It’s not just that the political landscape feels like it’s at its most polarised in living memory – all that bitterness and acrimony feels much closer to home.

If you’re ever in doubt, remember that an instantaneous and near-bottomless stream of angry political opinions and insults is never more than a single click away.

.On one side is a ceaseless stream of vitriol decrying the left for being brainless, woke, communist idiots who will bring about society’s collapse; one the other, an equally ceaseless stream of vitriol decrying the right for being corrupt, authoritarian, capitalist swine who will also destroy society.

It seems no one can agree. And yet, there’s one thing of which you can remain certain. Namely, that regardless of your political affiliation, your moral compass, or cultural outlook, you will come across people who you believe are idiots.

People who are uninformed. People who cite dubious sources and rubbish as fact. People who, in your view, are so patently wrong, that it makes you wonder: how could they be so fantastically stupid? How can so many people be so ignorant?

It’s enough to make you want to shout.

And yet, it is a fact of life that shouting at someone is unlikely to change their opinion.

This phenomenon is recognised in almost every known field of human communication, from psychology to philosophy to management theory.

Quite simply, every one of us is less likely to be receptive to someone if their ideas are presented in a way that is adversarial.

In other words, we’re more likely to at least hear or listen to an argument – even one we disagree with – if it’s presented in a non-forceful way.

It’s the reason why the most effective managers and negotiators remain calm and in control. Even while demanding or conceding disagreeable points.

It’s why moderated debates are exactly that: debates. They are, in their most basic form, exchanges of information where winners are rated on persuasiveness, rather than on their capacity to shout the loudest or dish out stinging insults.

And it’s why forming a good first impressions is crucial to human interaction. The people who leave a better first impression – at work, on a date, at a party – are the ones you’ll likely find more ‘agreeable’.

Of course, remaining rational in no way guarantees that someone will come around to your way of thinking.

Someone may reject your well-researched argument with questionable sources.

And your measured calmness may still end with a frothing, hysterical response.

And yet, next time you find your temper rising during a political disagreement, consider the following: what is it you are hoping to achieve?

Is your objective to be angry and to shout at people? Or are you actually trying to bring about legitimate change in the form of a persuasive argument that might – maybe, just maybe – convince someone of the validity of your outlook?

To reason with someone who holds a strong belief that to you is fundamentally disagreeable is, of course, a tough ask.

Like shouting, it has a dizzyingly low probability of success.

And it’s frustrating, isn’t it, to try and reason with someone who, god damnit, is just so wrong. Why, it’d be so much easier, and that much more satisfying, to yell away the frustration.

But shouting rarely changes someone’s mind.

Quite the contrary, in fact.

Shouting will almost certainly harden someone’s resolve.

And they may even depart with the impression that people with your political or moral persuasion are inflexible, cantankerous, frothing idiots.

Which may be exactly what you thought about them a moment ago, if it was you who (literally or, more likely, metaphorically) shouted at them.

Ask yourself: “how would I respond if someone attempted to persuade me in the same manner in which I am attempting to persuade them?”

In the grand scheme of things, it is often the calmer, persevering, rational approach that ultimately brings about the desired change.

To borrow part of an old cliché: “you catch more flies with honey”.

Main pic: Sushil Nash.