[HN Gopher] A gentler, better way to change minds
___________________________________________________________________
A gentler, better way to change minds
Author : yamrzou
Score : 108 points
Date : 2022-10-13 11:21 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theatlantic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theatlantic.com)
| bee_rider wrote:
| Honestly, I do not really think most online commenters want to
| convince anybody of anything. For most of history, discussion of
| current events by normal people has just been venting to your
| likeminded friends in the pub. The problem I think is on the part
| of people who expect convincing rhetoric in online conversations.
| [deleted]
| zopa wrote:
| Debates are about convincing onlookers, not the person you're
| arguing with. Online, in the pub, everywhere.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Sure, but I don't think many people are really looking for
| debates. I think most people are more interested in getting
| something off their chest and indicating in-group status
| (we're social animals after all).
| bmacho wrote:
| Debates are about checking that your own views are indeed
| correct.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| Both are correct. If you indeed know your views are
| correct, dangerous ones _need_ to be challenged, onlookers
| need to see that bad ideas have opposition and there are
| other ways of approaching an issue.
|
| At the same time, you also need to acknowledge if someone
| has a point and have honest discussion. If you always
| debate and never ever think... "Huh, this guy has a point"
| then you most likely are not intellectually honest.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| I fundamentally don't agree that ideas can be dangerous
| (Ironically, I guess this is an argument). However
| actions are dangerous and people should be held to
| account by their actions. If you disagree with someone's
| ideas you should debate them, or articulate your point of
| view, not challenge them.
| phailhaus wrote:
| They're not, because they're framed as zero-sum games. Both
| parties are attempting to convince the other (more likely,
| onlookers), and have no incentive to concede.
| tsol wrote:
| Debates are about saying ridiculous things to make people
| on the internet really mad /s
| Shugarl wrote:
| I disagree, you can win debates regardless of whether or
| not your views are correct. A good debater with a wrong
| view will "win" against a bad debater with a correct view.
| seydor wrote:
| ... or maybe consider that if people consistently reject your
| claim, you re the one who s in the wrong
| andsoitis wrote:
| Not paywalled:
| https://archive.ph/2022.04.22-170337/https://www.theatlantic...
| civilized wrote:
| Offering your values as a gift still seems way too presumptuous.
|
| I think you can express how you feel about things and why if
| someone's interested, or if they express their feelings first.
| Anything more than that is unwelcome to the vast majority of
| people.
| Giorgi wrote:
| Ok, now try that on invading Russians.
| nuc1e0n wrote:
| The idea of even trying to force or 'encourage' others to change
| their minds is horrid. Let people make up their own minds. Do
| people ever think that maybe their ideas are the ones that are
| stupid? Only giving advice or recommendations when they are
| sought is the genuinely gentler approach.
| Ztynovovk wrote:
| HN and being contrary---name a better duo.
| [deleted]
| blondin wrote:
| why should we try to persuade or change minds?
|
| are we happier now that we can reach millions of minds? or were
| we happier with smaller circles of family and friends? is there a
| great injustice that needs each and every one of us to play the
| persuasion game?
| elefanten wrote:
| Well, terminally the alternative is always violence
| somenameforme wrote:
| Or acceptance of difference. The underlying notion many seem
| to believe is that they are inherently right and so all they
| need to do is express their "mind-space" to somebody else,
| and that other person will come to feel the same.
|
| But the thing one forgets is that the other person also often
| feels exactly the same. And it's not even a matter of one
| person being right and another person being wrong.
|
| In any sort of reasonably complex topic, people can see the
| same data and make informed conclusions that are mutually
| exclusive. Seeing successful persuasion or violence as the
| only ends largely simplifies down to violence being the only
| end. Or, "The History of Humanity."
| woojoo666 wrote:
| Except certain resources are exclusive. For example, global
| human effort. How much global effort should be expended
| towards fighting climate change? In cases like these,
| people can't just accept their differences, a choice has to
| be made.
| int_19h wrote:
| > Or acceptance of difference.
|
| That only works if both sides do it. The problem is that
| there are many political ideologies across the entire
| spectrum that are unwilling to accept the difference to the
| point of resorting to violence to remove it.
| notacoward wrote:
| > is there a great injustice that needs each and every one of
| us to play the persuasion game?
|
| How about yes? Some might say there are a few universal issues
| that qualify. Others might say that the issues aren't universal
| but there are so many that everyone should take up some set.
| Either way, they might agree that peer to peer persuasion is
| ultimately more effective than top-down edicts. They persuade
| to avert harm, just as you are attempting to do right here and
| now in a more meta kind of way, and there's nothing inherently
| wrong with that. Identifying methods of persuasion that are
| more effective and/or less harmful themselves is something
| worthy of our curiosity.
| echelon wrote:
| > Stop wielding your values as a weapon and start offering them
| as a gift.
|
| It's about time this was put forth.
|
| I've been screaming from the bottom of my lungs for ages that
| woke virtue signalling only makes enemies.
|
| If you tell your opponent you're better than them, you're
| engaging in high school football rivalry. You'll never come to a
| meeting of the minds. It only makes the disagreement more bitter.
|
| The left and the right, at the end of the day, really aren't that
| much different at all. There are only a few concepts we disagree
| upon. Yet we're engaging in petty team squabbles and letting the
| lizard parts of our brains turn it into tribalistic "us vs them".
|
| An analogy, probably incorrect, is the hygiene hypothesis. An
| under-exposed immune system in a clean room learns to attack its
| host instead. Similarly, since we're not regularly engaging in
| tribe vs tribe, fighting off assailants that would throttle us in
| the night, or staying by the fire to stay away lions and bears,
| we turn that defense mechanism against those with different
| ideals.
|
| At the end of the day, we're all suffering and dying together.
| ajross wrote:
| > woke virtue signalling only makes enemies
|
| I'm not following. The very term "woke virtue signaling" is
| itself a loaded, aggressive frame that is _designed_ to "make
| enemies".
|
| You don't think, to pick an example, that vegans eat vegan
| because they want to and not to signal to you? What's your
| solution for them to change your mind except to... eat meat
| with you in solidarity I guess?
|
| The point being that what you're picking up as "virtue
| signaling" is largely in _your own interpretation_. Most of the
| hippies are just living their lives. But yeah, sometimes that
| involves being trans or gay or whatever in a way that isn 't
| invisible to you.
| ok_dad wrote:
| You have a great point. I think you could agree your point
| would have been made better without the cheap shot to score
| points against woke bogeymen.
|
| To your point though, we need to stick together as humans, from
| every country, because the common person from China has more in
| common with the common person in America than either common
| person has with those in power trying to split us up by race
| and ideology. Divide and conquer doesn't work if you don't buy
| in to the divisions!
| boplicity wrote:
| > I've been screaming from the bottom of my lungs for ages that
| [insert opinion] only makes sense
|
| There you go.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The idea that one side of the political discourse is engaging
| in "virtual signaling" and "wielding their values as weapons"
| is not a new one. Surprisingly enough, it is always the side
| that the disagrees with the author, that is totally
| disingenuous in the expression values, go figure.
| tchaffee wrote:
| > woke virtue signaling
|
| > tell your opponent you're better than them.
|
| You just did the latter. By assuming your opponents are not
| sincere in the former.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| > I've been screaming from the bottom of my lungs for ages that
| woke virtue signaling only makes enemies
|
| That sentence right there makes me seriously skeptical of how
| well your conversations turn out, as well as how open minded
| you are when talking with people you disagree with.
| tdeck wrote:
| > I've been screaming from the bottom of my lungs for ages that
| woke virtue signalling only makes enemies.
|
| Is it possible that people don't think you're sincere about
| sharing their values but advocating a "kinder, gentler" style
| of persuasion, when you're screaming at them about their "woke
| virtue signaling"?
| zzzeek wrote:
| let's posit two historical events that every American knows
| about, which represented pretty fierce disagreement:
|
| 1. the Civil War and Slavery
|
| 2. the Holocaust
|
| each event featured "sides" that disagreed pretty strongly. They
| were life-or-death conflicts involving millions of people. Do we
| try to apply these "lets find our shared morals" / "present our
| side with the joy (of a missionary)" practices in these
| situations? Probably not. They were wars. Kind of the ultimate
| "disagreement".
|
| If you are open to the view that conflicts happening today are
| fast approaching the scale / seriousness of the above two events,
| things like, one political party trying to overthrow the US
| government by force, widespread corruption of the rule of law and
| police, draconian rules meant to terrorize or imprison whole
| populations of women and immigrants, destruction of democratic
| norms, kids living their lives in terror of school schootings,
| then it's hard to take this article seriously.
|
| If the above paragraph OTOH sounds ridiculous and one is of the
| view that things are pretty normal except for a little messiness
| on this social media thing, then by all means, present your view
| to that reality as a gift given with joy.
| patientplatypus wrote:
| wnscooke wrote:
| "screaming at the top of my lungs", and "from the bottom of my
| heart". Seems two idioms were mixed up here.
| saghm wrote:
| I assume that this was meant to reply to
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33217608 rather than a
| top-level comment? Either way, this just makes me think of the
| Strongbad Email about how to be a metal singer (i.e. to sing
| not from the top of your lungs, but from the bowels):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V72NKRyX1NA
| goethes_kind wrote:
| Shouldn't different people in different circumstances of life,
| have different opinions/philosophies/ideologies anyway? How about
| this: if you want to change people's minds, work on changing
| their circumstances first.
| woojoo666 wrote:
| If certain values are circumstantial, couldn't that just be
| combined into a higher-level formulation? Eg if a lower-class
| person values family, and a higher-class person values
| fulfillment, then you simply say "fulfillment is valuable when
| monetary and social needs are met" (aka Maslow's hierarchy of
| needs [1]), and that's something both people can agree on. No
| need to change anybody's circumstances.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| That's not what this is about. It's not about opinions or
| philosophies or ideologies.
|
| It's about reality.
|
| I'm reading the things people write, I'm looking at the
| arguments they make, and they make no sense. None.
|
| That's what this is about.
|
| Am I going insane? Or is it "them"?
| 2devnull wrote:
| An interesting idea related to this: the pedagogical benefits
| of esotericism.
|
| Melzer writes: "Just as education must begin by addressing the
| student where he is, so, as he learns and changes, it must stay
| with him. The internal or dialectical critique of received
| opinion takes place not in a single stroke but in a series of
| successive approximations to the truth, each of which will seem
| in its time to be the final one."
| swayvil wrote:
| That's a damn good point. Philosophy is merely perspective's
| shadow (moral philosophy included!). If you want to change the
| way they think then change what they see.
|
| Our #1 tool for that is drugs. So cheap and convenient. #2 is
| video entertainment, but that's a bit shallow and ephemeral. #3
| is what... raucous demonstrations?
|
| And speaking of demonstrations, you can't beat "scientific
| culture" for having a pre-existing setup for managing the
| "changing philosophies by changing perspectives" process. But
| most of us aren't scientists. (Or squishy, openminded
| experimentalists, even)
| mikepurvis wrote:
| This is Michael Shellenberger's philosophy around saving the
| planet/climate. Basically, that economic justice _has_ to come
| first because only people who are comfortable and middle class
| can afford the mental and emotional costs associated with
| caring about that stuff.
|
| And yes, achieving that result on a global scale may well
| involve the construction of a bunch of new oil and gas
| infrastructure in places like Africa and South America-- well
| meaning westerners should focus on what can be done at home to
| reduce, and stop protesting exactly the kind of thing that
| helps more people enter the middle class.
| tarakat wrote:
| > economic justice* has to come first
|
| So shall we put the ongoing ecological and climate
| catastrophes on hold while we take 200 years to reach an
| egalitarian utopia? On the other hand, we're told that these
| catastrophes affect the poorest countries the most. From that
| point of view, environmentalism _is_ "economic justice".
|
| *Interesting term. Does that mean the economically better off
| have committed a crime, and must be punished?
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| I understand economic justice not as a justice system but
| as fairness. Everyone has the right be part of a good
| economy. When that is achieved, on such a level field, it
| is more easy to tackle important things like efficient use
| of resources.
| simonh wrote:
| Well fortunately we recently passed a tipping point. Over
| half the population of the world are now middle class. This
| is largely due to a few hundred million Chinese, and more in
| SE Asia generally, entering the urban middle income bracket
| over the last few decades. The next few years are probably
| going to be rough, but global incomes have been going in the
| right direction for quite a while.
|
| As for fossil fuels, utility scale solar is now cheaper than
| coal. Global development definitely means more CO2, but we're
| right at an inflection point towards renewables.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| If half of people are middle class, the rest is either poor
| or belongs to the few percent of people who happen to own
| half the world's assets. Would you describe such a
| situation as 'fortunate'?
| petermcneeley wrote:
| I wonder if there is a group of people that is even more
| comfortable than the "middle class" that could afford this
| cost.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Sure, but that's a much smaller group. The historical
| argument is that the rise of the environmental movement in
| the US coincided with the postwar boom. Yes, some people
| became very wealthy during that time, but millions of
| people became _wealthy enough_ that they started wanting
| things like national parks, clean rivers, breathable air,
| and so on.
|
| The strength in numbers is worth a lot more that asking a
| few zillionaires to make it happen single-handedly.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Not when the few zillionaires are in command of zillions
| of dollars of capital, which is by far a more effective
| lever to do just about anything these days than any lever
| available to middle class and below.
| jmeister wrote:
| This is totally wrong. Public opinion is by far the
| biggest roadblock. Believing that only some evil rich
| people are in the way is a coping mechanism. Read David
| Shor or Matt Yglesias on this.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Public opinion doesn't develop technologies and materials
| and techniques. Huge, huge, huge amounts of capital does.
|
| Also note: I didn't ascribe evil to them at all, please
| don't put words in my mouth.
| User23 wrote:
| You're straw-manning. There is a solid argument with
| plenty of supporting evidence that a small minority
| observably has virtually all the political power in the
| United States[1].
|
| That's not to say public opinion is completely
| irrelevant, but when it can't be directly controlled
| through mass media persuasion techniques it can be
| neutralized in various ways. Isn't it interesting how the
| US is somehow evenly divided on so many "controversial"
| issues? One explanation is that those who are
| manipulating the public intentionally play up issues with
| that property.
|
| [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-
| on-poli...
| CptFribble wrote:
| "Middle-class-ness" in this context shouldn't be the
| _primary_ goal, because it 's only a proxy for "have enough
| time and space to care." I assure you, poor people care about
| the environment, but we've structured our society to prevent
| the working poor from having enough free time and energy to
| advocate for things like the environment. Poor people
| generally don't even have enough time and energy to advocate
| for themselves for things like affordable housing and the end
| of food deserts.
|
| Instead of just being like "lets burn more carbon to generate
| wealth first," we should skip the middle steps and go
| directly to giving people of all classes, especially the
| working poor that make up the majority of the human race, a
| voice and access to voting rights. Give the lower economic
| classes a larger voice in government and I think you'd be
| surprised how many would vote for things like investment in
| clean energy.
|
| Respectfully, saying that you have to be rich enough to have
| time to care is missing the forest for the trees.
| int_19h wrote:
| One of the informal definitions of "middle class" that I've
| heard is "people who have enough wealth and power that they
| don't have to constantly think about survival, but not
| enough to have to worry about being a target in the
| political game of thrones".
| carapace wrote:
| FWIW, the middle class of Africa is larger than the middle
| class of North America.
|
| https://qz.com/africa/1486764/how-big-is-africas-middle-
| clas...
|
| (I don't know what that means, it's just a fact I picked up
| along the way. Like how more people know English in China
| than in North America. Just one of those weird thoughts that
| seems obvious in hindsight.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_education_in_China )
|
| - - - -
|
| > economic justice has to come first
|
| Ecologically harmonious living is economical as well: your
| expenses are reduced, your health is improved, etc. In other
| words, ecologically harmonious living _is_ economic justice.
| That 's what that looks like in the real world: abundant
| (cheap) food, medicine, clothing, housing, etc.
|
| The only downside to living in harmony with nature is for
| people who are committed to making money from waste (in the
| ultimate analysis.) E.g. GMO's are touted as solving world
| hunger, but really in practice they are used to lock-in
| corporate profits. The same company that sells you the poison
| sells you the seeds that resist the poison, seeds that you
| must buy each year: the contract states you can't save your
| own seed.
|
| If you grow food in harmony with nature you don't need
| fertilizer ($$$) pesticide ($$$) GMO patented crop species
| ($$$) etc...
|
| It's more profitable _for the farmer_ and the product is
| healthier (reducing medical expenses, eh?)
|
| Compare with, e.g.: Grow BIOINTENSIVE (
| http://growbiointensive.org/ ) a system that uses around
| 5000f2 (~450m2) per adult, produces a balanced complete diet,
| and increases soil volume and fertility year-on-year, while
| requiring no external inputs and little labor.
|
| I have lots of other examples, poke me for more...
|
| Anyway, the point is, "economic justice" _is_ living in
| harmony with nature: they are the same thing.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Economic justice would be benificial for the world as a
| whole. Also, poorer countries have to go through economic
| growth more or less the same way as the steps the richer
| countries took. There are very few shortcuts possible since
| the growth is gradual.
| midislack wrote:
| After years of shouting at Trump voters, calling them names,
| racists, fascists, and Nazis, and that not working. Why not try
| some sanctimonious nose peeping?
|
| At this point I simply don't dialogue with people on political
| subjects. I nod, smile, agree, then pull the farthest right lever
| in the voting booth I can.
| tynol wrote:
| jondeval wrote:
| I do think there are a subset of people who are genuinely open
| minded. These people are actively curious and looking to iterate
| toward a more accurate view of reality.
|
| When you meet people like this there are no 'tactics' ... it's
| just about presenting the truth in good faith as you see it and
| listening actively to understand their point of view.
|
| The problem I encounter is that many people posture as 'open-
| minded', but in reality they want to hear your opinion for the
| same reason an opponent wants you to show your cards after
| they've folded to a successful poker bluff. In this case it
| simply tells them "what side you're on" or "which tribe you
| belong to".
|
| As a heuristic, I've found it's very difficult to formulate
| thoughtful questions if you're not genuinely curious about a
| topic. Therefore, I tend to use the 'questioning level of
| thoughtfulness' (QLOT) of my discussion partner as the signal of
| whether or not I'm dealing with someone who desires a good faith
| discussion.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| > When you meet people like this there are no 'tactics' ...
| it's just about presenting the truth in good faith
|
| I will argue with tactics, but it's not necessarily out of bad
| faith. Usually people are terrible at having an open-minded
| conversation, and you need to peel back the layers because most
| individuals won't tell you why they believe something.
|
| You'll get all these canned responses and talking points from
| mainstream media (Or, if we're talking about technology, the
| analog would be taking points from a particular corporation or
| vendor). But people won't outright say "I don't agree with that
| policy because I don't trust that person" or "I got screwed
| over by a traumatic experience with X therefore I'm against X".
| Most people aren't capable of engaging on that level without a
| great deal of emotional maturity; of course, we're far away
| from reality and facts at this point but humans are emotional
| creatures and emotion drives our decision making.
| jondeval wrote:
| That's right. Having a conversation is an art and there is
| absolutely a role for good faith tactics to help bring out
| the truth of things.
| raydiatian wrote:
| > conversation is an art
|
| It's interesting how it totally is an art, but is largely
| taught completely informally by peers and parents.
| didibus wrote:
| I've found that being more like a therapist and discussing
| not what it is they think but trying to get to the bottom of
| why it is they feel as such a really good approach.
|
| Even ignoring the issue and trying to ask them more about
| their values. And then going deeper and figuring out why they
| value those things.
|
| And sharing the same about you to them.
|
| A lot of disagreement I find surprisingly come from similar
| values but just different weights applied to how events
| impact those values. Or sometimes it's just different value
| sets, and then you have to discuss why it is we value
| different things.
|
| Even if you walk away still in disagreement, because you
| might still just end up where you have differing values, or
| where you've got different weights to those values, at least
| you'll have an understanding of each other and why it is you
| don't agree on those things.
|
| The problem is online discussions are just not conductive to
| this at all. You can't engage someone and really work through
| this process of shared understanding. Relationships online
| are too superficial and short lived.
| raydiatian wrote:
| > Stop wielding your values as a weapon and start offering them
| as a gift.
|
| This is incredibly spot on. I might even say it differently as
|
| "Stop treating your values as an indication of your superiority,
| and start treating them as a relatable story of growth."
|
| A lot (I mean a lot) of people I talk with are constantly trying
| to put on a display of how what they are is some kind of superior
| way of being. And it's impossible to listen to them because
| they're speaking with a childish "I'm this and your not" way of
| thinking.
| kypro wrote:
| I find it odd that people seek to change minds to be honest.
|
| For some reason I'm a hard-core libertarian so I kind of hate my
| own core values. I'd even go so far as to acknowledge that my
| ideal world would be close to hell for most people. I don't want
| to be this way. I just seem to have a preference for it.
|
| I realised several years ago that if I ever got my own way it
| would make the world objectively a worse place for the average
| person to live and therefore I have an ethical duty to vote
| against my own self interest and instead try to vote for what I
| believe is in the interest of the collective good.
|
| I think a lot of political division we see today just stems of a
| lack of empathy and understanding. Instead of trying to find ways
| we can compromise and share this Earth together we seek to force
| our own values on to others. And this seems to be true at all
| levels of society, from Twitter debates about trans rights, to
| democracy vs autocracy debates at the level of nation states.
|
| Plus I think most disagreements we have can generally be solved
| with more localism and secessionism. Here in the UK for example I
| don't know why I don't just let Muslim communities practise
| Sharia law if they wish and allow communities who dislike
| immigration set their own rules on who is and isn't allowed to
| live there. But like I say, I know people disagree with me on
| these things.
| akomtu wrote:
| I'll take the opportunity to insert some thoughts from
| metaphysics here. It says that the evolution of humanity begins
| with total unity, and just as total lack of reason: if one was
| to lose a finger, others would feel the pain, but wouldn't
| understand why. In order to develop reason, humanity descends
| into individualism. The extreme social division today is the
| sign of passing the midpoint of evolution when mind is fully
| developed, but the sense of unity is lost. After that the
| course of evolution will take us back, but we'll get to keep
| the skill of reasoning. Returning to the origin will be forced
| by shared hardships: the divisiveness will die off under their
| pressure.
| [deleted]
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| This is hilarious! I have never heard a perspective like this
| before. However, I don't believe you. Let me see if I can
| persuade you...
| jondeval wrote:
| > For some reason I'm a hard-core libertarian so I kind of hate
| my own core values. I'd even go so far as to acknowledge that
| my ideal world would be close to hell for most people. I don't
| want to be this way. I just seem to have a preference for it.
|
| Honest question, have you ever considered this to be a
| legitimate data point that would act to falsify your hard-core
| libertarian values?
| gnramires wrote:
| > I don't want to be this way. I just seem to have a preference
| for it.
|
| Aren't you being a sort of "preference fatalist"? Do you think
| it's impossible to change preferences?
|
| Maybe a good place to start would be to research people who
| have changed preferences. I think motivation is not the
| mythical black box that oms people ascribe to. We're motivated
| by cognitive processes and experiences. If we expose ourselves
| to different experiences and try to see value in different
| things, our brain can adapt and start saying "Okay, this thing
| I didn't find motivating is getting motivating!" -- motivation
| is built by yourself. I call this concept "freedom of utility"
| -- you're free to choose what to care about; although of course
| there are limits to the flexibility of some of our instincts
| for various reasons related to just being limited, finite
| beings overall.
|
| (I'm speaking of the general issue of changing values and
| changing your mind -- hopefully not too personal)
|
| In your case, I think at a level you've already adopted
| different values (which I think is admirable and necessary for
| humans to achieve a good existence), but you're finding it hard
| reconciling your various intuitions and various rational
| thoughts. I think it's a slow process, but we should let the
| truth and what we ultimately find genuinely best win -- discuss
| it with other people, think about it, test its consequences (in
| real life or thought), this is how you change your mind.
| cgrealy wrote:
| People seek to change the minds of others because their
| opinions (and subsequent actions) often affect the people
| themselves.
|
| A simple example of this would be abortion.
| clairity wrote:
| abortion itself, being a personal decision/action, doesn't
| seek to affect the thoughts and behaviors of other people.
| perhaps you mean anti-abortion, since that attempts to be
| positively coercive of others?
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Abortion can only seen as a personal decision if you don't
| consider it murder. From the view point that "life" starts
| at conception, it cannot be seen as a personal decision.
| Thus, pro-abortion seeks to change the minds of people such
| that "life" does not start at conception.
| coldtea wrote:
| They mean the issue of abortion (whether pro or against).
| "Change the mind" they mean from its current position
| (whether pro- or anti- abortion).
|
| Even if we assume that "it's a personal choice" is some
| kind of natural/god-given/obvious default (which
| historically it hasn't been), we'd still to work to change
| the minds of people who think otherwise...
| bee_rider wrote:
| I'm a pretty liberal person in a very liberal area, but
| nobody has ever tried to convince me to change my mind to
| be pro-abortion. I'm in favor of letting people make
| their own healthcare decisions of course but to be
| actively pro-abortion seems like some hyper niche
| position.
| peacefulhat wrote:
| How do you determine who is in the community and subject to the
| community law?
| rickdicker wrote:
| I find it strange that this article presumes that you have all
| the right answers and that there isn't the possibility that _you_
| are the one who needs their mind changed. It points out that
| listening is valuable, but not because there 's a possibility
| that the person you're talking to is in the right, no, you should
| listen to other people because studies show that listening to
| other people will manipulate them into seeing things your way. I
| feel like if you really wanted to live in a world of open-minded
| people, you should probably start by being open-minded yourself.
|
| Here's a good trick I picked up for discussing contentious things
| - if you're ever tempted to dish out a sick burn, try to rephrase
| the point into a genuine question. Then the other person will
| have to walk through the logic of it, and if it turns out there
| is a real logic to their side of things, you don't get your ego
| bruised, cause you just asked a genuine question.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| It helps if you understand whether the person is defending
| their own values, or their group's values.
|
| If you talk someone out of their group's values, you might
| _destroy their entire life_. Talking someone out of their
| religion is a "win" until they get shunned and lose everything
| they have. Are you still in the right then? What does the
| "objective truth" matter if you're just ruining peoples lives?
|
| Change someone's mind on guns or abortion and you hurt them! It
| doesn't matter which side they start on or which side you
| convince them to. You're ripping and tearing at the very fabric
| of their social life.
|
| Some people are unable to change their minds, but some people
| _can 't_ change their minds due to circumstance. It's really
| important to understand this before convincing anyone of
| anything.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Even if you persuaded them into changing their mind on a
| topic intertwined with their identity or the group they are
| part of, can it not be that it is for the better and,
| ultimately for their own benifit?
| RobertoG wrote:
| Great comment. I suspect that we all are vulnerable to
| Stockholm syndrome and doing the calculation of what price we
| will pay for changing our mind. After all, surviving is more
| important than being right.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| Or they may even lose their job at WaPo or the Atlantic! ;)
| rybosome wrote:
| We are all, regardless of the direction of our political
| leaning, suspended in our beliefs by the community we are
| part of.
|
| If you don't believe me, I encourage you to try walking
| down Main Street in small town America with a BLM flag.
| It'll be received about as well as parading a Trump 2024
| flag around a coastal city.
| Swizec wrote:
| I visited a small town recently - Ithaca. As someone from
| San Francisco I was _shocked_ by the amount of LGBTQ and
| BLM imagery.
|
| Feels like everyone in SF kinda takes it as the default
| position, no need to show off.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| > listening... will manipulate them...
|
| I also read in the article that you should listen in a genuine
| way. Would it be possible that this act could change your own
| mind? Would that fit your definition of being open-minded?
| xani_ wrote:
| > Here's a good trick I picked up for discussing contentious
| things - if you're ever tempted to dish out a sick burn, try to
| rephrase the point into a genuine question. Then the other
| person will have to walk through the logic of it, and if it
| turns out there is a real logic to their side of things, you
| don't get your ego bruised, cause you just asked a genuine
| question.
|
| And if it doesn't they can figure it out and have a way to fuck
| off without losing face too much
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| > if you're ever tempted to dish out a sick burn, try to
| rephrase the point into a genuine question
|
| Can you give an example?
| phailhaus wrote:
| Great example!
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Ok, but now I want the sick burn
| rickdicker wrote:
| Something like instead of saying "well more people die of
| the flu every year than die of COVID!" you would ask "how
| do you think the severity of this disease compares to
| other things we deal with, like the flu?"
| Nition wrote:
| "The government's using COVID as a means of population
| control."
|
| "Why does the government want a lower population - don't they
| usually want more people to grow the economy?"
| danhak wrote:
| On the contrary, the article concludes on this note:
|
| > But if I truly have the good of the world at heart, then I
| must not fall prey to the conceit of perfect knowledge, and
| must be willing to entertain new and better ways to serve my
| ultimate goal: creating a happier world.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| That means a lot less as a postscript than as the starting
| point. Whereas the framing of your values as a "gift" doesn't
| absolutely imply they're correct, but does imply they're
| somehow a good thing.
|
| There's a phrase we use for saying the right words about an
| important idea but not actually incorporating it into your
| methods: "lip service".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-15 23:00 UTC)