I wrote Coach Them Out: How to Influence Someone Out of Toxic Beliefs because arguing rarely accomplishes what we hope it will.

When people feel attacked, they defend themselves. When we corner them with facts, they search for counterarguments. When we humiliate them, they may cling even more tightly to the group that tells them they are righteous, chosen and under attack.

The better approach is usually to lower defensiveness, raise curiosity and let reality do more of the persuading. Ask open questions. Listen for contradictions. Encourage small experiments. Help people examine their beliefs without demanding that they publicly surrender their identity.

I still believe that.

But I have become increasingly convinced that there is a question we must answer before attempting any of it:

Is this person open to influence, or are they attempting to dominate me?

Those are not the same interaction.

Consider the evangelical who repeatedly tries to convert you after you have clearly said that you no longer believe. You explain your position respectfully. He treats your answer as evidence that you are confused, deceived or spiritually endangered. Every conversation becomes another invitation to church, another Bible verse or another warning about what happens to people like you.

Or consider the MAGA man whose support for Donald Trump has become fused with divine certainty. Trump is not merely the politician he prefers. He is supposedly chosen by God, protected by God and opposed primarily by evil people. Disagreement is no longer a legitimate political position. It is rebellion against the leader, the nation and perhaps God himself.

This is not an imaginary fringe phenomenon. PRRI’s 2025 American Values Atlas found that 67 percent of white evangelical Protestants held Christian-nationalist beliefs. Among people categorized as Christian-nationalist adherents, 67 percent agreed that God ordained Trump to win the presidential election.

That does not mean every evangelical is a Christian nationalist. It does not mean every Trump voter is a fascist. It does mean that the fusion of religious certainty, political loyalty and authoritarian power is substantial enough that we should stop treating every encounter as an innocent disagreement over ideas.

Sometimes you are not participating in a conversation.

You are standing in someone else’s conversion funnel.

Belief Is Not the Problem

People are entitled to strong beliefs. We all are.

They may believe Jesus is the only path to salvation. They may believe abortion is murder. They may believe Trump is a historic leader. They may believe progressives are destroying the country. The problem begins when belief becomes entitlement.

A belief says:

“I am convinced this is true.”

Domination says:

“Because I am convinced this is true, you must continue listening to me, defend yourself to me, accommodate me or live according to my conclusions.”

Belief allows disagreement.

Domination treats disagreement as insubordination. Belief offers an argument.

Domination refuses to recognize your right to end the argument.

The person may call it love, concern, patriotism, courage or obedience to God. But the label does not determine the behavior. If your clearly expressed “no” simply inspires a more aggressive sales pitch, the person is not respecting your agency.

And without respect for agency, the methods in Coach Them Out become much less useful.

When Coaching Can Work

A patient, question-driven approach remains appropriate when several basic conditions are present.

The person can tolerate a question without becoming abusive. They show some capacity for curiosity. They can acknowledge uncertainty, even briefly. They respect your right to disagree. They are not threatening your safety, livelihood, family relationships or social standing. Most importantly, the conversation is voluntary for both people.

Under those conditions, warmth before truth can be powerful.

Research on psychological reactance supports the basic principle. Highly controlling messages tend to increase the listener’s sense that freedom is being threatened, producing more anger and resistant thinking. Motivational-interviewing techniques can reduce the damaging effects of threat-based conversations by emphasizing autonomy, reflection and internally generated reasons for change.

Recent political research also gives us reason not to abandon conversation entirely. Cross-partisan conversations can reduce hostility toward political opponents, even when they do not produce agreement on the issues. Curiosity is associated with greater openness and less desire for social distance from political opponents.

But the research also adds an important caution: listening is not magic.

A 2025 field experiment involving nearly 1,500 conversations found that high-quality listening reduced defensiveness and improved how participants perceived one another, but it did not necessarily increase persuasion. The persuasive narrative itself produced the measurable attitude change.

In other words, respectful engagement may improve the conversation without changing the belief.

That is still valuable. But it means we should stop acting as though enough patience, empathy and verbal skill will inevitably rescue someone from an authoritarian worldview.

Sometimes it will not.

When Coaching Becomes Self-Abandonment

The nuanced approach is no longer the best approach when the person repeatedly demonstrates that your autonomy is irrelevant to them.

Watch for the pattern:

• They continue preaching after you have declined.
• They demand evidence from you while exempting their own claims from scrutiny.
• They treat every boundary as an objection to overcome.
• They become contemptuous when you will not submit.
• They question your morality, masculinity, intelligence or loyalty.
• They use your willingness to listen as permission to intensify.
• They are not examining their beliefs. They are practicing them on you.

At that point, further engagement may reinforce the behavior. They violate a boundary, and their reward is another thirty minutes of your attention. They provoke you, and their reward is an emotionally charged debate. They insult you, and their reward is watching you work desperately to prove that you are a decent person.

This is not influence. It is unpaid participation in their dominance ritual.

You are not obligated to remain available merely because you understand the psychology behind their behavior. Compassion does not require continuous access. Understanding why someone became authoritarian does not mean volunteering to become the surface upon which they exercise that authoritarianism.

Anger may be entirely appropriate. But as I argue in Coach Them Out, anger should not become the other person’s permanent address. It should tell you that something important has been violated. Then it should help you choose the next clean action.

Coach, Contain or Exit

A more complete version of the Coach Them Out approach needs three options.

1. Coach when there is consent

Use questions, reflection and micro-experiments when the person has demonstrated some ability to engage honestly.

You might ask:

“Is there any evidence that would cause you to question that conclusion?”

“How would you evaluate the same behavior if a Democratic president did it?”

“Do you believe religious freedom includes the freedom to reject your religion?”

“What would a false prophet look like if he told people exactly what they wanted to hear?”

The purpose is not to conceal an accusation inside a question. It is to create a moment in which the person can observe their own reasoning.

But coaching is an invitation. It is not an obligation.

2. Contain when contact is necessary

You may have a family member, neighbor, colleague or longtime friend you do not want to remove completely from your life. In that case, limit the territory available to them.

Use plain language:

“I have heard your beliefs. I do not share them, and I am not discussing my salvation with you again.”

“We can talk about our families, music or what is happening in our lives. We are not discussing Trump.”

“I am willing to have a political conversation in which both of us can question our own side. I am not willing to be lectured.”

“I am not asking you to approve of my beliefs. I am requiring you to respect my right to hold them.”

Do not spend twenty minutes justifying the boundary. Every additional explanation becomes material for another rebuttal.

State it. Repeat it once. Then act.

A boundary is not an attempt to make another person agree with you. It is a decision about what you will do when a particular behavior occurs.

“I won’t discuss this” is a preference until you end the discussion.

“If you continue, I will leave” becomes a boundary when you leave.

3. Exit when domination continues

Some relationships should become more distant. Some should end.

That is not intellectual weakness. It is not evidence that you are afraid of opposing ideas. It is recognition that the subject is no longer ideas.

If someone repeatedly refuses to honor your “no,” the question is not whether you can devise a more ingenious response. The question is why they believe they are entitled to overrule you.

Distance may be appropriate when every encounter becomes coercive, when the person becomes threatening, when disagreement leads to retaliation or when the relationship consistently leaves you feeling smaller, less safe or less free.

You do not owe unlimited opportunities to someone who uses every opportunity to violate the same boundary.

Do Not Debate Your Right to Exist Freely

Authoritarian religious and political movements often lure their opponents into debating questions that should never have been placed on the table.

Do you deserve equal citizenship if you do not share their religion? Should their theology determine your marriage, medical care or private conduct? Must you accept a leader’s abuses because his policies benefit their tribe? Are you obligated to tolerate intolerance in order to prove that you are tolerant?

You can discuss policy. You can discuss evidence. You can discuss competing moral frameworks.

You do not have to debate whether another adult has jurisdiction over your conscience.

Your freedom of religion includes freedom from their religion.

Your willingness to understand someone does not grant that person governing authority over you.

Your commitment to dialogue does not require you to pretend that domination is merely another interesting point of view.

So, Is the Nuanced Approach Really Best?

Yes—but only when we understand what nuance actually requires.

Nuance does not mean endless patience. It does not mean treating every aggressor as a misunderstood coaching client. It does not mean using empathy to explain away behavior that needs consequences.

The nuanced approach is best when influence is possible, participation is voluntary and the relationship retains enough mutual respect to support honest reflection.

It is not best when someone is actively coercing, humiliating, threatening or dominating you.

In those situations, the wisest intervention may not be a brilliant question. It may be a closed door, a terminated conversation or a relationship with sharply reduced access.

The proper order is:

Protect safety. Preserve agency. Establish boundaries. Then consider persuasion.

Reversing that order turns influence into self-abandonment.

Coach Them Out was never meant to suggest that we can or should rescue everyone. It offers an alternative to fruitless confrontation when someone is reachable.

But some people are not presently reachable. Some do not want a conversation. They want compliance.

Recognizing that difference may be the most nuanced skill of all.

You are not required to become a missionary to people who refuse to stop being missionaries to you.