Unfortunately, great ideas often get co-opted.
You know what I mean. Like how “woke” became an insult or how “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) got framed as harmful. The shifting of language in this way is the result of intentional campaigns to distort real issues and create division. Many people use these words, phrases, and acronyms with only a vague understanding of what they mean.
It’s important to push back—not just for the benefit of the person saying it, but for those listening who might be influenced. Unexamined beliefs can be our best opportunities for progress and right now, we need as much progress as we can get.
- Maybe you’re tired of doom-scrolling and feeling hopeless.
- Maybe you’re ready to focus on solutions.
Today, I want to suggest a simple approach we can all use to push back.
It’s a simple approach that helps cut through the noise.
I call it “The Spell It Out Approach”
The “Spell It Out” Approach
People love to use acronyms and phrases as stand-ins for what they really mean. Don’t allow it. Ask for clarity.
When someone criticizes “DEI,” ask them to say what it stands for.
“Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”
Next, ask which of those three ideas they object to.
Go further: How do these ideas conflict with their values?
This does two things:
- Shifts the conversation from vague talking points to concrete positions.
- Forces them to connect their words to their personal beliefs.
This should play out until they face a choice:
- Take the mask off and openly state a harmful belief
- Recognize a contradiction between their beliefs and values.
In short, spelling it out, it forces critical thinking. It means going beyond parroting something you’ve heard someone else say, and really thinking about what you believe.
Your Essential Toolkit
Changing minds isn’t easy, but using these three tools can help:
- Values Inquiry
- Inverse Feynman Technique
- Socratic Method
Here’s how they work.
1. Values Inquiry
When someone says, “DEI is bad,” the instinct is to argue, with facts. But facts alone rarely change minds. People are swayed by emotion, and by the desire to remain consistent with their sense of identity.
Instead, ask:
👉 “How does this align with your core values?”
This avoids direct attacks on their beliefs, which trigger defensiveness. Instead, it creates one of two outcomes:
- They realize their stance contradicts their values.
- They double down, exposing a deeper bias.
Either way, it brings clarity. If they hold harmful views, it’s better to expose them than let them hide behind vague language.
2. The Inverse Feynman Technique
The Feynman Technique teaches that if you can’t explain something simply, you don’t fully understand it. The Inverse Feynman Technique flips this: Instead of explaining, make them explain.
And do it with genuine curiosity—not sarcasm.
For example:
🗣 Them: “DEI is racist.”
❓ You: “Can you explain that? A few examples might help me understand your perspective.”
This forces them to articulate their reasoning, often exposing contradictions or weak arguments. This is your best way of helping them see that, perhaps, they don’t hold a full enough understanding to be so sure.
3. The Socratic Method
The Socratic Method challenges ideas through questioning. The goal isn’t to “win” but to guide someone toward deeper self-examination.
Instead of letting people hide behind acronyms or slogans, spell it out:
🗣 Them: “DEI is bad.”
❓ You: “By DEI, you mean Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, right? Which part do you disagree with?”
🗣 Them: “Antifa are fascists.”
❓ You: “So… anti-fascists are fascists?”
When people have to spell out what they mean, they either see the flaws in their logic or reveal their true beliefs. Don’t tell people what they got wrong, ask them questions and they may discover it on their own.
What Happens Next?
One of three things usually happens:
a) They notice a contradiction or doubt which can cause them to rethink their original position.
b) They adjust their values in order to continue holding their harmful beliefs.
c) They drop the euphemisms and say what they really mean.
No matter what, everyone gains clarity.
Most humans have a hard time justifying open hatred for very long.
Winning the Long Game
Let’s be honest: Even with the best approach, we will lose more of these conversations than we win. Changing minds takes time and a willingness to re-examine our own beliefs.
But every person who sees through the distortion strengthens the movement toward a fairer, more inclusive world.
Some people twist words to hide what they really mean. But if you meet anyone who spouts off harmful beliefs, don’t let them go unchallenged…make them spell it out.
I hope you enjoyed this post!
If this is your first time here or you haven’t yet become a subscriber… click here to get both Becoming Superhuman and The Infinite Impact Newsletter
