well exactly... If the person were thinking rationally enough to contemplate that argument, they really wouldn't need it.

My working model of this person was that the person has rehearsed emotional and argumentative defenses to protect their belief, or belief in belief, and that the person had the ability to be reasonably rational in other domains where they weren't trying to be irrational. It therefore seemed to me that one strategy (while still dicey) to attempt to unconvince such a person would be to come up with an argument which is both:

• Solid (Fooling/manipulating them into thinking the truth is bad cognitive citizenship, and won't work anyway because their defenses will find the weakness in the argument.)

• Not the same shape as the argument their defenses are expecting.

Roko: How is your working model of the person different from mine?