toward a different outcome (which may not change their initial thought much but may help them change their behavior, which gives them more data on safety/etc with which to update their mental model for future use) can be pretty effective.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_behavior_therapy -- Though DBT was developed to treat BPD (see link for more), the recommendations for learning/teaching emotional coping skills seem to generalize well to many other kinds of emotional reactions that seem disproportionate to a given stimulus.

I’m not saying that line of argument won’t work, but it’s certainly not one I would take with a friend or acquaintance since you’re effectively lying. I guess you could call it “tact” or “rhetoric,” but I find your suggested opening lines very slimy and dishonest.

How is it lying? They are acknowledging the emotional trigger of the situation without agreeing that it is rational. Sounds to me like exactly how one should approach a disagreement of irrational nature.

Would you mind suggesting an alternative opener, that would also work, that isn’t “slimy”?

It’s explicitly deliberately choosing your words to manipulate the other person, even if technically you’re not saying anything untrue. Perhaps “deceptive” is a better description than “lying.”

It's not deceptive at all -- and if it makes you feel better, it still works if you explicitly declare (preferably at a different time so as not to exacerbate their emotionally-triggered state) that you plan to use this technique.

You aren't saying "you're right to feel this way given the state of the world." You are saying "you're right to feel this way, given your specific priors." (And then, now that you are On Their Side, you go on to help them reevaluate the priors.)

The natural instinct for many of us is to start by disproving the other person's priors in order to demonstrate that their anxiety is unnecessary in hopes of reducing it. What I'm saying is that if you start by validating the emotional experience given their priors, you give their brain the space to back off from its fight-or-flight state and get into a position where it's capable of listening to your rational argument about why the alleged risk is likely overblown.

You don't have to sacrifice any truth value in doing this (instead of saying: "you're wrong to feel this way because your assumption is wrong", you are effectively saying "you are right to feel this way given your assumptions ... but btw, have you taken a hard look at those assumptions lately? Let's do that."). You're also framing it in a much more collaborative way - not "you are wrong and I will prove it and WIN", but "look our mutual goal is figuring out what Reality looks like, so let me stand over here with you and let's look at it together and try to figure out what we can see."

I'm making this point again because I myself struggled for years with this concept. I care about truth; honesty is important, etc. But if your goal is to get more people to see Reality As It Is, consider a strategy that starts by getting their mind into a more rational state, rather than assuming that state already exists.

I understand your sentiment, however, I disagree. Acknowledging differing perspectives to your own is something that is beneficial to discussion and mutual understanding.

My wife and I just went through our first session of counseling. The first instructions we received were to begin doing exactly this - before sharing our opinion or feelings, first acknowledge the feelings or statement of the other person, making sure that they feel heard.

Sure, sociopaths can use a similar tactic to manipulate others. Intent matters here.

Have you happened to speak to someone before and felt like they didn't actually listen to you?