Why You Shouldn’t Face the Person You’re Talking To

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes.

The Washington Post reports something I’ve noticed in my dialogues with pro-choice people: “Forcing eye contact when trying to change someone’s mind may actually cause listeners to become more stubborn, a new study shows.”

In a persuasive context, people tend to be on the defensive, like when a speaker is addressing an audience or when two people are debating a political issue. According to the study, being forced to stare into the eyes of another person, as opposed to looking elsewhere, can make that person less open-minded.

We are so used to organizations trying to manipulate us that we’re always on the alert in persuasive contexts. I know that I’m in full “skeptic mode” when I see any advertising campaign because so many deceptive commercials have been debunked in the past.

I prefer not to directly face pro-choice people when I’m in a dialogue with them. If I’m directly facing the person I’m talking to, it feels more like an argument than a dialogue. But if I’m standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them or if we’re both angled towards a common object, I tend to have a better dialogue.


Interestingly enough, Joe Navarro, a 25-year veteran of the FBI and an expert on body language, found the same thing. He says that agents have more success with coaxing information out of interviewees when they avoid direct eye contact.

The Washington Post article quotes him as saying:

“It was easier to get people to confess by not sitting directly in front of them, which is a very primate antagonistic behavior with a lot of eye contact. What worked best was just to sit at angles to them so there is less eye contact.”


When another person is making an argument to me, I sometimes look into their eyes to demonstrate that I’m really listening to them, (combined with other cues like nodding,) but I also sometimes stare off into space as I process what they’re saying.

Likewise, when I’m talking, I prefer the shoulder-to-shoulder stance because then, as we teach in our Justice For All trainings, it shows that we’re not toe-to-toe, but instead staring at a problem and trying to find more truth together.


If you tend to talk to people you disagree with while staring straight into their eyes, try a different approach for a while and see if your results improve.

By the way, I don’t think more people changing their mind in front of you is the only way to tell if your “results have improved.” It might be that the person you’re talking to feels more comfortable around you, so you have a longer, serious conversation where you can discuss more of the aspects of this debate that the person can reflect on later.

The things we discuss are so important that it would be sad to let little things like body language get in the way of a good dialogue.


The post “Why You Shouldn’t Face the Person You’re Talking To” originally appeared at JoshBrahm.com. Subscribe to our email list with the form below and get a FREE gift. Click here to learn more about our pro-life apologetics course, “Equipped for Life: A Fresh Approach to Conversations About Abortion.”

Question: What do you think? Have you noticed that you have better dialogues when you don’t directly face people? What are some other good body language habits to develop when having dialogues in person?


Josh Brahm is the President of Equal Rights Institute, an organization that trains pro-life advocates to think clearly, reason honestly and argue persuasively.

Josh has worked in the pro-life movement since he was 18. A sought-after speaker, Josh has spoken for more than 23,000 people in six countries and in 22 of the 50 states.

Josh’s primary passion is helping pro-life people to be more persuasive when they communicate with pro-choice people. That means ditching faulty rhetoric and tactics and embracing arguments that hold up under philosophical scrutiny.

He has publicly debated leaders from Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), Georgians for Choice, and one of the leading abortion facilities in Atlanta.

Josh also wants to bring relational apologetics to the pro-life movement. “Some pro-choice people will not change their mind after one conversation on a college campus. Some of them will only change their mind after dozens of conversations with a person they trust in the context of friendship.”

Josh is formerly the host of a globally-heard podcast turned radio/TV show, Life Report. He now hosts the Equipped for Life Podcast. He’s also written dozens of articles for LifeNews.com and the ERI blog.

He directed the first 40 Days for Life campaign in Fresno, resulting in up to 60 lives saved.

Josh has been happily married to his wife, Hannah, for 15 years. They have three sons, Noah, William, and Eli. They live in Charlotte, North Carolina.

David Bereit, the National Director of 40 Days for Life, sums up Josh’s expertise this way: “Josh Brahm is one of the brightest, most articulate, and innovative people in the pro-life movement. His cutting-edge work is helping people think more clearly, communicate more effectively, and — most importantly — be better ambassadors for Christ. I wholeheartedly endorse Josh’s work, and I encourage you to join me in following Josh and getting involved in his work today!”

Please note: The goal of the comments section on this blog is simply and unambiguously to promote productive dialogue. We reserve the right to delete comments that are snarky, disrespectful, flagrantly uncharitable, offensive, or off-topic. If in doubt, read our Comments Policy.