Attempt to close minds of people on the same side as the author

From Opening Minds, Closing Minds by Arnold Kling.

The following thought occurred to me recently. Suppose we look at writing on issues where people tend to hold strong opinions that fit with their ideology. Such writing can

(a) attempt to open the minds of people on the opposite side as the author

(b) attempt to open minds of people on the same side as the author

(c) attempt to close minds of people on the same side as the author

So, think about it. Wouldn't you classify most op-eds and blog posts as (c)? Isn't that sort of pathetic? Here are some more thoughts:

1. The default is (c). If you are not consciously trying to do (a) or (b), then you will almost surely do (c).

2. Most of us, most of the time, do (c).

3. Doing (c) 100 % of the time can earn you fame and fortune. Yes, you get criticized for it by people on the other side, but the positive reinforcement you get probably more than makes up for it.

4. Try to think of folks who try to have a high proportion of (a) and (b). The first ones that I think of are David Brooks and Tyler Cowen. I wish I could think of more.

I struggle to interpret Kling's nomenclature. My understanding would be that a is when you seek to change the belief of others who disagree by using facts and logic, b is when you try and reinforce the belief of people who already agree using facts and logic and c is when you try and reinforce the belief of those who already agree by using rhetoric. Which, by extension of the implied model means that there is a d when you try and change the belief of others who disagree by using rhetoric.

I agree with the fundamental point though that there is an awful lot of noise to signal, i.e. a lot of c and d compared to a and b. The challenge with c and d are that there is a short and slippery slope between rhetoric and demonization/ad hominem attacks. Also, there is a legitimate question as to which is more effective, rhetoric or logic and analysis. The answer, I suspect, being that it is the seamless integration of logic and analysis with good rhetoric that is the most effective.