I think the script for that one needs two parts for it to work. The first is this-problem-specific and is conveying the belief that “People don’t automatically have access to their motives, and it’s super easy for one to confabulate their motives.” I’ve got a feeling that to really get someone to understand that point would require at least some reading on the topic. Actually, you might need to pair this one with a tangent explaining this idea.
The second ingrediant seems to be a more generic one, and it’s establishing the rule that “Us disagreeing with each other doesn’t mean we have to be on opposite teams.”
That second one is probably the more important part when interacting with a semi-stranger.
I think the script for that one needs two parts for it to work. The first is this-problem-specific and is conveying the belief that “People don’t automatically have access to their motives, and it’s super easy for one to confabulate their motives.” I’ve got a feeling that to really get someone to understand that point would require at least some reading on the topic. Actually, you might need to pair this one with a tangent explaining this idea.
The second ingrediant seems to be a more generic one, and it’s establishing the rule that “Us disagreeing with each other doesn’t mean we have to be on opposite teams.”
That second one is probably the more important part when interacting with a semi-stranger.