Shakespeare Authorship: 'Exit Strategy'

The more we jam people into their argumentative corner the more they viciously lash out as the only way to hold ground.

Recognizing this aspect of human nature, and imagining ourselves in that spot . . as much as we may want those who support an unlikely author to come around . . we must also sympathize with what that might take.

Any psychologists out there--professional or amateur--who might propose an acceptable/respectable 'exit strategy'?

What about an immunity-style approach?  An in-advance academic amnesty and promise not to attack argumentatively in future those who come out for an alternative authorship theory.

Those who support the conventional view of Shakespearean authorship often ask: "What difference does it make who wrote the works?" Perhaps in this way they're fashioning an 'out' to be employed one day when necessary.  Another I've seen more recently is the idea of authors collaborating on the works attributed to Shakespeare.  Propounding this theory, they flirt with multiple authorship and 'group theory'.  A slippery slope for a unilateral front once espousing the infallibility of the Man from Stratford, but one that gives them room to maneuver?

Hard to believe that all these hundreds of years later it's still considered 'academic suicide' for Shakespeare scholars to 'question the traditional authorship paradigm.'  But everyone has 'mouths to feed'.  This being the reality of life, perhaps we could create a relief program for Shakespearean scholars bounced from their safe and cozy academic programs, the ones that allowed them (or forced them) to keep the lie going, or at least not be true to their calling by pursuing the truth no matter where it might take them.

There's always the fact-based out:  1) 'I never investigated it properly'; 2) 'Nobody told me.  Why didn't they tell me:'; or, 3) 'The facts changed, so I must now change my mind.'  That in taking this out--and the economic/political reality one--they thereby admit that they were never really academics, scholars, researchers, or scientists is what the above immunity would be all about.

In the same vein we have 'I was a young man then, young and foolish.  Now I am older and wiser.'  This is part fact-based and part emotional--at least in appeal.  Another similar approach might be: 'At least I'm man enough to admit I was wrong.'  This encourages the practice of higher ideals like honor, bravery, truthfulness, etc.

Apart from those who are completely (and publicly) invested in the Stratford ruse, who may have too much to lose to allow them to switch, many others have yet to declare an opinion--or maybe don't have one until someone tells them what it should be.  These need a way gracefully to maintain status at cocktail parties, and around coffee room water coolers.

Like China turning the ship around rather than crash on the rocks like Russia, they could make their adjustments in advance of any trouble for their career--all helped by helpful strategies, maybe called 'evasion strategies' rather than 'exit'.