  We study a communication game between a sender and receiver where the sender
has access to a set of informative signals about a state of the world. The
sender chooses one of her signals, called an ``anecdote'' and communicates it
to the receiver. The receiver takes an action, yielding a utility for both
players. Sender and receiver both care about the state of the world but are
also influenced by a personal preference so that their ideal actions differ. We
characterize perfect Bayesian equilibria when the sender cannot commit to a
particular communication scheme. In this setting the sender faces ``persuasion
temptation'': she is tempted to select a more biased anecdote to influence the
receiver's action. Anecdotes are still informative to the receiver but
persuasion comes at the cost of precision. This gives rise to ``informational
homophily'' where the receiver prefers to listen to like-minded senders because
they provide higher-precision signals. In particular, we show that a sender
with access to many anecdotes will essentially send the minimum or maximum
anecdote even though with high probability she has access to an anecdote close
to the state of the world that would almost perfectly reveal it to the
receiver. In contrast to the classic Crawford-Sobel model, full revelation is a
knife-edge equilibrium and even small differences in personal preferences will
induce highly polarized communication and a loss in utility for any
equilibrium. We show that for fat-tailed anecdote distributions the receiver
might even prefer to talk to poorly informed senders with aligned preferences
rather than a knowledgeable expert whose preferences may differ from her own.
We also show that under commitment differences in personal preferences no
longer affect communication and the sender will generally report the most
representative anecdote closest to the posterior mean for common distributions.
