I have never seen confrontation work on the Forum at least, and by that I mean I haven't seen it "work" for the person being confronted.

I completely agree with you, but I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

Your previous post said:

you can even do it empathetically, and I'm not usually one to engage in that kind of confrontation, because it doesn't work anyway, in amy opinion

and I responded:

In my opinion it does work, quite often.

meaning that 'empathy' does work, quite often, not confrontation. The 'it' in In my opinion *it* does work refers to empathy, not confrontation.

And the reason, I think, that empathy can work, is simply because it is the only way I know of actually avoiding confrontation (apart from not engaging at all, obviously, or cravenly agreeing, which is what you thought I was doing).

So we agree that confrontation does not work, at least for the person being confronted.

The question then becomes: Is it possible to have meaningful dialog with a premie without confronting them ?

You are certainly right down below that most challenges to a premie's beliefs they will find confronting.

But if there *is* a way of dialoging with a premie that works, so that he/she is able to listen to what you are saying, and take it on board, then that way must start with empathising with them. It is like a you-listen-to-me-and-I-will-listen-to-you contract. Listening to a premie, and really hearing them, is a necessary prerequisite to have them listen to you, and really hearing you.

Of course there are other objectives as well as wanting to help the premie, such as confronting them for the benefit of third party onlookers, as you say; or just getting your own frustration off your chest by pointing out how absurd much of what they say is.

But I find that if my objective is to have the premie listen to me, then I need to listen to them as well.