For most of my life I have been wrong. In fact, I am less certain now than at any prior point in my life that I know anything at all. This is not out of a lack of effort. Several years ago, I set out to expand my horizons by reading the Top 100 books of all time. At this point, I have read nearly half of them. As I have learned from the great writers of history, the more I have come to realize the vast extent of what I do not know.

This perspective is starkly different from the absolutism experienced in today’s world. As a people, we have become certain of so many ideas. We have become Internet experts on topics ranging from economics to ecology. We are so convinced of our expertise that we are willing to berate and belittle others who hold opposing points of view. Our opponents, being equally convicted of their beliefs, return they volley of vitriol with an escalating sense of fervency.

The hardest lesson I have learned is these arguments cannot be won by the presentation of facts. The logical form of persuasion is the weakest one. Fundamentally, these arguments are not based on disagreement over factual evidence. They are grounded in the perception of divergent identity. Presenting facts that undermine a person’s sense of self creates a cognitive dissonance that is likely to backfire. Such is the reason “fake news” has caught on like wildfire. It allows people to discount anything that opposes their core beliefs as falsehood.

So, how do you win an argument without using facts? I have struggled to answer this over the past year and have finally arrived at an answer. You don’t.

Frankly, I have been asking the wrong question the whole time. You cannot win an argument without using facts. You cannot use facts to win an argument based on identity. Therefore, arguments based on identity are unwinnable and attempts to win such arguments are futile.

Rather than asking how I can WIN, I should have been asking how can I COMPREHEND? How can I see the good intentions of the person I disagree with? How can I understand the life they live? What are the principles we both believe in? What are the deeper beliefs that have brought on this instance of disagreement?

The goal of this is not to change the other person, but to change myself. In doing so, I transform from the expert into the learner. I realize that while my facts have been right, my approach has been wrong. I switch from crafting an argument to listening for similarity. I begin to have compassion for those who disagree and begin to comprehend that my identity can coexist with theirs. I may never convince another soul of the facts I know to be true, but my soul will be uplifted by understanding the good intentions from which disagreements are born.