Facts do not win arguments.

Understanding and empathy win arguments.

This is going to be a bit of a discussion, so bear with me.

1/n https://twitter.com/CDNEnergyCentre/status/1260573370216861705

Let's say there is a definitive truth that we can call a fact. Already that is a big assumption. Definitive truth is hard to find. Things like CO2 emissions, environmental progress are more like factual concepts that require context to evaluate.

2/n

For example, you emit 709 kg of CO2/ barrel is that bad or good?

It requires context.

Obviously, who provides that context will influence the outcome or direction of the conversation.

3/n https://www.pembina.org/blog/real-ghg-trend-oilsands

Perhaps another type of fact is one that suggests priorities.

eg: Oil and Gas employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians and is a huge provider of taxation income for governments.

That is true.

4/n

But if your values are pro-environment, you may say "you cannot put the jobs before the environment."

Dear oil industry, this person's priorities are different than yours. Not wrong. Not misguided. Just different.

5/n

This is ultimately about values.

My values are different than yours. Everyone has a different value profile.

So if mine are different than yours, how can I communicate with you?

6/n

To be heard, to change minds the communicator MUST adapt the audiences value position.

Successful communications are about the audience, not the communicator.

Why does the @CDNEnergyCentre consistently fail in its' communications?

7/n

Because it serves to promote the Governments point of view, not the audience.

Sure, some people like the message. We call them the 6's and 7's. Others hate it - the 1's and 2's. But mostly it fails to land with the primary audience - 3's 4's and 5's.

8/n

This is a twitter thread and not a book, so unpacking all the ideas here is impossible.

But here are two take-aways:

1. The audience matters more than the communicator.
2. Facts don't change minds.

fin
9/9