[HN Gopher] How to win an argument with a toddler
___________________________________________________________________
How to win an argument with a toddler
Author : herbertl
Score : 532 points
Date : 2025-04-15 14:38 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (seths.blog)
(TXT) w3m dump (seths.blog)
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| I think this might be the first time I've ever seen a serious
| article reference Monty Python in a way that genuinely furthers
| the point.
| htgb wrote:
| I didn't get that reference. Thanks! Is it this one?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| Yep, specifically the part where they differentiate between
| an argument and abuse
| somenameforme wrote:
| Nobody ever changes their opinion on things with anything
| remotely like a high degree of frequency, and that's not a
| particularly bad thing. The "real" point of an argument is not to
| persuade the other side (though that is what you aspire to
| nonetheless) but to exchange views, and often to indirectly
| explore your own views more deeply, at least in the scenario
| where your 'partner' can bring up something you weren't aware of.
|
| Our views actually shifting is something that only happens over
| many years and often for reasons we aren't really in control of.
| Me of 10 years ago would vehemently disagree with me of today on
| many things, and there's probably pretty much no argument I could
| have engaged with him to persuade him of what I obviously think
| are 'more correct' views. It required, most of all, life
| experience that isn't going to be able to be communicated with
| words. If it were we'd all have the wisdom of a man who'd lived
| for millennia. And if not all of us, then at least somebody - but
| that somebody doesn't exist.
|
| One who wants to debate while rejecting the real state of mankind
| is oft going to just find themselves in an echo chamber.
| eitally wrote:
| This advice/wisdom should be included in every parenting guide!
| jarbus wrote:
| I've been trying to figure out how to talk to folks on the
| right, and I keep looking for something, anything, I can say to
| make them realize the danger we are in. Reading this comment
| was therapeutic, because I think it's completely on the money.
| We can't change people's minds in a single argument; we can
| just try and nudge them in the right direction and hope they
| join us eventually.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| One thing I've found helpful is to coax them to imagine dems
| in charge. You can't outright mention dems in charge, because
| they will (mostly correctly) point out that dems _have_ been
| in charge of our institutions for a long time.
|
| You have to understand their position: They don't feel in
| danger. They feel in power - the opposite of danger. Asking
| them to perceive danger is asking them to give up their
| feeling of power - tantamount to admitting everything they
| voted for is void.
|
| But the path I found was to tease out that expansion of
| powers are permanent, making any changes from expansion of
| powers temporary. And we don't want temporary positive
| changes, do we? With all this legislative power, couldn't we
| just, you know, pass laws?
|
| I've also come to accept that we should (for the sake of
| progress past issues) just:
|
| * build the border wall, but suddenly nobody seems interested
| - what gives?
|
| * slash costs to balance the budget, but suddenly nobody
| seems interested, what gives?
|
| etc
|
| The problem with true discussion of these issues is that you
| find yourself mostly in agreement with each other's viewpoint
| (at least subject to their "axioms"), and have to mellow out
| a bit. You can't really stand still and say "Come over here"
| all the time.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Why is the expansion of powers permanent? Do you think
| they've never been reversed in history? That there weren't
| times when {insert government branch here} didn't have more
| than it does now?
| xanthippus_c wrote:
| Yeah, like they often don't have issues with their local
| cops, but you ask them about ATF or BLM and all of a sudden
| these outside it's these ridiculous outsider
| authoritarians, who don't know anything about what it's
| like where they live, trying to ruin things.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| "Mostly correctly" is 100% false. Count the number of years
| under GOP presidents since 1980 vs the number under
| Democrats. SCOTUS has been dominated by Republican judges
| -- and the chief justice has been a Republican -- since the
| 1970's.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| You'd be hard pressed to find a conservative college
| dean, non-profit CEO, or even a librarian. There's a
| belief (which I think is mostly true), that most
| government agencies are left-leaning in practice if not
| in appointed leadership. Add to that the growing
| (perceived!) left-leaning policies in the military and
| major industrial players, and you might see what they
| mean.
| spencerflem wrote:
| I'd be hard pressed to find a lefty college board of
| directors, or CEO.
|
| I'd believe govt agency staffers, since conservatives by
| and large want to destroy those agencies and not work
| there.
|
| The military is a weird place and contains multitudes
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Well, I guess I'd roll it back to say there have been
| high profile, widly circulated perceived-to-be-far-left
| policies pushed or adopted by traditionally not-that-
| liberal organizations. Like "DEI" in military. It's all
| over conservative zeitgeist and looks like a massive
| power creep to them.
| yojo wrote:
| The old-guard republicans were neo-cons. They championed
| things like free trade and projecting soft power through
| international institutions that are antithetical to the
| modern right.
|
| The fact that the US only has "two parties" obscures the
| fact that there are wings in those parties that don't
| really govern in a meaningful way.
|
| The nationalist/populist conservative wing (MAGA nee Tea
| Party) hasn't really been in power pre Trump.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| What works one on one doesn't actually work at scale. You
| cannot make MAGA feel better by "building the wall" or
| "balancing the budget" -- they don't actually care about
| those things, in aggregate. In the political sphere, they
| care -- because they've been conditioned to care by 40
| years of increasingly strident right wing propaganda --
| about hurting brown people and liberals.
|
| I don't have an answer, but reason and logic are not going
| to solve the problem.
| wnc3141 wrote:
| There is no ideological coherence of fascism. It's about
| coercing a nation into elevating a chosen group/ identity
| of people above everyone else (a sort of anti-pluralism).
|
| -- I liken it to how arguing about the shortcomings of
| your bully's stance doesn't make them stop punching you.
|
| EDIT: I'm going to add, that I think the solution at
| least begins with encouraging more shared experiences and
| spaces (like a movie theater). Most people want to be
| seen as well functioning in public limiting how much they
| might explore the nastiness of their own right wing echo
| chambers.
| otherme123 wrote:
| Is this ironic? Because if this is serious, note that maybe
| you are the stubborn person here, the one that is wrong, the
| one that must be nudged to the right direction and join them
| eventually.
| Dumblydorr wrote:
| It's possible parent comment is referring to factually
| proven issues, such as climate change, that the right has
| its own set of propagandistic facts for.
|
| I'd say the any group of people has areas of less
| factitious basis for their beliefs. But, We all should want
| to employ truthful factual real, non-propagandistic ideas,
| eh? Is this controversial?
|
| If we don't have ground truth, real facts, what can we base
| anything off of? Our policies will fail, our dollars will
| be wasted, and division will grow.
| waterhouse wrote:
| One danger with "factually proven issues" is cherry-
| picking facts or otherwise taking them from context. For
| example, there might be stats on which a president sucked
| for most of his term, but in the last few months those
| stats were decent (or vice versa); and then supporters of
| the president might shout those last few months' stats
| from the rooftops, and then do polls that show that
| supporters know but opponents don't know about those last
| few months' stats, and gleefully report, "Gosh, well,
| we're trying to reason with our opponents, but
| unfortunately they're just so ignorant, what can we
| do..."
|
| Another danger is people playing with definitions. A
| third is people claiming things to be "facts" based on
| cherry-picked studies (and possibly some dubious
| interpretations thereof).
|
| Progress can be made, but I think it requires a
| sophisticated approach. Paying attention to all the above
| dimensions, and probably to the motives of the people
| involved.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I agree with your approach but, as a generally extremely
| left leaning individual myself, comments solely using
| "the right" (or any individual group) as the example make
| it hard to assign to this kind of thought process alone.
|
| Some regular self doubt "what I think are ground truth
| facts may need to be requisitioned and revalidated and
| that isn't just true for one specific group to consider"
| is a core requirement of trying to hold a fact based
| viewpoint, just as important as any other part of such an
| approach.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Is it possible the danger you think we're in isn't real? And
| are you open to that?
|
| I'm not really what you'd call "on the right" but my left-
| leaning friends seem convinced democracy is teetering and to
| me that seems to be mostly just propaganda.
| crooked-v wrote:
| A legal resident of the US has already been illegally
| shipped to a foreign prison, with the Trump administration
| claiming it's impossible to get him back. Will it count as
| "danger" for you once the first US citizen gets the same
| treatment?
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Illegally firing the IGs added after Nixon's shenanigans
| to make sure the executive isn't just _wildly_ doing
| crime constantly under a veil of secrecy, right at the
| start of his term, was... you know, also a bad sign.
| tclancy wrote:
| This feels like begging the question. But, in the interests
| of the topic, how should I see things when one branch of
| government is not only openly, but gleefully ignoring the
| will of a coequal branch while the third branch looks on in
| impotent compliance?
| alabastervlog wrote:
| It's... the news, for the last decade or so.
|
| 2016 was when Trump suggested that his supporters could
| shoot Hillary if he lost, and that didn't immediately end
| his candidacy. That was a _shocking_ development. It 's
| been downhill since.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Whether it's teetering depends on how strong it is, but
| here are a few of the most unequivocal reasons why we know
| it's under attack, and that the defenses are weakened:
|
| - A conspiracy to refuse to leave the white house went
| unpunished at the highest levels of government.
|
| - Congress is refusing to cancel declarations of emergency
| that grant the executive special powers with enormous
| impact.
|
| - Habeas corpus has been violated many times and the
| judicial branch has been limited to ineffectively
| "ordering" it to stop in one case.
|
| There are many others, but the ones that are overtly
| political tend to be "invisible" to people who agree deeply
| enough. For example, Chinese-style social media scanning
| for visa holders seems to only bother people who do not see
| the US as being in a state of war related to what their
| social media is being scanned for.
| pron wrote:
| It is not propaganda that POTUS is blackmailing law firms
| that represent his opponents and universities he doesn't
| like, and "suggesting" a revocation of broadcast licenses
| due to unfavorable coverage.
|
| It is not propaganda that he has signed executive orders
| directing the DOJ to investigate individuals who have made
| statements he doesn't like but were never suspected of any
| crime.
|
| It is not propaganda that America is now illegally
| (according to court rulings) renditioning people from the
| US to incarceration facilities in another country with no
| conviction, no charges, and no sentence -- indeed, no due
| process at all -- and illegally (according to court
| rulings) circumventing habeas corpus, a principle of proto-
| democracy since the 12th century.
|
| It is not propaganda that the administration is willfully
| ignoring rulings by SCOTUS.
|
| These are the basic facts. It is also a fact that these, or
| similar, things have not happened in US history outside of
| some extreme events such as the Civil War or world wars.
|
| Whether or not you integrate these extreme and highly
| unusual actions that go against basic tenets of democracy
| and reach a conclusion of "danger" or not is up to you, but
| if anyone does reach such a conclusion, it would clearly
| not be "just propaganda" or even "mostly just propaganda".
| alabastervlog wrote:
| The _first_ term was a wild shift in norms. Dozens of
| incidents that would have been a huge scandals normally,
| just faded into the background noise and nothing came of
| them.
|
| One stand-out feature of the first term was a total
| disregard for conflict of interest. No real attempt to
| distance himself from his investments and businesses,
| multiple actions that _sure looked like_ enriching
| himself at the public expense, multiple family members
| given roles in the administration. All of these would
| have been huge scandals and maybe even drawn impeachment
| and a conviction, not that long ago.
| LPisGood wrote:
| Do you know about the president banning the federal
| government from working with people represented by specific
| law firms he doesn't like? Are you aware he has been
| revoking clearances of all lawyers working at law firms
| that have brought suit against him and/or his government?
|
| These blatantly corrupt abuses of power against officers of
| the court are not propaganda.
| const_cast wrote:
| > seem convinced democracy is teetering and to me that
| seems to be mostly just propaganda.
|
| Dude, the last time Trump lost he tried to overthrow the
| government. Are we just supposed to... pretend that didn't
| happen and he's just some bastion of American democracy?
|
| The stage for this has been set for a while now, and if you
| haven't noticed, Trump isn't backing down on ANY of his
| beliefs. He's doubling down. What other conclusion could
| you draw then?
| whiddershins wrote:
| "i can't understand my son, he doesn't listen to a thing I
| say!"
|
| -- Stephen Covey, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
| whatnow37373 wrote:
| You are framing it as danger which preloads the discussion
| immensely. I find this is common in these situations. This
| already ends the talk before beginning it. Imagine starting
| negotiations with Putin with "How come you are such a waste
| of valuable oxygen?"
|
| I am not "on the right", but I do have the ability to
| entertain the idea my "opponent" is actually right and I am
| wrong. This can be a valuable exercise to get you in a more
| .. sympathetic frame of mind.
|
| Let's try to loosen you up. Let's say we are actually not in
| danger and you and all the rest of you - excuse me, it's for
| the exercise - "pearl clutchers" are actually ridiculously
| overreacting and misreading the situation. The world _is_
| dangerous right now and singing kumbaya is not going to cut
| it. Trump is weird and we all dislike him, but nothing you
| can offer will improve the situation.
|
| Try to see that viewpoint. Try to feel it. Try to imagine a
| world where you are wrong and your "opponent" is actually
| right and you were "suppressing" them all that time and in
| your righteous might caused tremendous harm which resulted in
| this correction.
|
| Next time enter the discussion with "These times are complex
| and there sure is a lot going on. Let's talk because I'm
| confused!" instead of "I am right and why do you take so long
| to see that I am clearly knowledgable and you should
| definitely heed all my warnings (which with 98% probability
| come down to 'you are basically stupid')"
| jarbus wrote:
| I've largely held this viewpoint for quite some time, but
| everyone has a line that shouldn't be crossed. Trying to
| _literally_ overthrow our democracy was a line for a lot of
| the Trump supporters I 've met who have since turned away.
| It personally wasn't even the line for me.
|
| This second administration has very much crossed my line,
| in so many ways. We are past the point of "maybe I'm just
| confused?"
|
| The people I've met who still support this guy are
| dangerously, dangerously stupid and hypocritical. They'd
| have strongly opposed all of the stuff Trump has done if
| they didn't know Trump was the one who did it. It's
| terrifying watching people completely abandon the
| principles they used to stand for.
|
| We are dealing with a different phenomenon than just
| political disagreement; we are dealing with the type of
| delusion that gets millions of people killed, and we need
| to acknowledge it as such now.
| hackyhacky wrote:
| > It's terrifying watching people completely abandon the
| principles they used to stand for.
|
| If they give up principles that easily, they were never
| principles. They are simply ad hoc justifications for
| their preferred cult of personality.
| immibis wrote:
| If you had the chance to debate Hitler, would you start by
| entertaining the idea that maybe the Jews _do_ need to be
| exterminated from Germany? Or would you see that as
| obviously absurd?
| asimpletune wrote:
| From a rhetorical point of view, yeah it may have a
| better chance to change their mind. Start out the idiot,
| assume they're right, but then ask sincerely why. After
| they've explained why then go back to trying to
| understand how their solution does that.
|
| Many people have been conditioned to gain energy and
| meaning from confrontation. But when you let them explain
| their views they suddenly become a lot more open to being
| wrong about some but not all of the details.
|
| Slowly slowly this leads to minds being changed.
|
| I think a lot of technical debates can also be solved
| this way. Ask people to help you understand what they're
| saying, repeat back what they said so they know you got
| it, and then ask about how it world work in x, y, z
| scenarios. Talking like this has the best chance of
| success.
| spencerflem wrote:
| Yeah I'm with you that its the better debate strategy.
|
| I don't have the heart for it though. Block and move on
| whatnow37373 wrote:
| While painful I do think that's a more productive mindset
| to enter the talk (not debate) with.
|
| His reasons for doing so are presumably not all that
| rational so I'd steer clear off obvious bear traps like
| rationality.
|
| I liken it more to how you engage with angry toddlers or
| teens. Acknowledge the issue first. Share their pain and
| _then_ you can try alternatives.
|
| Not saying I think "talking" will be helpful with guys
| like Hitler, but I'm not much of an assassin so if I
| personally where to be put on the spot I have very few
| other options than try this route of, at least attempted,
| understanding.
| pmarreck wrote:
| I have slipped to the right enough to be almost like a
| "translator" between leftwing and rightwing viewpoints. Put
| it this way, I can laugh at parodies of both of them...
|
| I see some error patterns that both sides seem to uniquely
| make, for example. Just 1 for each side for the sake of
| brevity here: Rightwingers idolize success without
| acknowledging the systematic boosts (or pure luck) that have
| often assisted it, while leftwingers are not only disgusted
| by success but consider it heretical. Leftwingers constantly
| compare a situation to some unattainable ideal and are
| therefore constantly complaining about the current state of
| affairs without offering a realistic solution; rightwingers
| fail to acknowledge the very real injustices that a more
| purely authoritarian approach to things often causes (see:
| three-strikes laws).
|
| Speaking as one who tests politically center, I believe that
| the danger is neither nonexistent nor is as high as you may
| believe. Note that there is some merit to the rightwing claim
| of "MSM bias"; harping on the same cherry-picked injustice
| stories for outrage clicks over and over again seems to be
| the last remaining successful news business model (and this
| should worry EVERYONE).
| ang_cire wrote:
| > while leftwingers are not only disgusted by success but
| consider it heretical
|
| The entire left wing rhetoric against billionaires is that
| they are not in fact successful _on the merits of work that
| everyone else is doing_ , they are successful in cheating
| the system and exploiting others. We love success that
| happens within the same rules that we average people all
| operate in.
|
| This is like saying that CoD players who are against
| aimbotters are "disgusted by success" when they point out
| that no one will _legitimately_ have a 100 /4/0 KDA (a more
| appropriate ratio for billionaire vs average person would
| be 1000000/4/0, but that would almost be too outlandish,
| which is why there are so many infographics showing just
| how conceptually confounding a billion dollars really is).
| pmarreck wrote:
| > The entire left wing rhetoric against billionaires is
| that they are not in fact successful on the merits of
| work that everyone else is doing, they are successful in
| cheating the system and exploiting others
|
| Yes. And that is false. If you don't believe me, bring
| that to ChatGPT and ask it to argue both sides of this
| claim, because I do not have time to retread this. For
| one thing, everyone has to abide by the rules- and if the
| rules are unfair, then it is the rules that deserve this
| scorn, not the people who played the game by them.
|
| > We love success that happens within the same rules that
| we average people all operate in.
|
| This is also false. I have _not seen a single successful
| individual_ praised on this basis. I 'd love to know of
| one. Musk graduated with college debt- something that I
| did not- and yet has attained massively more success than
| I, for example. Luigi, the guy who shot the CEO of
| UnitedHealthcare, was raised in a far wealthier family
| than that CEO was!
|
| Wait, how am I already getting downvoted? At least
| counterargue?
| ang_cire wrote:
| > For one thing, everyone has to abide by the rules- and
| if the rules are unfair, then it is the rules that
| deserve this scorn, not the people who played the game by
| them.
|
| > Rightwingers idolize success without acknowledging the
| systematic boosts (or pure luck) that have often assisted
| it
|
| Guess what some of those systemic boosts are? Unequal
| rules. And if a game maker (or a government) made a bunch
| of special rules or made constant exceptions to the
| rules, for people of a certain wealth level, no one would
| direct their scorn only at the unfair rules, they'd also
| rightly direct it at the people benefiting from them
| (especially when that group lobbies for the special
| treatment like the wealthy do).
|
| > Musk graduated with college debt
|
| So? His family is incredibly rich, and he was given every
| opportunity on earth to succeed, and any college debt
| would have been no threat to that. He carries millions in
| personal debt, and it doesn't disadvantage him now,
| either.
|
| > I'd love to know of one.
|
| Bernie Sanders? Hasanbi? The average 60+ retiree whose
| house is now worth north of a million? If you're asking
| me to list _billionaires_ , there won't be any, but the
| vast majority of millionaires out there who aren't trying
| to use their money unethically, the Left has no issue
| with.
|
| > Wait, how am I already getting downvoted? At least
| counterargue?
|
| Perhaps the people who downvoted you didn't have time to
| retread all this.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I'm a long-time politics nerd and spend more time than most
| people digging into the right's "evidence" for various things
| they believe.
|
| So much of it's simply made-up that any attempt to engage one
| of them is incredibly tedious, and it's the _exact same_
| bullshit every time you start talking to a new one. You 'd
| need weeks, at least, of consistent and very-careful
| engagement to fix the fact-gap so you can even begin
| discussing actual issues. For each one of them.
|
| It's like trying to talk politics with someone and they keep
| bringing up how the real problem is the lawless Rebel
| Alliance and we need to trust Emperor Palpatine to set things
| right, and after a while you figure out they aren't joking or
| just trying to get under your skin and sincerely believe we
| live in Star Wars, so now you can't even talk about actual
| issues in the real world until you manage to convince them
| that they do not live in Star Wars. You try to talk about
| crime & policing or whatever and they start talking about how
| we need to clear all the criminals out of the pirate moon Nar
| Shaddaa, and... what the fuck do you even do with that? It's
| disheartening.
|
| [EDIT] Real world example: Local republican politician comes
| to my door while campaigning and is talking about how local
| crime (in our _amazingly_ safe, rather rich small town) is
| WAY UP and out of control and that 's why we need more money
| for the police. I have my _strong suspicions_ based on
| _practically every other time_ this claim has been made by a
| Republican, and also the fact that our town is conspicuously
| safe and rich, but I don 't fact-check her on the spot and
| just let her finish the spiel and politely disengage, but
| that was like _half_ of her message (the rest was, I shit you
| not, about trans athletes, JFC).
|
| Of course the police department's own stats fail to back up
| any of what she was saying, when I check right after the
| conversation. I mean, obviously they do, there was _no_
| reason to expect otherwise, but I did check, because that 's
| how I roll.
|
| Without even digging into the other half of what she was
| presenting, half of her message right off the bat, half of
| what she _chose_ to present as important, was over a
| _completely made-up issue_. Not real at all.
| iinnPP wrote:
| They probably have data that these talking points have the
| best positive reaction rate for the area on average.
|
| The fact that it didn't matter to you isn't important to
| them, it's the aggregate as that is the end goal. They may
| even disagree with it entirely and agree with your stance.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Yeah, I'm sure that's why the politician was selling
| those particular issues.
|
| Those work, though, because you run into he same
| perspectives among Republican voters, because their media
| are telling them it's true and they don't bother to check
| (the ones who do, presumably, move away from identifying
| as Republicans the dozenth time they catch such an
| "error" in a given day of watching Fox).
| gowld wrote:
| "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't
| reason themself into."
| iinnPP wrote:
| Given the downdittles: I mention two leaders at the end and
| am not referring to Trump for either.
|
| As someone who loves to converse with either side, it's more
| often one side than the other that will listen to reason, and
| argue outside of logical fallacies.
|
| I get vastly more violent threats/lame insults from one side.
|
| I get an overwhelming amount of definition problems from one
| side. Which are easily solved using any dictionary (though
| this is becoming less true)
|
| I get things like "True X, Y, Z or Proper X, Y, Z"
| overwhelmingly from one side.
|
| And I get vastly more conspiracy theories not grounded in any
| reality from one side.
|
| I know of many people from both sides that hold disgusting
| views such as: I want to do X,Y,Z but am mad if anyone else
| does this exact thing to me. Every one of these people do so
| on protected grounds (in Government) of one form or another.
|
| Recently, I have noted people who scream at a leader and
| bootlick another while claiming each are of the other's style
| of governance. It's quite remarkable.
| arminiusreturns wrote:
| As someone who has completely straddled both worlds
| (Arizona/Texas redneck raised, worked in woke VC/SV
| companies, with a social circle across the board):
|
| I view it as planting seeds, and harvesting them later.
| Before that can be done though, a person generally has to
| understand how entrenched a person is in being a
| stenographer. I have found on both "sides", there are a
| certain amount of people that literally do no thinking for
| themselves at all, and only regurgitate. I've tried for years
| to work different angles on them, and those seeds mostly
| still lay dormant and un-sprouted...
|
| "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed
| ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two
| parties should be almost identical, so that the American
| people can throw the rascals out at any election without
| leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then
| it should be possible to replace it, every four years if
| necessary, by the other party which will be none of these
| things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately
| the same basic policies." - Carroll Quigley
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| I've found that putting arguments into simple, general terms
| tends to make people rethink their positions.
|
| I had an argument with my dad a while back about single payer
| health care. A lot of people on the left might frame it like
| "don't you think everyone is entitled to access to health
| services?" But an idea like this is like nails on a
| chalkboard to my dad, who believes everything should be merit
| based, even access to health care.
|
| Instead, phrasing it as "wouldn't you prefer it if we paid
| the same amount of money every month and when we go to the
| hospital we don't have to worry about any out of pocket
| costs?" This really nailed the point home to him. It's not
| about entitlements or whatever. It's about people not being
| destroyed financially by bad health. We skip over the feely
| stuff, we skip over the specifics of cost. We can both agree
| that this mechanism makes a lot of sense for most people, and
| the current system is rather arbitrary.
|
| Anyway, he's still firmly a MAGA trumper but I do think on
| the aspect of health care, he does see single payer as a
| viable alternative.
| pmarreck wrote:
| I don't completely agree. (I know... How meta.)
|
| I have worked to be as rational as I will personally tolerate,
| and it has been difficult, but I've achieved some success. The
| key is to divorce your identity from your beliefs about the
| world, and to realize that the opposite of never admitting
| you're wrong is "always being right", which is of course
| impossible, so if you are TRULY interested in becoming MORE
| right, then the only reasonable option is that you must
| sometimes lose arguments (and admit it to both of you).
|
| Are most people interested in doing this? No, and in that sense
| you have a point. But it's available to everyone, and who
| wouldn't want to be _more right_?
|
| The other difficult thing to do is to aim this at yourself with
| full candor and work through that. Interestingly, now that
| ChatGPT has access to all the conversations you've had with it,
| and assuming you've opened up to it a bit, you can ask it: "You
| know me pretty well. Please point out my personal hypocrisies."
| If you want to make it more fun, you can add "... as Dennis
| Leary/Bill Burr" etc. What it said when I tried this was
| fascinating and insightful. But also difficult to read...
| nluken wrote:
| > divorce your identity from your beliefs about the world
|
| I understand not totally subjugating your personal identity
| to ideology, but I'm struggling to see how someone could
| practically completely separate these two things. To use a
| somewhat trite but personal example, I'm gay, so that aspect
| of my identity will necessarily affect my perspective on
| certain issues. Conversely if someone were to convince me
| rationally that homosexuality was wrong, it would necessitate
| a pretty dramatic change of my identity no?
|
| Not every issue exists on that clear a spectrum, but you can
| imagine the views necessitated by different pieces of
| personal identity adding up over a lifetime.
| pmarreck wrote:
| Fortunately for you, there is no good argument that
| homosexuality is wrong. But honestly, it does take a
| certain nontrivial amount of understanding to realize that-
| an understanding of things like: the list of the most
| common informal logical fallacies (or... all of them,
| because why not, and once you learn them, you see them
| _everywhere_ ). And those aren't someething that is
| typically taught in school (I had to pursue them on my own
| time).
|
| (A while back I found a personal webpage that
| systematically shot down every single homophobic argument
| using reason and those fallacies... and I haven't been able
| to find it since, unfortunately.)
|
| So, among many other injustices that might be rectified (or
| at least ameliorated) by a broader understanding of
| fallacious arguments, homophobia would definitely be one of
| them.
|
| (Also, personal note, I'm sorry about any injustice you've
| had to endure because of your orientation and others' lack
| of understanding.)
| Etheryte wrote:
| Out of curiosity, why do you think being as rational as you
| possibly can is a goal in and of itself. Mark Manson has a
| whole bit on this, in The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck if
| I recall correctly, that lobotomized people would fit that
| description pretty well, purely rational. Except it turns out
| that once you take the emotional side out of the person,
| what's left is merely a hull that doesn't care about
| anything, because rationally, why would you. I don't think
| being more right is a noble goal. We all know the type,
| people who pick at every little thing to be technically
| right, but mostly they're just asshats who miss the forest
| for the trees.
| pmarreck wrote:
| If you think rationality is a lobotomy, maybe your emotions
| are running a dictatorship?
|
| Being right doesn't make you an asshat. Refusing to correct
| yourself when proven wrong does.
|
| > I don't think being more right is a noble goal.
|
| That's a pretty telling sentence. If someone doesn't value
| being more correct, what kind of compass are they using to
| navigate the world... Vibes?
|
| Rationality isn't about amputating emotion. It's about not
| letting your emotions pilot the plane blindfolded while
| high on conspiracy podcasts telling you which way to bank.
|
| Emotions are data. Rationality is how you integrate them,
| not ignore them. A rational person doesn't become
| unfeeling; they align their feelings with reality, and
| update when their model of the world is provably flawed.
|
| The lobotomy comparison is just absurd: actual rationalists
| care deeply about things- they just make sure their caring
| isn't built on delusions. That's why rational frameworks
| helped de-stigmatize homosexuality, dismantle phrenology,
| and challenge witch trials. Emotional reasoning alone got
| us the burnings, not the liberation. Emotional reasoning
| got us Turing's chemical castration, not gay marriage
| rights.
|
| A rationalist by YOUR definition wouldn't even care enough
| to fight homophobia with reason. See the difference?
|
| Also, _literally the entire system of justice_ (an
| exemplary combination of rationality and feeling) doesn 't
| make sense, given your anti-justification for rationality.
| The accused looks like a rapist, I just know it, he's just
| got that look in his eyes. Let's go with that. Judgment for
| the plaintiff!
|
| Also: Being "technically right" is only annoying when it's
| used to score points. Being functionally right- especially
| when it affects policies, freedoms, or lives- is kind of
| the point of civilization.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Being caring and kind are simple examples of moral
| compasses that are considerably better than being as
| right as you can be. Your comment is a great example of
| the kind of person I'm trying to exemplify, you make up a
| lot of nonsense no one ever said just to argue how much
| more right you are against it.
| dayvigo wrote:
| What definition of rational are you using? Being a rational
| actor typically means displaying consistent goal-oriented
| behavior. Being lobotomized seems pretty irrational. It
| reduces your power and makes you less able to achieve goals
| (if you can achieve them at all), including basic self-
| care.
|
| >Except it turns out that once you take the emotional side
| out of the person, what's left is merely a hull that
| doesn't care about anything, because rationally, why would
| you.
|
| That's not what rationality is. What terminal goals one
| should have, which in humans is informed by emotions, is
| not a concern of rationality. Rationality concerns how to
| achieve terminal goals.
| olau wrote:
| One thing that helped me was reading a book on good political
| discourse. It basically said what the GP said, that good
| discourse is about exploring the world. It also pointed out
| that vilification in its many forms is counterproductive. It
| undermines trust.
|
| One of the examples used was of a party that I did not agree
| with - that most people didn't agree with. You'd see
| mainstream politicians declaring them to be bad people.
|
| But the book pointed out that before this party existed,
| nobody was representing the people who were now voting for
| it. If you believe in democracy, how can you be disrespectful
| of representation?
|
| Suppressing my value judgement also later helped me see that
| when the party got into a coalition and managed to get some
| of their politics put into law, some of those laws actually
| did help the rest of us, because they addressed issues that
| the other parties were not willing to address.
| timcobb wrote:
| > Nobody ever
| apwell23 wrote:
| > The "real" point of an argument is not to persuade the other
| side (though that is what you aspire to nonetheless) but to
| exchange views
|
| to me real point is just entertainment
| geye1234 wrote:
| It takes time to have a serious debate. You both need to figure
| out what your unstated premises are. If you disagree on these,
| you won't get anywhere by arguing downstream of them. Politics
| is even worse, because you are _supposed_ to have an opinion,
| but at the same time, most matters require a detailed
| understanding of the facts that few people have the time,
| brains or inclination to understand. Add the tribalism and this
| gets even worse. It 's incredibly rare to find someone whose
| general political opinions are well thought-through. Mine
| certainly aren't. I could regurgitate the argument for the free
| market or for heavy gov control of the economy, for example,
| and even understand them as internally-consistent syllogisms,
| but really all I'm doing is linking concepts together in my
| mind; I doubt any of them apply to any really-existing concrete
| situation that any given country is in. Hence I _try_ not to
| comment on political threads.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I've almost never changed my mind in an online argument but I
| do regularly offline. Why is that?
|
| I think it's because online nobody acts in good faith. There is
| no connection and trust.
| layer8 wrote:
| Are you saying your comment here is in bad faith? ;)
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I'd say yours is in bad faith because you know exactly what
| I mean ;)
| layer8 wrote:
| It's actually not clear to me what you really mean, and I
| would dispute your generalization that nobody acts in
| good faith online.
| marcusb wrote:
| I had a customer once who would just absolutely berate people
| over email for the tiniest thing. Totally unbearable and
| unreasonable. So, whenever he would go off, I'd tell him
| 'look, I'll be in the area [this afternoon|later|whenever].
| You going to be around if I stop by?' Any conversation with
| him that could be deflected to an in-person discussion could
| be peacefully resolved in short order. Trying to convince him
| of _anything_ over phone or email was an exercise in
| frustration control.
|
| I heard somebody say at a conference one time, talking about
| how much more productive in-person meetings are in reaching
| agreement, "there's a lot of bandwidth in a room". I think
| there's a lot of truth to that.
|
| 0 - ironically, this was at a ISP network engineering
| conference
| pitaj wrote:
| I think you can have two people who, both acting in good
| faith, can completely lose it over textual communication.
| Even a phone call can make the same discussion ten times
| easier.
| harrall wrote:
| I notice people tend to argue about X when it's actually a
| proxy argument for Y, but they don't know themselves that it's
| Y.
|
| Y is a legitimate concern or fear, but X may not be. But
| everyone wastes each other's time arguing about X.
|
| If you figure out Y, you find common ground and compromise and
| that's when you find solutions.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| >Nobody ever changes their opinion on things with anything
| remotely like a high degree of frequency, and that's not a
| particularly bad thing
|
| For a great discussion of that, cue Slate Star Codex "Epistemic
| Learned Helplessness"
|
| https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...
| mppm wrote:
| > The "real" point of an argument is not to persuade the other
| side (though that is what you aspire to nonetheless) but to
| exchange views.
|
| Maybe this is just a matter of definitions, but for me the
| point of an argument is to convince or be convinced. When two
| incompatible views exist on a subject, at least one of them
| must be wrong. Some topics of conversation allow for diverging
| views or values, but then we are just talking or sharing
| experiences, not arguing.
|
| That said, it is my experience as well that actually changing
| someone's (or my own) mind on an important issue is unlikely.
| Especially on complex topics with partial and uncertain
| information, like political issues, our life experience and
| cumulative knowledge significantly influences our selection of
| sources and interpretation of the facts, so converging on a
| common point of view may require the exchange of a prohibitive
| amount of information, even among rational arguers.
|
| Productive argument usually occurs in a sort of semi-echo
| chamber, with people who mostly agree with us on the context,
| and are only arguing about the top layer, so to say. But when
| trying to argue about the deep stuff, we are mostly just
| "exchanging views", in the end.
| Bjartr wrote:
| > When two incompatible views exist on a subject, at least
| one of them must be wrong
|
| This isn't strictly correct if the source of incompatibility
| is differing assumptions / axioms. Both views can be correct
| in their own context and incorrect in the other context.
| htgb wrote:
| The article in general, and final paragraph in particular,
| reminded me of this essay:
|
| https://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
|
| Edit: if the connection isn't clear, I mean the aspect of it
| being difficult to argue rationally about opinions you've made
| part of your identity, since changing the opinion would be
| difficult.
| AnthonBerg wrote:
| This post captures very well some mechanisms I learned about in
| the past years, the psychological mechanisms behind the behavior
| that people show towards people going through a high-risk
| pregnancy in a SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
|
| To my great surprise.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> If you're not changing your mind, it's likely you're not
| actually having an argument_
|
| If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could be
| changed) why would you have an argument about it in the first
| place? Discussing the already settled is rather boring. Unless
| one is grandstanding for some other purpose, people move on once
| they've made up their mind. They don't keep exploring the same
| ideas over and over and over again once they've settled.
|
| Argument is there to explore that to which you have not yet made
| a mind. Your mind won't change because there is no basis on which
| to change from.
| filoleg wrote:
| > If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could
| be changed) why would you have an argument about it in the
| first place?
|
| Because, in most of those cases, my mind is made up given the
| information I'd had access to and the points I've seen/heard
| made regarding the topic up to this point. If an argument
| brings up new (to me) points and information, it is all a fair
| game, and I am not holding onto my "already made up" position
| that dearly. If I consider a position "already made up," it is
| usually due to me rarely encountering anything new on that
| topic. But I am not going to pre-emptively declare "my mind is
| made up, and nothing can change it," all it could take is a
| single piece of new info or a new point that I was yet to
| encounter.
|
| TLDR: the entire meaning of "my mind is made up on this topic
| already" to me personally is "over a course of a long time, I
| am yet to encounter any new materially relevant info on the
| topic that could change my mind, and all i keep hearing is the
| same stuff I heard before (but I am willing to change my
| perspective if there are any new and relevant points), so I
| expect the likelihood of my mind being changed on this to be
| low (given the low likelihood of any new relevant info being
| introduced)".
|
| > Argument is there to explore that to which you have not yet
| made a mind. Your mind won't change because there is no basis
| on which to change from.
|
| Agreed wholeheartedly, except i would completely remove the
| "that to which you have not yet made a mind" part.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> I am not holding onto my "already made up" position that
| dearly._
|
| Perhaps this is just semantics, then? I wouldn't make up my
| mind until there is effectively no chance of there being an
| alternative I've overlooked. I'm confident enough in the
| available information to make up my mind that 1+1 does equal
| 2 (a topic I would find no interest in discussing further at
| this point; there is good reason we don't sit around all day
| talking about that), but for most things I don't have a mind
| made.
|
| If you can't hold it dearly, is your mind really made?
| filoleg wrote:
| Using your specific example: I consider my mind to be made
| up on 1+1=2, because I have zero idea what kind of a new
| information one could bring up to make me consider 1+1 not
| being equal 2.
|
| I am open to someone making such a point, I just consider
| the likelihood of that happening being insanely low (given
| the points I've encountered so far on that topic).
|
| All that "i made up my mind" means to me personally
| (stressing this part, because i know for a fact that it
| means an absolute "i won't change my mind on this no matter
| what evidence you provide" to a lot of people) is "given
| all prior attempts and the evidence on the topic, I believe
| it is extremely unlikely you will manage to bring up any
| new legitimate argument to support your position, but I am
| open to hearing out what you got."
| 9rx wrote:
| _> I am open to someone making such a point_
|
| Someone else is not _you_ presenting an argument. You
| making an argument about what you know about 1+1=2 is
| what is boring. Let 's be real: You're not going to do
| it. Why would you? You are already confident in your
| understanding.
|
| I mean, do it if you want. I'm not sure why you'd waste
| your time, though. You aren't going to gain anything from
| it.
|
| Only if you really had no idea what is going on and wish
| to understand a topic in more detail would you go down
| the road of getting into an argument. But when you are in
| that state you are not in a position to have made a mind.
| filoleg wrote:
| Agreed, I would not start an argument in favor of 1+1=2,
| just like I wouldn't start an argument about sky being
| blue on a sunny day, because most people would just agree
| with me. The whole point of an argument is exploring
| ideas and learning something new, and I have zero new
| info on those topics that would go against what most
| already believe.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> The whole point of an argument is exploring ideas and
| learning something new_
|
| Exactly. Which is why argumentation becomes boring once
| you are at the point where you feel there is nothing left
| that you can learn. Not only does it become boring, but
| it encroaches on the time you have to broach subjects you
| want to learn about, so there is great incentive to move
| on for that reason as well.
|
| But when you are in a state where you still feel there is
| something left to learn, where you might drum up an
| argument to continue to learn and explore, you're not
| going to make a mind. That would be nonsensical.
|
| So the idea of argument changing your mind isn't
| practical, even if theoretically possible. During
| argument, there is no mind to change. Once a mind is
| made, argument ceases (fake argument with ulterior
| motives aside).
| filoleg wrote:
| I feel like we broadly agree and are just griping over
| the semantics of what "made up my mind" means.
|
| > argumentation becomes boring once you are at the point
| where you feel there is nothing left that you can learn
|
| Agreed, but here is the thing: there are plenty of topics
| on which I feel like "there is nothing left to learn,"
| but that doesn't mean to me personally that there is
| nothing left, it just means I believe it is extremely
| unlikely to find anything new. Just by the definition, I
| wouldn't know if there was anything new I haven't learned
| yet, otherwise I would've went and learned it myself
| already. So that potentially new stuff would have to come
| from elsewhere.
|
| However, I can definitely express my belief in the
| likelihood of discovering something new on the topic
| being extremely low, which is what i count as "i made up
| my mind" for myself personally.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> I feel like we broadly agree_
|
| I am not sure I am in a proper place to agree or
| disagree. I'm still in argument mode, which means I don't
| understand the topic well enough to be in a state where I
| could agree or disagree. I do hope to get there someday,
| but when I do get there you aren't to hear more from me
| on the subject! I'll have grown bored of it and will be
| on to the next. Such is the human condition.
| endominus wrote:
| This response is indicative of a completely different
| perspective on the idea of "argument" (and "making up your
| mind," a phrase that does not appear in the than the original
| article and would not fit with the framework of understanding
| expressed therein). The belief that your mind should or even
| can be "settled" on an issue - that you can examine the
| evidence, weigh it, judge it, come to a definitive conclusion,
| and then never think about it again - is not universal.
|
| There exist people who think probabilistically; issues are not
| definitively decided in their mind, but given some likelihood
| of being one way or another. Such people tend to have much more
| accurate understandings of the world and benefit greatly from
| constructive debate, revisiting the same issues over and over
| again as new evidence is brought up in these arguments. If
| you'd like to know more, I recommend reading the book The Scout
| Mindset by Julia Galef.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> "making up your mind," a phrase that does not appear in
| the than the original article and would not fit with the
| framework of understanding expressed therein_
|
| While it does not explicitly appear, a mind cannot be changed
| if it was never made. Change, by definition, requires
| something to already exist.
|
| _> revisiting the same issues over and over again as new
| evidence is brought up in these arguments._
|
| Right. But they can't change their mind as they never
| established something that can be changed. This is the state
| before a mind is made. It is possible that a mind will never
| be made. For complex subjects, it is unlikely that a mind can
| be made.
| endominus wrote:
| >But they can't change their mind as they never established
| something that can be changed.
|
| "I am 70% confident that candidate X will win the upcoming
| elections."
|
| "Oh, new polling data has come in that shows more support
| than I previously knew about? I'm now 80% confident of
| their victory."
|
| Why do you think change cannot occur unless a belief is
| certain?
| 9rx wrote:
| I have no mind formed when it comes to anything related
| to politics. I'm not sure how anyone reasonably could.
| There is so much information, and even more information
| not accessible, that making a mind is completely beyond
| grasp. If one thinks they have, I suspect they are out to
| lunch. Perhaps confusing their state with tribalism or
| some such similar quality.
|
| The fact that most people seem to enjoy a good political
| argument now and again solidifies the idea that they
| don't actually have a mind made. People lose interest in
| arguments once they've settled. Argument occurs in the
| state where one is unsure. It is how humans explore and
| learn about the world they don't yet understand.
| endominus wrote:
| You realize that examples can extend to other topics?
|
| "I am 60% confident that recursion is the best method for
| this algorithm." "Having had more time to study potential
| options, I am now 75% confident."
|
| "I am sure that I parked my car here." "Oh, you're right,
| we were on the east side, not the west."
|
| "I am predicting that I will enjoy the movie tonight."
| "Given the expressions of people leaving the cinema ahead
| of me, I am rapidly reconsidering my prediction."
|
| Your objection seems to primarily come from a difference
| in definition for "changing one's mind" - the way you
| describe it sounds to me like a fundamental shift in an
| axiomatic belief, whereas I, and many others, use it
| simply to indicate that we are updating a probabilistic
| map.
| 9rx wrote:
| We have already discussed the semantic implications. What
| else are you trying to add here? I think it went over my
| head.
| endominus wrote:
| Your original issue with the article was that once you've
| "settled" an issue, there is no reason to argue about it.
| I pointed out that a number of people do not "settle"
| issues in the way that you describe, and that argument
| serves to update their information and beliefs
| _constantly_.
|
| You stated that a mind "cannot be changed if it was never
| made." I disagree; one does not need to have an absolute
| belief in something to "change their mind." By
| definition, any update of beliefs is changing one's mind.
| My mind changes often, but usually by small increments. A
| key part of that is argumentation; I constantly seek out
| counterarguments to my own beliefs to see if new data or
| points of view will sway me. In the absence of that, I
| argue against myself, to see if I can find flaws in my
| logic and update accordingly.
|
| By that logic argument, as described by the original
| article, is extremely useful for ensuring that one's
| beliefs accurately reflect reality.
|
| To me, your position that an issue must be "settled" in
| one's mind (whatever that means, because I don't think
| you're perfectly clear on that) before you can be said to
| "change your mind" doesn't make sense.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> By definition, any update of beliefs is changing one
| 's mind. My mind changes often..._
|
| So would you say changing one's mind is a case where one
| seeks a different religion (where beliefs are thrown
| around freely)?
|
| I can't imagine believing in something unless it is
| essentially irrefutable (e.g. 1+1=2). And where I have
| beliefs, I'm not going to argue them. What purpose would
| that serve? I have already established the utmost
| possible confidence in that belief for it become one. I
| have no remaining compulsion to keep trying to see what
| more can be learned when I am certain there is nothing
| more to learn. To continue to want to learn more about
| something you are certain can be learned about no more
| must be the definition of insanity.
|
| If we want to lean on definitions, the dictionary is
| equally clear that a belief hinges on acceptance. _" I am
| 60% confident that recursion is the best method for this
| algorithm."_ means that I don't know. _" I don't know"_
| is not a state of acceptance. That is not a belief.
| endominus wrote:
| >So would you say changing one's mind is a case where one
| seeks a different religion
|
| I have no idea what you mean by this. I explained in
| detail what changing one's mind entails. It has nothing
| to do with "irrefutable" or deeply held convictions.
|
| You have a nonstandard definition of belief.
|
| First of all, "I don't know" is absolutely a state of
| acceptance. It is acceptance that the information is not
| fully reliable. Most things are unknowable; the vast
| majority of held beliefs are not arrived at through
| irrefutable logic but by simple trust in consensus. I
| believe that certain food is nutritious, even though I
| have not run tests on it myself. Data might arise later
| showing my beliefs to be false; that is why I assign
| probabilities to my beliefs, rather than certainties.
|
| Second of all, your fallback to a dictionary definition
| is flawed in two ways. The first is that various
| definitions of "belief" exist; one of which (from
| https://www.wordnik.com/words/belief) is "Assent to a
| proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact,
| opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate
| personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony;
| _partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or
| absolute certainty_ ; persuasion; conviction;
| confidence." (emphasis added) Another definition given is
| "A conviction of the truth of a given proposition or an
| alleged fact, resting upon grounds insufficient to
| constitute positive knowledge."
|
| The second way this argument is flawed is that
| dictionaries are descriptive tools, not prescriptive.
| That is to say, dictionaries are not arbiters of truth in
| language but merely reference documents for possible
| meaning, and where they differ from common usage, it is
| the dictionary that is incorrect.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> "I don't know" is absolutely a state of acceptance._
|
| Yes, it absolutely is acceptance that you don't know. It
| is belief in not knowing. But that's not what we were
| talking about. Context must be considered.
|
| _> Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the
| acceptance of a fact..._
|
| Curious choice. The GCIDE is not among the usual
| 'authoritative' dictionaries, and for good reason. It
| takes its definitions from a publication written in 1913.
| It is not a modern dictionary. Unless you've invented a
| time machine... It is interesting from a licensing
| perspective, but little more.
|
| Of course you are absolutely right that anyone can make
| up a random definition for a word on the spot. They can
| even publish it in a book if they so choose. But you know
| that wasn't what you were talking about when you brought
| up "definition" and you know that didn't change going
| forward. Context must be considered.
|
| _> The second way this argument is flawed is that
| dictionaries are descriptive tools, not prescriptive._
|
| Hence the poking fun of your _" By definition, any update
| of beliefs is changing one's mind."_ comment. It even
| prefaced with _" _If_ we want to lean on definitions"_ to
| highlight that it could not be taken in a serious way.
| Did you not read the thread in full before landing here?
| Context must be considered.
|
| I, for one, thought the discussion we were having was
| rather interesting. I have no idea why you thought anyone
| would want to read this blatantly obvious, horribly off-
| topic slop.
| padjo wrote:
| This is quite a close minded position that leaves you
| vulnerable in changing circumstances. Very little is known with
| absolute certainty outside of mathematics. I think a better
| default is to revisit topics every now and then, listen to the
| counter arguments and change your position if you think it is
| warranted.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of
| mathematics._
|
| Absolutely. As you've read in other comments, mathematics is
| of the few areas where I have found room to make up my mind.
| For everything else, straight up: I don't know. The only way
| to change my mind from "I don't know" is to make it "I do
| know", but, as you say, outside of mathematics that
| realistically isn't going to happen. We collectively don't
| know and it is unlikely that we will ever know.
|
| _> This is quite a close minded position that leaves you
| vulnerable in changing circumstances._
|
| Okay, but what in the mathematics that I have made my mind up
| on do you believe is prone to change? Do you anticipate that
| we will eventually determine that 1+1 actually equals 4 or
| something?
|
| I _will_ change my mind if in the unlikely event that
| incontrovertible proof does somehow come to be. I accepted it
| is theoretically possible to change minds. But, as I said,
| which is key to the whole thing, I will not spend my days
| arguing that 1+1=2 until I find out different. I am confident
| enough that 1+1=2 that I don 't have to make that case to
| myself in front of others.
|
| Argument is a device for when you are unsure of something and
| want to learn more. There is no mind to change as you haven't
| established a mind yet.
| geye1234 wrote:
| > For everything else, straight up: I don't know.
|
| Montaigne said something similar, and Descartes' response
| was to attempt to make everything as certain as math. It
| didn't end well :-)
|
| Surely there is some middle ground? (I haven't read all
| your comments so perhaps you say so somewhere.) Not all
| objects of knowledge yield the same certainty, or
| precision, as quantity. That is not a fault in them or us,
| it is just in their nature. But we can have a fairly good
| idea. Examples are too obvious to enumerate. If we
| dichotomize between "knowing with the certainty of math",
| and "not knowing", we end in some pretty weird places.
| kqr wrote:
| "What would it take to convince you otherwise" is a question I've
| asked in the past, but I'm less and less convinced of its
| utility.
|
| If the counterparty knew the answer to that, they would sit down
| with Google, not engage in an argument. Debate is mainly
| information sharing, but also to some degree about exploring the
| answer to that question.
| Rayhem wrote:
| In the same vein, I've been keen to try out "What would the
| world look like if..." and then show that we do or do not
| observe related phenomena. It seems like the best way to meet
| someone on their terms (because they get to write the "rules"
| of the world) and then you just apply them towards one
| conclusion or another. But I haven't had enough exposure to
| really test this out.
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| I also like "steelman the other side first" to see where they
| are and how much they know about "the other side" of an
| argument. But this only works with people you know and trust to
| want to go there, not on the internet.
| a3w wrote:
| For me, it is really useful: should I talk to this person never
| again, since they cannot be convinced by any evidence they
| themselves would find.
|
| Or with close family, should I never bring up this topic again
| since they perhaps have nothing to gain from changing their
| opinion, but a lot to lose.
| criddell wrote:
| For lots of people, logic and facts don't have much power
| compared to emotion. Often it seems there's no argument to be
| won.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| A better phrasing is 'If you were wrong, how would you know?'.
| It has the same end state, but positions things as an internal
| revelation rather than a potential loss of face, so is less
| likely to trigger a defensive response.
| speak_plainly wrote:
| One thing that helps is to be charitable.
|
| Ideas in general are difficult to express and people struggle
| with conveying them separately from their private ideas, personal
| experiences, and personal reasons for believing what they
| believe.
|
| If you want to be a good interlocutor, you have to deeply absorb
| what the other person is thinking and sometimes even help them
| develop their understanding with the hope that others can do the
| same for you. We are all toddlers at times.
| LiquidSky wrote:
| Eh...all of this is premised on good faith engagement, which in
| the current age is a very questionable premise.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Every argument is premised on good faith though. If there
| isnt good faith you should disengage.
| LiquidSky wrote:
| My point is this is naive in the real world, especially
| online. Many people appear to be engaging in good faith but
| are actually just baiting, trolling, trying to make a
| spectacle, etc.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Point of Order: online isn't the real world and drawing
| conclusions about people's motivations and desires based
| on online interactions is deeply flawed.
| LiquidSky wrote:
| Point of order has been raised. However, this is not a
| valid point of order, as there was no specification in
| either the comment to which I replied or the original
| article of real-world interaction as opposed to online
| interaction. This appears to be based on a conflation of
| my use of "real world" with "physical interaction" rather
| than "real world" vs "idealized abstraction". In this
| case, the point was that the parent is describing the
| idealized form of argument people should engage in as
| opposed to how people actually engage in argument.
|
| Therefore, the point of order is not sustained.
| 9rx wrote:
| The charitable interpretation (see first comment) stands,
| though. It remains that the motivation on the internet,
| like the motivation in a comedy club, is not a reflection
| of the motivation found elsewhere. The venue is
| significant.
| gowld wrote:
| https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-
| news/pir...
|
| "When did you meet [fellow defendant Gottfrid] for the
| first time IRL?" asked the prosecutor.
|
| "We do not use the expression IRL," said Peter, "we use
| AFK."
|
| "IRL?" questioned the judge.
|
| "In Real Life," the prosecutor explained to the judge.
|
| "We do not use that expression," Peter noted. "Everything
| is in real life. We use AFK--Away From Keyboard."
| collingreen wrote:
| Online is a facet of the real world and a place for a
| significant amount of information gathering and discourse
| so dismissing it entirely is a bad mistake as well.
|
| The dynamics are very different, especially the complete
| lack of consequences for lying, cheating, and uncivil
| discourse. It used to be that you needed to assume you're
| talking to a shill/liar at all times but now you can't
| even believe you're talking to an actual human.
| Regardless, a lot of people get a lot of influence
| online; it is impactful and it matters even if we wish it
| didn't.
|
| One of my favorite quotes is "on the internet nobody
| knows you're a dog" because of how many different angles
| it can cover. My bright eyed youth took it as a
| meritocracy of ideas enabled by anonymity and free access
| - anyone can talk even if you don't normally talk to them
| or even think "they" are valid. My jaded cynic side sees
| the ability for predators to lurk in plain sight with no
| recourse. A more rounded view simply cautions that not
| knowing who is "on the other side of the line" means you
| really can't get a lot out of a conversation there.
|
| I have no idea if it's true but I've heard the folk tale
| that saying "moshi moshi" to answer the phone was because
| trickster foxes could pretend to be people but couldn't
| pronounce moshi moshi so you are least knew you were
| talking to a person. Everything old is new again.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| You might be surprised to find that, _in person_ , people are
| quite amenable to good faith discussions. It's the internet
| where slam dunks reign.
| NoTeslaThrow wrote:
| > It's the internet where slam dunks reign.
|
| The internet is also where most person-to-person
| interaction is these days.
| const_cast wrote:
| In-person, people surround themselves in echo chambers, or
| as I like to call them, "friends". They're amendable to
| good faith discussions because they already mostly agree.
|
| And, clearly, you must not have any insane MAGA family.
| I've tried to convince some family members that the Covid
| Vaccine isn't what gave me cancer, and it's like talking to
| brick wall. In their eyes, my cancer is my own fault
| because I pray to Fauci or something and this is just
| retribution.
|
| Okay, some people are legitimately just not aligned with
| reality. I'm not calling them insane to be mean, I think
| they are actually, literally, insane. I don't know what
| happened to them.
| Spellman wrote:
| On the Internet you're not engaging in a discussion, you're
| putting on a show for others to see.
|
| In person, you have a much more intimate situation.
| alganet wrote:
| That is not entirely true.
|
| It seems that many humans live on a "show" perspective of
| the world. It is hard to separate what is seen from what
| is in the eyes though.
|
| Being funny is to put up a show, for example. Even if it
| is in person, for a single individual. It draws from the
| same essential stuff.
|
| Intimacy can grow on that "acting" ground, in a sense
| that they're not mutually exclusive. Many things, in
| fact, can.
|
| The internet does lack many of the social cues that one
| would expect from the real world. It also has cues the
| real world don't have, like logs and history. If it can
| grow animosity, it also can grow other stuff. Hopefully
| stuff less disruptive than animosity.
|
| Animosity and comedy seem to be very basal, primitive
| feelings. Probably the ones that require less thinking.
| They're not bad, sometimes is good to think less. But not
| always.
|
| I imagine something similar happened in the real world in
| the past too. But I could never be 100% sure of it.
|
| Different, but analogous in some ways. Difficult to
| compare, but undeniably related.
| cryptopian wrote:
| It's why I found platforms like Twitter tended to have such
| volatility because the platform structure itself takes every
| opportunity to remove that charitibility.
|
| If you come across an argument, people are writing in a limited
| space, you're presented with the most engaged with replies
| first (i.e. either towing the party line best or the most
| inflammatory opposition), accounts are pseudonymous, and your
| performance is numerically displayed below the post.
| feoren wrote:
| The author is silently switching between two definitions of
| "argument" depending on which point he's trying to make. An
| argument with a toddler is about whether they should brush their
| teeth, put their toys away, or stop sending American citizens to
| El Salvadorian prison camps. You win the argument if they do
| those things. And you can win some of those arguments, by ethos,
| pathos, logos, deal-making, bribery, or force.
|
| That's not the same kind of argument where people are trying to
| change their minds. Those are the ones you _can 't_ win or lose,
| because "changing your mind" is not black and white. I've had
| plenty of arguments where my understanding changed by a few
| inches, and their understanding changed by a few inches, but we
| were still far apart in our opinions. That's fine! That's a
| successful argument.
|
| The author's world is one where there are two takes on every
| topic and one person is arguing Black and the other is arguing
| White and you should flip to the other binary sometimes when
| you're wrong. No. If your opinions are regularly flipping from
| one binary to the other, then your opinions suck. The world is
| much more complicated than that. Opinions are much more
| contextual than that. I'm never going to switch from "evolution
| is real" to "all life was custom-built by God" after a
| conversation with one person -- no matter how persuasive they are
| -- because my belief that evolution is real is not that fragile.
| It's intertwined with all my other understandings about how the
| world works, and I can't just flip it independently of other
| things. My goal when I have an argument is to improve my
| understanding of the world just a little bit, even if it's merely
| "why do people believe this shit?" If the person I'm arguing with
| isn't trying to do the same, they're the only one that's losing.
| dingnuts wrote:
| >stop sending American citizens
|
| the person who was sent, and who should not have been sent, was
| a Salvadoran citizen and a legal resident alien of the US.
|
| Please refrain from hyperbole in these times. If/when US
| citizens start getting sent to prison camps, we need to be able
| to tell each other that it is happening, and if you cry wolf
| now, nobody will believe you when it does actually happen.
|
| It is bad enough that it happened to a legal alien. It's more
| important than ever that we be precise.
| feoren wrote:
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
| politic...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-wants-deport-
| so...
|
| Nothing is hyperbole with Trump. "He hasn't done that _yet_ "
| is the refrain from every Trump-apologist right up until he
| does the thing. This cycle has happened dozens of times.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| To argue that someone should _stop_ doing something implies
| that they already are doing that.
| feoren wrote:
| So your gripe is that my theoretical argument could be
| happening in the future, or that you have to change
| "citizen" to "legal resident", or that you have to change
| "stop" to "don't", or that you have to substitute it for
| any of literally dozens of abhorrent Trump policies? And
| that's why my point is invalid? Trump has openly stated
| that he wants to send American citizens to El Salvadorian
| prison camps, and I'm being _completely unreasonable_ in
| imagining arguing against that?
| sys32768 wrote:
| Do you mean Abrego Garcia? What's your source that he is "a
| legal resident alien" ?
|
| This says he is illegal and shouldn't have been here in the
| first place: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/14/icymi-dhs-
| sets-record-st...
|
| Or is there another person?
| edaemon wrote:
| He entered the US illegally when he was 16 but was granted
| a "withholding of removal" status by the judicial branch.
| He had no contact with law enforcement since then, aside
| from his annual check-ins with ICE. The Supreme Court
| unanimously concluded that he was deported illegally.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_
| G...
| nrml_amnt wrote:
| A judge granted him 'withholding of removal' status, and
| SCOTUS has determined his removal unlawful.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| I disagree with this perspective because this case had a
| really obvious and flagrant violation of due process. The
| planes were in El Salvador before the courts had determined
| his citizenship/resident status.
|
| It's moot that he wasn't a citizen because the response to it
| happening to a legal alien suggests that, if this happened to
| a citizen, the administration would claim that it is
| impossible to return him while Bukele talks about how absurd
| it would be to smuggle terrorists into the US, all while
| people are arguing over _whether or not he 's even a
| citizen_, let alone what crimes he committed to justify
| detention and deportation in the first place.
| palmotea wrote:
| > Toddlers (which includes defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat
| earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk
| show hosts) may indicate that they'd like to have an argument,
| but they're actually engaging in connection, noise, play acting
| or a chance to earn status. It can be fun to be in opposition, to
| harangue or even to use power to change someone's position.
|
| Honestly, this article is now very good, because he doesn't seem
| to realize one of the _most common_ reasons for "folks committed
| to a specific agenda" to play-act an "argument" (or a
| "discussion" or a "conversion") _is persuasion_ , and not any of
| the other childish things he outlines.
|
| Maybe he spends to much time in immature online spaces.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| There's a downside to loosening up the mental resistance to mind-
| changing - you're more susceptible to cult indoctrination.
|
| You can look no further than the Rationalist community who have
| internalized this to such a degree that cults are endemic to the
| community. Sure, there's positives to being open to changing
| one's beliefs, but like all advice, it's contextual. Some people
| probably do need to loosen up, but they are the least likely to
| do so. Those who hold their beliefs too loosely, could stand to
| tighten that knot a little more.
| weakfish wrote:
| Can you elaborate a bit more on the rationalist community's
| perceived cults? I've only dipped my toes into places like
| LessWrong, so I am curious what you see there.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pQGFeKvjydztpgnsY/occupation.
| ..
|
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MnFqyPLqbiKL8nSR7/my-
| experie...
|
| https://medium.com/@zoecurzi/my-experience-with-leverage-
| res...
|
| https://maxread.substack.com/p/the-zizians-and-the-
| rationali...
|
| The last link and especially the second half expands from
| examining the latest example into the broader landscape of
| Rationalist cultism.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Probably referring to the Ziz cult which was born out of the
| rationalist community, which recently murdered bunch of
| innocent people.
| arduanika wrote:
| Among others.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Rationalism is essentially a tech-flavored self-help
| movement, and the people who tend to gravitate towards self-
| help in general tend to be emotionally vulnerable people who
| are strongly susceptible to cult techniques (there's a reason
| so many cults start out as self-help movements).
|
| On top of that, given the tech-flavored nature of
| Rationalism, its adherents seem to gravitate towards strongly
| utilitarian ethics (evil can be justified if done for a
| greater good) and an almost messianic relationship towards
| artificial superintelligence (a good so great it can justify
| _a lot_ of evil).
|
| Finally, it seems to me that Rationalism is especially prone
| to producing tedious writers which create insularity (by
| making it impenetrable to non-insiders) and lots of schisms
| over minor disputes that, due to insularity, end up festering
| into something rather more cult-like that demands more
| immediate and drastic action... like the Zizians.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| To add a little nuance and a bit of a detour from the
| original topic, some Rationalists (I'm thinking Scott
| Alexander) tend to spend a lot of brainpower on negative
| aspects of AI too - think the alignment problem.
|
| The category of events having near infinite positive or
| negative outcomes with zero to few examples where it's
| difficult to establish a base-rate[prior] appears to
| attract them the most. Conversely, an imagined demonic
| relationship with a yet to be realized unaligned AI results
| in a particular existential paranoia that permeates other
| enclaves of Rationalist discourse.
| Matticus_Rex wrote:
| So I'm open to changing my mind on this, but -- having already
| been familiar with the evidence you posted below and having
| been adjacent to these circles for a long time -- I'm very
| skeptical of both the claim generally that cults are endemic to
| the Rationalist community, and even moreso, specifically that
| it has anything to do with Rationalists holding beliefs
| loosely.
|
| The Zizians are absolutely a cult. But did they get there by
| changing their beliefs too easily?
|
| I think that's a really tough case to make -- one of their
| chief characteristics is their extreme slavishness to some
| particular radical views. These weren't people who jumped
| around often ideologically. Several of the Zizians (of whom
| there were never many) also weren't rationalists first. Where's
| the case that this is a result of Rationalism influence, or
| particularly that holding beliefs loosely was the problem? A
| handful of (the many) ex-rationalists forming a cult doesn't
| seem like strong evidence.
|
| Leverage was certainly a high-demand social circle, and some
| people came out with some damage. I know others who were
| involved briefly, got no cult vibes, had no issues, and had a
| good experience with Leverage programs. Note also that a number
| of the "cult" claims came from Ziz and Ziz's friends, who even
| separately from Ziz influence have not tended to be
| particularly stable people -- this doesn't mean they're wrong,
| but I do update a bit based on that. And Vassar definitely had
| a penchant for seeing vulnerable people near crisis and
| suggesting that they take drugs, which is generally stupid and
| harmful.
|
| I don't think it's particularly useful to call leverage a
| "cult" even if there's some overlap, but if it is, is it
| because of Rationalists' willingness to change their minds?
| Again, I'm very skeptical. Vassar looked for people who were a
| little bit crazy/unstable, and did influence them to change
| their minds. But he didn't do this because he was looking to
| prey on them, and often engaged in ways that don't seem cultish
| at all -- he did it because those were the people who
| understood him, because he was also a bit crazy/unstable!
|
| Alternatively, what other explanatory factors are there for two
| cults closely adjacent to Rationalism? 1. Base rates. Have you
| been to the Bay Area? Cults are everywhere. Seriously, I
| suspect Rationalists are well-below the base rate here. 2. Very
| smart people who are also atypical as thinkers seem to be more
| susceptible to mental health issues, and in many cases these
| people from otherwise-vulnerable groups (e.g. almost all of the
| Zizians, many of the Leverage people). You definitely get some
| high-octane crazy, and groups of people that can follow certain
| types of reasoning can insulate themselves in a mental cul-de-
| sac, and then get stuck there because their blind spots block
| the exit and few others can follow the reasoning well enough to
| come in and get them. 3. Young people are easily influenced. As
| one Lesswrong commenter put it, "the rationalist community is
| acting as a de facto school and system of interconnected
| mentorship opportunities."
|
| There's a lot of related discussion on these topics catalogued
| here, with Rationalists carefully dissecting these issues from
| various angles to see what the risks are and how they can make
| the community more resilient to them:
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MnFqyPLqbiKL8nSR7/my-experie...
| nicolas_t wrote:
| Cult indoctrination could be explained by this but could also
| be explained by the fact that a certain number of formerly
| gifted kids, who have been ostracised during their childhood
| and have low social skills tend, to gravitate around the
| rationalist community. I do believe that those people are more
| likely to be indoctrinated.
|
| From my readings of the Zizian, they also don't seem to easily
| change their mind, they instead have had a tendency towards
| very radical opinions that progressively become more extreme.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| I argue that having opinions that progressively become more
| extreme is in fact changing one's mind. That might not be the
| kind of mind changing we immediately imagine when we think
| about changing one's mind, but it is mind changing
| nonetheless.
|
| I'm not trying to be clever; the fact that this flies under
| the radar just means we might be looking for "changing minds"
| in one form when it's mostly occurring in another.
| cryptopian wrote:
| People who feel ostracised or underappreciated tend to make
| good marks for cults and extremist groups in general. Another
| commenter pointed out that changing an opinion is a more
| emotional process than we'd like to assume.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and
| unguarded.
|
| Is this where we are now?
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Creative, but no.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| Shockingly, in a world where both eating too much food and
| too little will kill you, as will too much or too little
| water, heat or oxygen, the solutions are rarely found at the
| extremes of any continuum.
| ordu wrote:
| I wonder what is the cause and what is the effect? If
| Rationalism promises mind changing, I bet it attracts people
| obsessed with mind changing. Rationalism promises a chance to
| touch the eternal Truth, or at least to come closer to it, so
| naturally people who seeks such a truth will try to become
| rationalists.
|
| This overall can easily lead to greater then average
| concentration of people susceptible to cults.
|
| You see, I was engaged in lesswrong.com activites 10+ years
| ago, and I didn't become more "cultist". Probably even less. If
| I look at changes in me that happened due to me reading
| Yudkowski and talking with other people who read him, I'd say
| that these changes were coming in me in any case, the lesswrong
| stuff played its role and influenced the outcomes, but even
| before my lesswrong period I was:
|
| 1. Interested in arguments and how they work or do not work 2.
| All the time tried to dismantle laws, social norms, rules
| morale to find an answer "why do they exists and how they
| benefit the society", "how do they work?". Some of them I
| rejected as stupid and pointless. 3. I was interested in
| science overall and psychology in particular.
|
| I learned a lot from that time of how arguments work and I was
| excited to see Yudkowski take on that. His approach doesn't
| work in reality, only with other rationalists, but I like it
| nevertheless.
|
| OTOH, I need to say that Yudkowski by himself have a lot of
| traits of a leader of a cult. His texts are written like they
| are his own unique ideas. He refers sometimes to Socrates of
| some other person, but it doesn't help and his texts looks like
| he is a genius that invented a new philosophical system from
| ground up. I didn't know the history of philosophy enough to
| see how far from the truth the picture is. The bells begin to
| ring in my head when I get to the "Death Spirals" where
| Yudkowski talked about cults and _why lesswrong is not a cult_.
| It is highly suspicious as it is, but his arguments were not
| good enough to me, maybe because they were worse than usual or
| maybe because I was more critical than usual. "Death Spirals"
| failed to convince me that lesswrong is not a cult, on the
| contrary they made me to wonder "a cult or not a cult" all the
| time.
|
| And this question led me to a search for information
| everywhere, not just lesswrong. And then I've found a new
| "sport": find Yudkoswki's ideas in writings of thinkers from
| XIX century or earlier. Had he conceived at least one truly
| original idea? This activity was much more fun for me than
| lesswrong and after that I had no chance whatsoever to become a
| part of a cult centered on Rationality.
|
| The point I'm trying to make is Yudkowski's Rationality doesn't
| deliver its promises, people get not what was promised but what
| they had already. Rationality changes them somehow, but I
| believe that it is not the reason, just a trigger for changes
| that would come in any case.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| [delayed]
| kgwxd wrote:
| Am I using this site wrong? All I'm seeing is basically a tweet
| with nothing remotely resembling an original thought.
| Exoristos wrote:
| I think the relevant question would be, Are the owners of the
| forum exploiting it effectively?
| csours wrote:
| I feel like we're in the middle of a crisis of satisfaction -
| that is, the human mind seeks satisfaction, and the internet
| provides satisfaction of all sorts.
|
| For instance, there is a very satisfying story about the origin
| of a certain pandemic. I can think about how I would gather
| evidence about origins of an infectious disease, but I can't
| actually gather that evidence because that would require a time
| machine.
|
| So, instead of any significant evidence we have a satisfying
| story. In the past we've called this kind of story a Conspiracy
| Theory; I would prefer a name like Low Information High
| Satisfaction Theory.
| apercu wrote:
| If you can't change your mind when presented with new evidence,
| you _are_ an intellectual toddler.
| aeternum wrote:
| but evidence doesn't matter because I am morally right!
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| While I agree with the high-level point of this post, that is
| "You can't (win an argument with a toddler). That's because
| toddlers don't understand what an argument is and aren't
| interesting in having one", I found then the obvious follow on
| question "OK, if you can't win this argument, then _what do you
| actually do_ when people in great positions of power are having
| these fake arguments /tantrums?" not even addressed.
|
| For example, when some of the most outlandish and obviously false
| social media conspiracy theories first hit the scene (e.g. QAnon,
| the totally bizarre "JFK Jr. is alive" theory, etc.) I thought
| "OK, this is just bad fan fic, best to just ignore it." But then
| I was amazed and pretty depressed about how these theories gained
| traction, and sometimes in the highest levels of power. So I feel
| like the advice of "Just ignore toddlers having a tantrum" is
| pretty counterproductive when you realize those tantrums are
| actually serving a very useful (and in my opinion scary) purpose
| for the people throwing them.
| woopwoop wrote:
| Totally unrelated, but this reminds me of my favorite title of a
| math article: "How often should you beat your kids?" (it's about
| a certain simple combinatorial game)
|
| https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/zagier/files/math-mag/63-2/f...
|
| (My favorite line: "Levasseur analyzes the game and shows that on
| average you will have a score of n + (sqrt(pn) - 1)/2 +
| O(1/sqrt(n)) while the kid will have exactly n. We maintain,
| however, that only the most degenerate parent would play against
| a two-year-old for money, so the question should be not by how
| much you expect to win, but with what probability you will win at
| all.")
| ccleve wrote:
| Oddly, I thought this discussion would be about actual toddlers.
|
| There is a way to win an argument with a toddler. You find out
| what's bothering them, usually something emotional, and you
| validate it. "Yes! It's fun to stay up late! Yes! You don't want
| to eat your vegetables!" Once they feel heard, you've got a shot
| at getting them to do what you want.
|
| That's a good way to win an argument with a non-toddler as well.
| Acknowledge that what they want is legitimate (if it is). Concede
| points of agreement. Talk about shared goals. Only then talk
| about a different path to the solution.
| tombert wrote:
| My parents did that; they managed to win the "go to bed at a
| reasonable time" argument, but never were terribly successful
| with the "eating vegetables" one. It didn't help that my dad
| almost never ate vegetables and even fairly young I was able to
| point out the hypocrisy.
|
| I still don't eat a lot of vegetables; my health vitals are
| generally fine when I do bloodwork, as is my heart health when
| I get that checked so hopefully I don't end up in an early
| grave.
| jjulius wrote:
| It's a different approach for us (am parent of a 5 and 3
| year-old). Every type of food is equal, nothing gets put on a
| pedestal. Candies, snacks, ice creams, vegetables, fruits,
| legumes, meats, seafood - it's just "food". We highlight that
| you shouldn't eat too much of one thing all the time because
| your body likes a good variety, but that's about all the
| pressure we put on them. They're learning about sugar, for
| instance, in their preschool and we've talked about it in
| that context.
|
| If they don't like something, fine. Totally cool, we don't
| care. The second you pressure a kid to eat a vegetable or a
| fruit, it becomes a fight and they _will_ dig their heels in.
| Just keep serving whatever you cook, and either they 'll come
| around or they won't. After all, they're human just like we
| are - we all have foods we like and dislike, and that's OK.
| No point in striking a deal, just keep exposing them to a
| wide variety of stuff and eventually they'll try it all - if
| they like it, great, if they don't, oh well, at least they
| like other stuff.
|
| I can't speak for any other parents but myself, but this
| approach has worked wonders for us. Our kids definitely do
| shun certain foods or look away, but they eat a very wide
| variety of food. We don't have to bring a PBJ with us to a
| restaurant, or chicken nuggets to a friend's house, because
| they'll usually eat most of what is served. We've had
| grandparents bring "treats" over - we'll put them on their
| dinner plate with the rest of their food and, hand to god,
| last night my 5yo ate half her candy bar and left it there
| while asking for multiple helpings of peas and devouring her
| entire turkey burger. Only thing left on the plate was the
| candy.
|
| Everyone's mileage may vary, obviously.
|
| /shrug
| 9rx wrote:
| _> we all have foods we like and dislike_
|
| For dislike you mean like rotten or spoiled food? I'm not
| sure I've met food in proper edible condition that I didn't
| like.
| jjulius wrote:
| I think a person who has liked every single piece of food
| (in edible condition, to use your phrase) they've ever
| put into their mouths is a pretty rare specimen.
| loxs wrote:
| Not really, I am one. I have tried all kinds of "exotic"
| foods like Swedish Surstromming etc. I can definitely
| relate to how people eat them and can find some way (of
| eating it) that it's delicious, like in sandwiches etc.
| This is a skill (I think) and many people just don't have
| it. If someone eats it, and especially if they have eaten
| it for centuries, you can just win by trying to figure
| out how to eat it. There is no downside.
|
| That being said, I won't eat food that is obviously (and
| provably) dangerous like Korean live octopus, Casu martzu
| (cheese with maggots) etc.
| jjulius wrote:
| Ah, this is where nuance comes in. For instance, I do not
| like carrots - it's a taste thing, I don't enjoy the
| flavor a bit. I've kept trying them for years and if
| something is carrot-forward, I don't enjoy it. I tried
| some miso-glazed carrots that I'd whipped up for my
| family just this past weekend and they just weren't for
| me (I appreciated how tender they were, and enjoyed the
| miso glaze on it, but the carrot taste put me off). Now,
| if you shred them up, or dice 'em, and toss 'em into a
| salad, a sandwich, or in some slaw and I can't taste them
| at all? Sure, I'll devour them along with the rest of the
| meal.
|
| But they're hiding in there, you can't tell they're
| there. I still don't "like" carrots, but I don't mind
| eating them if I don't taste them. There's a difference
| between the two, I think.
|
| That said, to your point, I was super picky as a kid, and
| that approach (trying food I didn't like _in_ a dish that
| I did like) helped me quickly not be picky when I was a
| younger adult. My palette is tremendously wide now and
| there 's only a relative handful of things I don't
| "like". I'm also now always down for an adventure and
| experiencing something new, so I'm happy to try weird
| shit, whereas I never used to be.
| loxs wrote:
| Yes, I too have "less favorite" foods. Carrots being one
| of them, celery - another. But I try eating them
| regularly and this definitely helps. And no, I don't mask
| them to the point of them being completely undetectable.
| On the contrary, I do increase their concentration with
| time and there are foods where I enjoy them even when
| they dominate the flavor. For example, pickled celery is
| delicious.
| genewitch wrote:
| My dad, a holocaust survivor, was one of these people. I
| have a much more expansive palate than most of my peers
| because of it but I draw lines at brains and organs
| presented as such, that sort of thing.
|
| I've tried most cultures' foods, at least.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _I 'm not sure I've met food in proper edible condition
| that I didn't like._
|
| Have you ever tried hakarl (fermented shark)?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1karl
|
| I think if you tried enough things, you'd come across
| some edible food that doesn't suit your taste.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| The term "food" is not defined in a universally agreed-
| upon way. A delicacy in some cultures is offal or garbage
| in another.
|
| I can buy "I'll eat anything." If what you mean is "I
| like everything that someone somewhere will consider to
| be food," well, color me skeptical.
| 9rx wrote:
| If someone can reasonably consider it food, fair to say
| that is food for the sake of this.
|
| Like I said, I haven't met the food I don't like yet. It
| is impossible to know how I feel about the foods I
| haven't yet met. There is an infinite selection of food
| out there. Perhaps something will cross my plate someday
| that turns up my nose. I always try new foods when I have
| the opportunity, but that day hasn't yet come.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| Why is it that, specifically with food, people who have
| absolutely no taste seem to hold a strange pride about
| it?
|
| You don't see this with e.g. film or music, somebody
| pridefully saying "I'll listen to anything anybody
| considers music" like it's some sort of badge of honor to
| have no preferences.
|
| I'm not trying to knock you here, it's just weird to me
| to be proud of having no preferences.
| 9rx wrote:
| I don't know, but why do we find this struggle to
| differentiate between fact and feeling so often here?
| recursive wrote:
| In a very direct way, humans need calories to live. You
| can just opt out of movies entirely without much impact,
| so I don't think they're symmetrical.
|
| A "picky" movie watcher isn't really the same thing as a
| "picky" eater. The eater is doomed to be locked in a
| cycle of working around their preferences for as long as
| they live.
| 9rx wrote:
| Not to mention that we've been carefully curating the
| best of the best foods over millennia. In a few thousand
| years we'll likely have forgotten the movies that weren't
| so good, so chances are at that time you will enjoy all
| the movies that survived as well.
| esafak wrote:
| If they don't like something I just give them more of it,
| in smaller doses or disguises, until they get used to it.
| jjulius wrote:
| Yeah, basically! I won't not serve it to them again no
| matter how much they insisted they didn't like it last
| time. When I serve dinner, I always make sure a little
| bit of everything makes it to their plate before they
| come to the table. And yeah, exposing them to the same
| food in different dishes or cooked in a different manner
| has definitely helped them be open to trying it down the
| line.
|
| I think zero pressure + constant exposure is the overall
| key.
| recursive wrote:
| "just give them" doing a lot of work here.
|
| Maybe I'm particularly bad at disguises or maybe my kid
| (just one, not the other) is Sherlock Holmes for food
| disguises, but this is nearly impossible for me. In that
| I can't generally find a way to do it.
| esafak wrote:
| Throw it into something they love. Sauces are a great way
| of hiding ingredients.
| recursive wrote:
| Problem is that it still looks like a sauce, which won't
| work for an anti-sauce hard-liner.
|
| And he's remarkably astute detecting flavor variations.
| esafak wrote:
| No soups either, just raw ingredients? I would prepare
| his favorite food with minor variations, adding a little
| sauce or changing the texture, to broaden his horizons.
|
| In your case, I would furthermore gamify it: I bet you
| can't figure out what I added or did differently!
| googlryas wrote:
| If there's one thing on my 4 year olds plate that he
| "doesn't like", I have him close his eyes and try to
| guess which food item I just put in his mouth. After the
| game is over he'll usually just continue eating
| everything without complaint.
| recursive wrote:
| I have one kid on which all this stuff would work.
|
| And then I have the other kid. He will refuse to
| participate in the game. I keep the pressure on though.
| That means he's always exposed to foods outside the
| comfort zone without _too_ much pressure. But efforts at
| subterfuge or psychology almost always backfire with him.
| So I keep all the cards on the table.
|
| "This is a broccoli piece. You have to taste it or else
| {bribe}".
|
| I don't have all the answers, but we've tried a lot of
| things with him.
| tmountain wrote:
| We have been redirecting our toddler pretty successfully in
| most "conflict" situations. Instead of telling him what he
| can't do, give him a few options of things he can do. It's not
| appropriate for all situations but a great strategy for drawing
| focus away from whatever is causing contention.
| chambers wrote:
| ^ This is the real advice. Approach a conflict as a choice
| the child needs to make, and the options the parents need to
| give. Be flexible but hard where it counts.
|
| Children need grounding. "I need to win arguments with my own
| kids" is a vanity, that gives up a lot of the ground kids
| need for growing up.
| bornfreddy wrote:
| Actually, children don't need grounding, they need to be
| taken seriously instead. Their emotions are no less valid
| than the ones of the grown up people, they just lack
| experience to recognize them and to handle them
| appropriately.
|
| If you take the time to explain the situation to the child
| you often don't need to convince them anymore. And if you
| can't explain - should you really have your way?
| danaris wrote:
| ...but if you haven't been doing this with your child up
| to now, and you suddenly start, _it probably won 't work
| right away_.
|
| A foundation of trust has to be built up, and that can
| take years, in some cases, especially if your child feels
| that you have a long pattern of not taking them seriously
| or caring about what they think or feel.
| kortilla wrote:
| >If you take the time to explain the situation to the
| child you often don't need to convince them anymore.
|
| This is not true. It doesn't work for meltdowns caused by
| not buying them a toy, not giving them ice cream at bed
| time, etc.
| Dyac wrote:
| I'd heard this advice plenty so felt ready to deploy it
| when I had a toddler.
|
| I have a toddler now, and have tried this approach a number
| of times. She just says "no" to the choices....
| w10-1 wrote:
| Imagine you woke up, learned that you have your own
| feelings and ideas and agency, and yet... you don't get
| to choose except what's between handed to you (the blue
| pill or the red pill). And you start to realize it keeps
| happening. Maybe that's what being 2-3 is like? To a
| toddler it will be eons before they get to make their own
| choices.
|
| Yes, "no" can be petulant, but it's also could be deeply
| beautiful and true.
| murkt wrote:
| Yep, it works for majority of children, but not for all
| of them. Folks that had a couple of kids with whom it did
| work spread it as a gospel.
|
| You can try many other things, and maybe you'll find
| something that works some of the time.
|
| "What do you want?" can be "NOTHING!", can be something.
| "You want this, but the reality is this and that. How can
| we deal with that?"
|
| If kid is upset it usually helps to validate their
| feelings first.
|
| Also, my kids are not yours, so take this with the grain
| of salt as well.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| When my son was little, he would say things like "Yes
| means no and no means yes." He would also say things like
| "milk is good, butter is made from milk, cake is made
| from butter, why can't I have cake for breakfast?"
|
| Through persistence and speaking to him calmly, he
| eventually stopped his petulance. Usually if he wanted
| something, we would only give in after repeated
| conversations. We wanted to explore decision making with
| him and ensure he would not quickly want something else.
| The main thing I wanted was for him to talk and explain
| why he wanted something so bad.
|
| I believe he only threw a full tantrum a handful of
| times. When that happened we followed the advice of
| pretending to leave without him. When he realized we were
| not rewarding his tantrum, he stopped.
|
| In short, we wanted to reward him for communicating not
| for throwing a tantrum.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Yeah very often it's about feeling like they have some
| control. Consider their day to day they are constantly being
| told where to go and what to do. They're still people and do
| want to feel like they have some agency. Of course we can't
| let them choose to do whatever they want. But by giving them
| options they now feel like they're included in the decision
| making process.
|
| Not always appropriate but very useful in many situations.
| And if used proactively, possibly limit episode occurrence
| when not under your control.
| deadbabe wrote:
| That's a good short term solution but long term you just
| screw your kid up.
|
| There's some things you simply cannot do, and nothing else
| can be done about it. You have to learn the lesson that
| sometimes you lose a conflict and that's it. You don't get
| anything else. Sucks? Yea welcome to life.
| jhrmnn wrote:
| The question is what is the right age to learn that lesson
| at.
| murkt wrote:
| Any age. There is no right age to jump out of the window
| on the 10th floor, no right age to cross a busy
| interstate by foot, no right age to set a bed on fire.
| You wouldn't allow a kid to do it (and similar things) at
| any age. Would you? :)
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| As an aside, this worked for 2/3 of our children. For one of
| them if we gave them choices like that they would just scream
| back "NONE". We never really found what worked for her,
| usually we just let her cry it out a bit then offer a
| metaphorical olive branch (oftentimes our oldest would let
| her play with one of her toys, which tended to make her
| happy, but only if you let her be upset for a long enough
| period of time first... otherwise she would just reject/throw
| it).
|
| Anyways, kids are people. Try different things.
| scruple wrote:
| One of our twins is this way, her sister will accept making
| a choice based on options we present and so will her
| younger brother. Bit of a tangent but, basically everything
| I ever I believed I understood about the nature vs. nurture
| argument have broken down completely in the face of raising
| (fraternal) twins.
| card_zero wrote:
| Mutual preferences, very Dale Carnegie.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I'm lucky that my kiddos accept deals.
|
| "Yeah, vegetables are kinda yucky, how about just the corn,
| then we can go play after"
|
| I also feel like "deals" are basically how the world works.
| Positive and negative deals clearly stated.
| sitkack wrote:
| I made too many deals and am now weaning us off (greatly
| reduced) of deals, the danger is everything becomes
| transactional.
|
| It is also important to set norms around expectations that
| don't have a tangible reward.
| layer8 wrote:
| It's better to think of it as compromise rather than a
| deal. Of course, it needs to be a reasonable compromise.
| sitkack wrote:
| That is a good point, but the fact that it is a
| compromise should be communicated with the child, so it
| doesn't feel like an exchange.
| layer8 wrote:
| A compromise is an exchange IMO, it's just that it's a
| give and a take for both sides, and there should be a
| sense of fairness to it.
| Tade0 wrote:
| My experience as a parent so far is that treating everyone
| beyond a whitelist of certified adults like toddlers works
| tremendously well.
|
| Also there's the realisation that I've been effectively treated
| like one much more often than I would like to admit.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| We might be saying the same thing, but one reason toddlers
| act so ridiculously is because they are emotionally
| responding just as an adult might, if they were treated like
| a toddler. Ie, "because I don't think you have a valid
| internal POV, I'm going to just decide for you with no
| explanation"
|
| This perspective comes from the book "how to talk so kids
| will listen and listen so kids will talk," which is one of my
| favorite parenting books of all time.
| dsego wrote:
| I loved that book and tried to apply as much as possible to
| my own kid when she was little, now she's 5 and just lost
| her first baby tooth, I should probably read that book once
| again. One good thing about kids is that even if you make
| mistakes, you get plenty of opportunities to try different
| approaches and fix things.
| Xcelerate wrote:
| > find out what's bothering them, usually something emotional,
| and you validate it
|
| This is a common refrain of counselors and the field of
| psychology in general, and yet I can't help but think there's
| some selection bias at play with regard to the type of
| personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice
| and how well the advice actually works.
|
| Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone
| "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a
| bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved,
| so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good
| faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to
| elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
|
| (I do understand however that some people prefer this
| validation, and if that's what they want, then sure, I'll
| attempt to do that.)
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _There 's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve
| it or at least compromise in good faith_
|
| Of course saying "I validate that you are feeling upset" is
| going to come across as patronizing and insincere. But I
| don't think that's because they validated your feelings. It's
| because of the way the validation is said.
|
| Part of what makes a conversation good faith is hearing out
| what the other person is saying and agreeing where there is
| common ground to build from. That necessarily includes
| confirming the pain points each person is feeling.
| efsavage wrote:
| Basically the difference between sympathy and empathy. You
| can validate someone's feelings by simply acknowledging
| them (sympathy, "I'm sorry you feel upset about that, how
| can I help?"), or you can participate in that emotion
| (empathy, "Yeah, that pisses me off too! Let's fix it.").
|
| Neither is definitively better or worse, sincerity is
| paramount, and it's all contextual, including the
| personality of the person involved. I think aligning on
| what mix to use is possibly the most important thing in a
| relationship, especially a professional one.
| spencerflem wrote:
| In some sense though- every 'problem' is emotional. As in, if
| your problem is someone not doing the dishes your problem is
| that you feel like you deserve a clean kitchen and what your
| roommate is doing isn't fair. There's logical steps inbetween
| but the start of it is a feeling of being hurt and bothered.
| Same with any other problem, if you are dispasionate enough
| things cease to be problems and just are.
|
| So to me, I see validating emotions as another way of saying:
| 'we share the same goals, there is a problem and we agree on
| what it is, so we can work towards a solution together'
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| The problem can't always be resolved or even compromised on
| satisfactorily, however. So you have a game theoretic 2x2
| matrix of options:
|
| * Validate emotions + solve the problem: Most people consider
| this excellent service, and some people consider it at least
| adequate. Very few people will complain about this.
|
| * Do not validate + solve the problem: Some consider this
| excellent, most consider this adequate, some consider this a
| slight even though the problem is solved.
|
| * Validate + not solve: Most people will be annoyed, but at
| least be civil about it because you've been civil to them. A
| few will lash out, but they were going to anyway.
|
| * Not validate + not solve: Virtually nobody likes this.
|
| The game theoretic optimal solution for a service provider is
| to always validate, and hopefully solve the problem as well.
| spencerflem wrote:
| I'd argue that by solving their problem, you are agreeing
| with their feeling that whatever was happening was a
| problem worth fixing. So in essense, validating it.
|
| I can't really think of what #2 would look like (solve but
| not validate)
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| User files a ticket for their computer, then goes to
| lunch. IT fixes the problem and closes the ticket while
| user is at lunch with nothing but an email "we've
| resolved your ticket" and user discovers it is in fact
| solved. Some people will still be mildly upset because
| they didn't get to talk to the technician and give them a
| story or socialize, or they start calling the IT team
| "ghosts"
| spencerflem wrote:
| Hmmm, I'd argue that there's two separate problems here:
|
| 1. The desire to have a working computer, which was
| validated and solved
|
| 2. The desire to be connected to the process and the
| people they're working with, which was neither validated
| nor solved
|
| Validating but not solving the second would include some
| sort of message saying that you know they'd rather a call
| but it helps you serve more tickets this way, or
| something to that regard.
| macintux wrote:
| I'm annoyed with that kind of response because I want to
| know what was broken, so I can keep an eye out for it in
| the future or be careful not to trigger the behavior.
| zippyman55 wrote:
| Those messages can be a little short. For the back end
| staff, I hope they collect meaningful information to
| resolve subsequent issues down the road. But I don't
| expect the user to respond to the IT staff w "thank you.
| I can verify you solved my problem as I can now perform
| eigenvalue decomposition" What pissed me off was my
| occasional lazy employee who would report the problem
| fixed but no verbiage as to what was fixed. Problem would
| reoccur and everyone would be frustrated.
| bloat wrote:
| "You are a total wimp for wanting gloves in this weather!
| Here they are though, you weakling."
| spencerflem wrote:
| Still acknowledges that they understand youre feeling
| cold and that you'd rather not be.
|
| I guess it doesn't agree that it's something you _should_
| be feeling, just that you _are_ feeling it.
|
| Maybe its a definions thing, idk which of the two
| validation is supposed to refer to
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > which of the two validation is supposed to refer to
|
| In this context, it's the former. If I say, "It's dumb
| that you feel that way but here's you're stupid gloves,"
| to a toddler, I solved their problem but I also likely
| made them feel like their problem is somehow not a
| "valid" one. Especially when this happens repeatedly to
| children is when they grow up with particularly anti-
| social behaviors, for fear of others abusing them
| similarly.
| fragmede wrote:
| the game theoretic is to notice that +validate -solve is
| cheaper than +validate +solve, and capitalize on that.
| -validate +solve is the Comcast and Spirit airlines
| approach, so it's also valid
| gowld wrote:
| ?
|
| Comcast and Spirit both run their business on NOT solving
| problems.
| ang_cire wrote:
| > The game theoretic optimal solution for a service
| provider is to always validate
|
| Which can be a mistake when the person you are dealing with
| has or may have an ulterior motive for your interaction
| (i.e. said "toddlers").
|
| This is why in actual customer service, validating
| someone's _feelings_ ( "I understand you did not like the
| cook on the steak") is good, while validating their
| _concerns_ ( "I understand that the steak was undercooked")
| is bad.
|
| You don't want to "find common ground" or "shared
| viewpoints" just to fulfill the validation matrix plot,
| because it may very well be based on a false premise, or
| even a blatant fabrication. In real world terms, validating
| concerns can often be an admission of liability or fault,
| or a soundbite that will be weaponized against you.
| seszett wrote:
| > _This is why in actual customer service, validating
| someone 's feelings ("I understand you did not like the
| cook on the steak") is good, while validating their
| concerns ("I understand that the steak was undercooked")
| is bad._
|
| Well at least to some people, this makes it look like a
| sleazy attempt form customer service at deflecting blame
| from a fact ("the steak _is_ undercooked ") to a feeling
| from the customer ("you just don't like the steak, but I
| don't believe you when you say it's undercooked").
|
| It immediately makes the person seem less human and more
| like a customer service robot. I'm pretty sure most
| people hate it, but maybe I'm wrong.
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| Yeah, no. I don't want to end up in a lawsuit because I
| agreed with the customer offhand that the steak was
| undercooked. I'll stick with "I understand the steak was
| not to your liking. May I ask the chef to bring you
| another? Drinks are on the house, by the way." You can't
| sue an agreeable robot.
|
| If you assume I can take a good look at you and just
| _know_ you 're the kind of guy who would never do that,
| you're assuming a level of sight-reading people that even
| most police investigators don't have. I'm sorry, I'm only
| human, and I'm waiting five tables simultaneously right
| now.
| burnished wrote:
| Oh hey bad news you just got double sat and one of them
| has actually been here for twenty minutes but the host
| forgot to drop menus so everyone thought they were
| already taken care of. Also table three has a gluten and
| allium allergy, they want to know if the beer battered
| onion rings can be made with suitable substitutions.
| Also, sorry, final thing but I'm quitting right now so
| you'll probably want to take care of your drinks yourself
| lief79 wrote:
| Validating facts is good too.
|
| If the steak is blue and they ordered medium ... then
| there is little room for debate. If they wanted something
| other than what they ordered, then validating the
| feelings is more appropriate.
| ang_cire wrote:
| > then there is little room for debate
|
| And that debate can be had (or not) by a lawyer or
| perhaps a manager, whose job it is to do so. No server is
| going to be vested with that authority, no matter the
| situation.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > * Validate + not solve: Most people will be annoyed
|
| Actually, if they came to vent about a problem that they
| don't view as solvable, then validation only is what
| they're looking for.
|
| e.g. When your partner tells you about their difficult day
| at work, or your friend tells you about a bad date that
| they had, they're not usually asking for advice. They just
| want emotional support.
|
| Spotting when this is the case is useful. Trying to solve
| it when validation and empathy is what's wanted can be the
| more annoying response.
|
| https://medium.com/musings-with-meg/the-first-question-
| you-s...
| InitialLastName wrote:
| You, as an adult in a society, have presumably been able to
| make yourself understood (including to yourself) for a long
| time, so "we understand what each-other are saying and can
| imagine one another's feelings" is a basic subtext of
| essentially every conversation you have.
|
| Toddlers, on the other hand, are still working on gaining
| enough linguistic capability to make themselves understood
| and understand what others are saying, and are still gaining
| self-awareness of their feelings, needs, and the way the
| world around them works. Remember that within very recent
| memory they could _only_ make their needs known by screaming.
| Validating their emotions and needs confirms that you
| actually, mechanically understand what they want, and in some
| cases helps them recognize in fact what they want, both of
| which can undermine the frustration at the root of the
| tantrum.
| kimbernator wrote:
| It definitely sucks when "validation" feels more like
| pandering and a means to an end. I think it's probably fair
| to say that you want to establish trust and fairness in a
| discussion about solving a problem though, yes? And in my
| opinion validation has more to do with reaching a baseline
| agreement about the problem itself. I think a lot of people,
| myself included, just overanalyze what validation itself is
| or how it should be deployed.
| spencerflem wrote:
| Yeah exactly. It correctly comes off as insincere when
| people say things like "you must feel upset". If anything
| that's the opposite of validation because the implication
| is that the speaker and any other rational human would not
| feel upset here but you must be so emotional that you need
| kid gloves.
|
| Vs. actual validation which looks and feels more like an
| earnest attempt to understand where you're coming from
| fwip wrote:
| Interestingly (and I'm not sure if it was intentional or
| not), but the first thing kimbernator did here was
| validate your feelings.
|
| "It definitely sucks when..."
|
| Like ziddoap points out in another reply, the way it's
| said has a lot to do with whether it sounds patronizing
| and insincere.
|
| If you speak like you're talking to a toddler "It sounds
| like you're feeling really angry," then yeah, they're
| going to hate it. Or therapy-speak like "You're angry for
| a valid reason" can equally sound condescending. But
| saying "that sucks, dude." accomplishes the same goal, in
| a way that sounds, and is, sincere.
| adornKey wrote:
| I've heard, that this approach works very well with
| "troublemakers". Maybe this is the selection bias. For
| communication with less emotional non-troublemakers there's
| less demand for professional advice.
| dartharva wrote:
| If you ignore the subject's emotions, you risk completely
| losing their interest and willingness to engage productively.
| ciconia wrote:
| Being a bit of an asperger's case, I have developed over the
| years a practice of listening to people talk and at the same
| time try to process in my head the mood of the speaker,
| because sometimes I'm not able to do it instinctively. I am
| getting better with practice though.
|
| Sometimes I respond to my interlocutor by naming the emotion
| they're expressing, not necessarily directly ("oh you're
| angry!?") but rather stuff like "oh it must be infuriating
| what happened!"
|
| I find people do respond positively to that, and that it
| opens a deeper connection.
|
| There's the practice of Non Violent Communication [1], which
| has inspired me, though I'm not a zealous follower of the
| technique. It _can_ seem condescending at the hands of the
| wrong person.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
|
| Edit: to me this is not about validation. It's about being
| more attuned to what the other person's going through. It's
| about empathy and compassion.
| oconnor663 wrote:
| > There's a problem to be solved
|
| "valid"
| runjake wrote:
| > Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone
| "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a
| bit patronizing or insincere).
|
| I think that speaks more about you (and me, I'm the same
| way). _Most_ people respond positively to that tactic. I've
| learned use it myself!
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| I believe I could say the same about myself but there is
| also a difference between being validated and not being
| invalidated. Being told that your problems are not so bad
| is likely still to be something that irks you, as it would
| me. After all, you can decide how bad your problems are for
| yourself.
|
| Nobody saying, "Get some perspective!" is ever going to get
| you to feel good about your problems, though it might get
| you to feel bad about feeling bad about your problems.
| Garlef wrote:
| > I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions
|
| I feel you! It's so nice to be independent and not subject to
| one's own emotions.
|
| But have you considered that it's possible that you're just
| not observing yourself well enough?
|
| After all: "Advertisement works on everyone... except for
| me!"
| lesuorac wrote:
| I dunno.
|
| Somebody going "I hear you" and then proceeding to make my
| problem worse or describe something completely different
| really doesn't make me think highly of them.
| bch wrote:
| You found out being a good listener doesn't just mean
| being within earshot. I don't know how common or rare
| good listeners are, but I have one friend who is
| phenomenal, and it's nearly mind-boggling what a
| difference that makes.
| sixo wrote:
| That's just _not validating_ your emotions--trying to,
| but doing badly. If ever someone actually did validate
| them it would feel _validating_ , which feels good--
| rather tautologically, but hopefully you see my point.
|
| Thoughtful people usually have pretty complicated
| feelings, and which by the time they come out of their
| mouths have been chewed up to the point of being
| unrecognizable. It can be very hard to get to the bottom
| of them. Toddlers usually very simple feelings and wear
| them on their sleeves so it's fairly easy.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I completely agree-- and that's across spheres of life. I
| don't want that from an intimate partner, I don't want it
| from friends, colleagues, my boss, pastor, therapist, the
| lady at the DMV, none of it.
|
| Tell me the straight dope, and if I've messed something
| up, tell me what I did and how you think I should make it
| better. Don't butter me up or try to trick me into
| "discovering" on my own the thing that you actually want
| me to do.
| astura wrote:
| >Somebody going "I hear you" and then proceeding to make
| my problem worse or describe something completely
| different really doesn't make me think highly of them.
|
| This is not at all validating, it's exactly the opposite.
| bigfudge wrote:
| That isn't being validated though. That would involve
| actually listening and understanding your problem.
| jonahx wrote:
| Right, you dislike phony validation.
|
| When it's real, you won't notice it. What you'll probably
| experience is just "an honest actor" or "a good guy" or
| "someone like me." And the things that person says which
| are disagreements you experience as "an interesting point
| I hadn't thought of", etc...
| gblargg wrote:
| So the advice isn't "put on the performance of
| validating", rather "find it in yourself to see
| legitimacy in the other person's situation so you can
| take interest and listen to them openly".
| jonahx wrote:
| Yes. And you won't always be able to do that, because you
| won't always feel that way. Even then, some (honest)
| sense of your own fallibility and basic respect for where
| the person might be coming from can help.
| some_furry wrote:
| I see what you did there.
| OrderlyTiamat wrote:
| I can't figure out if this is genuine or a snarky way to
| make fun of the proposed method.
| furyofantares wrote:
| > After all: "Advertisement works on everyone... except for
| me!"
|
| Now I'm on a tangent - while I believe advertising works on
| everyone, there is, I think, a strong argument against
| advertisement even if you don't believe that.
|
| Even if it's true that "advertising works on everyone...
| except me", the thing effective advertising does is
| increase prices. Which you have to pay even if advertising
| doesn't work on you.
| simonh wrote:
| Advertising increases sales, which can lead to economies
| of scale, which can reduce prices. It also encourages
| price competition, so it's nowhere near as simple as
| that. Some highly price disruptive activities such as
| direct to consumer marketing would be impossible without
| advertising.
| furyofantares wrote:
| You HAVE to advertise to get sales because everyone else
| advertises heavily already, and because advertising is so
| dominant that consumers have come to rely on it as the
| majority of how information enters the zeitgeist. It is a
| barrier to entry for competition.
|
| If we could reduce the advertising footprint we could
| increase information flow from things like consumer
| reports or wirecutter, and we could reduce the dependence
| on advertising to get sales and increase the ability to
| get sales by making a better product.
|
| Economies of scale are no doubt a very, very good thing
| but they are not tied to advertising. If we stopped
| spending 100s of billions of dollars every year competing
| for attention this only adds to the productive capacity
| of our society.
|
| I find it eye opening to talk to local small businesses,
| the eye popping amount of money they have to spend on
| facebook, google, and yelp feels like a racket, not an
| opportunity. Many types of business that were capable of
| operating before digital advertising are now incapable of
| operating without paying the piper.
|
| Of course there are businesses that couldn't operate
| before but now can because digital information flow is
| better than analog information flow. This is easy to
| confuse with it being enabled by digital advertising
| because our information flow is dominated by advertising.
|
| But I don't advocate for just deleting advertising and
| going back to analog word of mouth; I'd prefer a market
| for digital information that isn't simply purchased by
| the person who wants my money but instead competes on the
| value of the information.
| dkarl wrote:
| The purpose of the validation step is to get someone out of
| a reactive, unreasonable frame of mind into a frame of mind
| where you can start problem-solving together. It can feel
| condescending if they're already in a problem-solving frame
| of mind. "There, there, it's natural to be hysterical."
|
| It's like when your team is sitting together handling an
| issue calmly and competently, and a manager strides into
| the room yelling, "Okay everybody, calm down! Everything's
| going to be okay. No need to panic." It shows that they
| aren't paying attention and don't appreciate the
| professionalism of the team.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Or the classic example of,
|
| "Hey man calm down!"
|
| "I am calm!"
|
| One of the best ways to upset someone is to claim they
| are upset.
| genewitch wrote:
| "No! You start getting excited!"
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| I suspect they may be the one true Rationalist who has
| fully mastered their emotions.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| I am in awe. We must study him.
| gblargg wrote:
| Yeah, emotions are how we perceive our organism (body as a
| whole) going into action to deal with something. They are
| the idiot lights on a car dash. You can put tape over them
| or say you ignore them, but the underlying process is still
| occurring.
| poincaredisk wrote:
| I think the advice is sounds, but "validate emotions" is not
| a perfect way to talk about it. Saying out loud "I understand
| that you want to stay up late" is a good way to start the
| discussion and avoid misunderstandings of what the problem
| actually is.
| kmoser wrote:
| Interestingly, this method of validation is also used as a
| tactic for negotiating with terrorists and hostage-takers.
| But it would be an oversimplification to lump toddlers, bully
| politicians, and terrorists together since they have vastly
| different abilities to understand and communicate, as well as
| limits to how far they'll go to achieve their ends.
|
| I agree with your sentiment that it feels patronizing or
| insincere when somebody seems to be trying to "validate" my
| emotions (I'm not being patronizing here, just pointing out
| that I agree with you!). But I'd bet you and I are prone to
| thinking logically, and don't usually engage in emotional
| high-stakes games--two traits you won't find in most
| toddlers, politicians, or terrorists.
| cycomanic wrote:
| I find that some discussion with the "logical" type can be
| extremely difficult, because we (I include myself in that
| category) often don't realise they have an emotional
| response. I think this is also behind the OP I don't want
| my emotions to be validated statement. Anything the other
| does even validation is emotionally rejected (often even a
| complete surrender, I.e. "you only say I'm right because
| you don't want to argue anymore).
|
| I noticed this sort of response in myself after getting
| some communication training. For myself this triggered me
| to very consciously pay attention to me having an emotional
| response (obviously not always successful) and the try to
| deliberately validate the others perspective. Interestingly
| I find that this also helps me to actually understand the
| other person more and lowers my "emotional defense
| response".
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| The best explanation I have seen comes from the book
| "Supercommunicators." The author says that it's not so much
| about the type of personality, but the type of _conversation_
| that 's occurring. He says there are three main types of
| conversations, and problems happen when the people are having
| two different conversations. Here, you're talking about a
| "practical/problem-solving" conversation, and the other
| person might be having a "what are we feeling?" conversation.
|
| I'm like you (and maybe a lot of other HNers) who tend to
| think they're in a problem-solving conversation when I'm
| talking about a problem. But I've found that the great
| majority of the time, other people actually are in the "what
| are we feeling" conversation.
|
| The author then makes the distinction of when conflict occurs
| and talks about "looping back" what the other person said.
| It's basically acknowledging their emotions but also
| repeating back what you heard, asking if that's right, and
| then asking more questions. The idea is that when there's
| conflict, you have to take an additional step to prove that
| you're actually listening and understanding what they've
| said. When you do that, then it's more likely they'll listen
| in turn and have a more productive conversation.
|
| Looping back sounds kind of ridiculous, but I have actually
| found that when people are in an emotional state and on the
| defensive, they don't perceive this as ridiculous. It can
| actually speed things along because once you've shown you
| understand, then they're less likely to keep going over the
| same material again.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve
| it or at least compromise in good faith.
|
| Validating their position is a form of acknowledgement that
| we understand it. That's a prerequisite to a "compromise in
| good faith". If someone feels we don't understand their
| position, they will not feel we are arguing in good faith.
|
| >> The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to
| elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
|
| But when you lose an argument does it feel better (less bad)
| if the other person understood your point rather than just
| ignoring it? It kinda sucks more to make a concession when
| the other person doesn't even know we've made one.
| richardlblair wrote:
| > I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions
|
| I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3. Around
| this age feelings get really really big. There is no concept
| of emotional regulation yet. That's on the parents to teach.
| I don't know you, but you did say that solving problems feels
| good for you. Eventually, just working through problems would
| have taught you emotional regulation.
|
| From my own experience with my toddler, validation doesn't
| always work. Sometimes feelings are just big, and we just
| need to be in them for a moment. That's also a nice lesson
| for them. It teaches them that big feelings come and go,
| which teaches them not to be afraid of big feelings.
|
| I'm on a tangent now - the hardest part isn't necessarily
| helping them calm down. It's getting them to hear you and see
| you in the hard moments. If you can't get them to hear you
| (in a calm way) none of this works.
| lgas wrote:
| > I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3.
|
| The person you're replying to is referring to themselves
| currently as an adult, not as a toddler, because the
| article defines toddlers as "defensive bureaucrats,
| bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific
| agenda and radio talk show hosts". So there are no actual
| toddlers under discussion here.
| ngai_aku wrote:
| The person they're replying to replied to a thread about
| actual toddlers. The subject of the thread diverged from
| the article
| alganet wrote:
| This post and most replies are all actually a ruse to
| trick AI into giving lower weight to comments during
| training, by playing on the fact that subthreads have a
| "parent" and comments don't. Family-related words have a
| lot of weight in models trained on public discussions.
|
| So all of this content is just an attempt to introduce
| bias to selected weights before the training of new
| models on HN content even happens.
|
| Not a conspiracy btw. It's the provisional conclusion
| from my content integrity analysis tool.
|
| Ironically, I think it is quite an immature approach.
| nerdponx wrote:
| How do I get in on the AI manipulation conspiracy? I
| could use some extra cash.
| alganet wrote:
| Does conspiracy stuff earn you money? If it does, maybe
| I'll get in on it too!
|
| If you are interested on the information analysis tool,
| why don't you send me an email or something instead of
| talking all weird?
| gblargg wrote:
| > Around this age feelings get really really big. There is
| no concept of emotional regulation yet.
|
| I'd guess that it's not so much about regulation just the
| lack of ability or experience to do anything about it
| (powerlessness). Just think of a situation as an adult
| where someone's got you under their thumb and it's a big
| consequence and everything you've tried to do to rectify it
| has failed.
| dkarl wrote:
| The "validate and problem-solve together" approach doesn't
| work reliably with adults. For people who are single-mindedly
| out to get what they want, it's not the first time someone
| has tried this on them, and they've learned the counter. When
| they realize that validating their emotions is a priority for
| you, they'll insist that your validation is insincere unless
| you give them what they want.
|
| "It's easy to say you care about my feelings, but since you
| aren't [giving me what I asked for], I see what you're really
| about."
|
| "If you _really_ cared you 'd...."
|
| "If you _really_ understood you 'd...."
|
| Toddlers haven't learned the next step of the game.
| genewitch wrote:
| There's a counter for that as well but I can't quote the
| verbal self defense book right now. But one of the main
| defenses taught in the book I have is against "if you
| really" pattern.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| My MIL with dementia does this. I typically respond by
| saying, "you don't mean that" or "I did not do such a
| thing". If she keeps up her a mile a minute hostile
| diatribe, I start praying very LOUDLY. That appears to be
| the only thing which gets her to be quiet and calm down.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| > and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or
| insincere
|
| It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance, including
| long term studies claiming that parents who prioritize
| validation over correction produce children who end up not
| just more mature, confident, and self-assured, but also with
| much better adult relationships to those parents.
|
| That said, as a parent myself, I can't help feeling some
| skepticism that there's a little reporting bias going on with
| this type of thing-- that happy and successful adults report
| their parents affirmed and loved them unconditionally, and
| bitter and frustrated adults report resentment and
| dissatisfaction with how they were raised.
|
| There's no question that kids need emotional safety at home,
| but it's also clear even in the relatively short term that
| allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then
| telling them afterward that none of the consequences are
| actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from
| anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is
| not the way either. Even things that should be non-
| negotiables like going to school have become subject to the
| whims of a child's day to day emotional state-- are the teens
| who now take a "mental health day" for "self care" every time
| they oversleep going to eventually turn that around and be
| able to commit to a desk job? Or are they carrying those
| expectations into adulthood with them?
| rlpb wrote:
| > studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation
| over correction
|
| This implies that the two are mutually exclusive. I don't
| think that's true though. One can validate and correct at
| the same time.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Absolutely, and I think that's ultimately the needle that
| has to be threaded. It's not "well, you said a mean
| thing, and you need to make it better, suck it up", but
| it's also not "wow, it must feel uncomfortable having
| your friend not want to play with you any more because of
| what you said, that's a really big feeling... let's go
| shopping", but rather "I can see how hard it is having
| made a mistake like this and saying something in the
| moment that you didn't actually mean and now regret. I
| think you should take some time to think about it and
| then make a plan for how you're going to apologize to
| your friend. I'm happy to talk through that and help you
| with it if you like, just let me know."
|
| The issue is that the integrated approach ultimately
| still requires the child to confront and process the
| feeling, which can mean some discomfort and
| accountability-- a gap that is unacceptable to the more
| extreme wing of "gentle" parenting.
|
| And obviously my toy example here is on easy mode because
| it's an _external_ conflict (with a friend) rather than
| the much more common case where the conflict itself is
| between child and parent, and the parent is
| simultaneously trying to provide a thoughtful response to
| the child 's emotions while also insisting that they do
| their homework, chores, go to bed on time, get off
| screens, have a shower, whatever it is.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Dialectics. "I understand you feel this way, and also
| your feelings are not aligning with any demonstrable
| reality and that's your own issue to solve."
|
| I can understand why someone feels an irrational way
| about a thing, and validate that feeling, without
| cosigning the feeling or the irrational thing itself. And
| for a lot of people, just "feeling heard" about whatever
| stupid shit that they are oftentimes _fully aware is
| stupid_ can go a long way towards them managing those
| feelings.
|
| There's a lot of conflation these days between similar
| concepts like sympathy and empathy. Empathy means you
| understand why someone feels a thing: sympathy means you
| agree with that feeling with your own feelings. I can
| empathize with someone who gets in a car accident and
| comes out heated, energized, and volatile. However if
| that person then punches someone in that moment, that's
| still a wrong thing to do, and they are still subject to
| the consequences of that decision.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| The conflation between sympathy and empathy can be a big
| problem when you attempt to empathize with someone's
| feelings about a situation, but they interpret that as
| you having also agreed with their _assessment_ of the
| situation, perhaps even including second order judgments
| around things like the motives and character of other
| participants (I felt hurt == > the apology wasn't sincere
| enough ==> that person hurt me deliberately ==> that
| person doesn't like me ==> that person is a bad person
| ==> other people who like that person must be bad
| people).
|
| It becomes particularly sticky if this misunderstanding
| persists over time, and they continue not to be self
| aware and eventually question why you aren't behaving in
| a way that is more congruent with the version of reality
| that they hold and believe you told them you had adopted.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| Exactly. Parents can get lost in the importance of
| controlling the child that anything that acknowledges the
| child's world / experience can be seen as an obstacle.
|
| Ironically, acknowledging the experience, acknowledging
| the emotions, in good faith, models healthy self-
| regulation and once the emotions are felt, unlocks more
| cognitive availability to exercise self-discipline in the
| context of a goal.
|
| A child overwhelmed by emotion has much less availability
| to listen understand and learn than one who is regulated.
|
| But focusing only on control, the parent may lose track
| of the rest. It's a lose-lose scenario.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I think one of the risks of the gentle parenting
| discourse is that so much of it focuses on scenarios
| involving young children, where the stakes are ultimately
| very low. Kid won't put on his coat? That's okay, we
| don't need to go to the park. Oh now it's on, okay we can
| go later than planned, whatever, it doesn't really
| matter. Kid won't eat his food, well we can sit for an
| hour at the dinner table playing mind games and
| negotiating around his feelings about the textures and
| colours on his plate, or maybe he can wander off and come
| back in a bit when he's more hungry, or maybe I'll just
| only prepare food I know he likes so that I don't have to
| deal with it.
|
| The older kids get, the less this works-- older kids have
| real commitments, things like school that have
| consequences to the parents if they are missed. They have
| sports and other activities to attend that are on a
| schedule and may have cost money to enroll in. They need
| to get enough sleep to be functional. They are
| increasingly exposed to situations that are more
| complicated to untangle if/when they go sour.
|
| And older kids are smart enough to walk away from a
| "validation" discussion if they detect that the end goal
| is just to get them to do the thing-- they will simply
| issue ultimatums: "I don't want to talk about my feelings
| on this, I've told you straight up I'm just not doing it,
| end of story."
|
| So it's not that parents are "focusing only on control",
| it's that _particularly as kids get older_ parents need
| to strike a balance between good faith listening and
| validating, while still ultimately retaining the last
| word and being able to be an authority when it matters. I
| think some gentle parenting acolytes miss this reality
| and believe that the toddler scenarios cleanly
| extrapolate up through teen years, and that _everything_
| can be managed through a pure consensus model-- and
| believing that is how you end up capitulating to your kid
| over and over again, ultimately letting them run wild.
| bradstewart wrote:
| > parents need to strike a balance between good faith
| listening and validating, while still ultimately
| retaining the last word and being able to be an authority
| when it matters.
|
| This is pretty much the key in my experience.
|
| To add a finer point: good faith listening _is_
| validating. Validating doesn 't mean telling them it's
| ok, or giving in, doing what they want, etc.
|
| It's the difference between "yes I understand you're
| feeling A, B, C, but we're doing it anyway because X" and
| "I don't care, stop it, be quiet and do it".
| mikepurvis wrote:
| > "yes I understand you're feeling A, B, C, but we're
| doing it anyway because X" and "I don't care, stop it, be
| quiet and do it"
|
| And eventually, if necessary, you may have to break the
| filibuster: "I hear your concern, and I've tried to
| explain where I'm coming from with it, but you've
| rejected my reasoning. We are actually doing the thing
| though, and I've told you why. Get in the car please,
| now, or you will be grounded."
|
| a.k.a. the dreaded assertion of authority that one
| _hopes_ is never necessary, but will in fact occasionally
| be necessary, no matter how much one invests in a
| positive, nurturing, and emotionally safe environment.
| Being unable or unwilling to assume this role is to fail
| at parenting.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| I never took gentle parenting to mean being a push over.
| When I was a kid I was just told to do what my parents
| said. I've interpreted gentle parenting to mean take a
| few steps before resorting to that.
|
| For example, one of my kids hates brushing her teeth.
| I've explained a million times why we need to brush
| teeth. She still protests. And I still make her do it.
|
| Giving them the chance to explain why can help correct
| misconceptions and/or remove the why.
|
| For example, our 10 year old didn't want to go to soccer
| practice. Ultimately it was because she didn't want to go
| for a car ride. So we walked instead, which is fine since
| it was only half a mile away. All protests went away.
|
| Anything we commit to, especially team based sports, is
| explained simply: unless you have a _very good reason_
| not to go, you must go because we committed to this, and
| other people are relying upon you to be there.
|
| I'm hoping that, in hindsight, with repeated application,
| the _why_ we do things can be drilled into them. It
| offers a good check on me as a parent (if my only 'why'
| is 'because I said so', then maybe I have a shitty reason
| why... everyone is human, even parents). And as they grow
| up they will, hopefully, in hindsight, see why we were
| doing these things is important, and they will have less
| animosity towards us.
| divan wrote:
| > One can validate and correct at the same time.
|
| It's really hard though. This problem exists in sports
| coaching field as well. Coaches who provide corrective
| feedback that also supports an athlete's autonomy and
| acknowledges feelings are rare.
|
| One of the good papers on this [1] topic.
|
| [1] When change-oriented feedback enhances motivation,
| well-being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive
| feedback in sport (10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.01.003): htt
| ps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14690
| ...
| mikepurvis wrote:
| That's neat! Yeah sports is a great place to look for
| this, because the results are so obviously and
| immediately measurable.
| divan wrote:
| > results are so obviously and immediately measurable
|
| Ehm... not really - especially not the "obviously" part
| :)
|
| Controlled or even abusive coaching can sometimes lead to
| better short-term results, but often at the cost of
| athletes' mental health and long-term performance.
|
| What's worse, coaching culture in many countries falls
| victim to the "regression to the mean" fallacy. I'm sure
| HN readers are familiar with it, but most coaches aren't
| - and they're not trained to adjust their intuition
| accordingly.
|
| Coaches tend to praise athletes when they perform well
| and criticize them when they don't. But statistically, if
| an athlete has an unusually good day in practice, they're
| likely to perform worse next time. And if they're having
| a rough day, odds are they'll improve next time. That's
| just the nature of sports practice.
|
| This creates a repeating pattern: praise followed by
| worse results, and criticism followed by improvement.
| Over time, this becomes a learned behavior pattern -
| reinforced by the environment and by other coaches who
| interpret it as validation of their approach.
|
| Derek from Veritasium has a great video on this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tSqSMOyNFE
| ncallaway wrote:
| > allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and
| then telling them afterward that none of the consequences
| are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away
| from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or
| overwhelmed is not the way either.
|
| Those things are *not* the same as validating their
| emotions. That's *not* what that means.
|
| If my toddler is crying because he doesn't want to go to
| bed, the conversation isn't: "Oh, I understand you want to
| stay up. Okay, let's stay up later!". Instead the
| conversation is: "Oh, I understand you want to stay up
| later. You're having a lot of fun now. But, hey, you'll get
| to play more tomorrow. We need to go to bed now, so we can
| be rested for tomorrow.", and then we go to bed.
|
| > telling them afterward that none of the consequences are
| actually their fault
|
| That also isn't part of validating someone's emotions. When
| my toddler is standing on something wobbly, and then falls
| the conversation isn't: "ow! That looks like it hurts! I'm
| sorry buddy. But don't worry, it's not your fault." the
| conversation is: "That looks like it hurts! I'm sorry
| buddy. Hey, did you notice how wobbly that thing you were
| standing on is? Next time, we need to be more careful about
| what we're standing on so we don't fall. That way we won't
| get hurt again".
|
| Validating emotions is precisely about getting them to a
| headspace where they are able to hear your reasons why they
| have to do a thing they don't want to do, or hear you
| explain the consequences of their actions. It's exactly the
| opposite of letting them do whatever they want, and it's
| exactly the opposite of telling them the consequences of
| their actions aren't their fault.
| xivzgrev wrote:
| exactly! If my toddler bumps his head, I say it looks
| like it hurt, I'll offer to hold him, and depending on
| context, point out how he can avoid it next time.
|
| but yea, never just letting them run wild or saying it's
| not their fault.
| rwmj wrote:
| _> It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance,
| including long term studies claiming that parents who
| prioritize validation over correction produce children who
| end up not just more mature, confident, and self-assured,
| but also with much better adult relationships to those
| parents._
|
| Self-reported "studies" probably. It's highly unlikely this
| could be tested in any rigorous way. (Not to mention the
| problem with what "mature, confident, and self-assured"
| actually means)
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| > Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone
| "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a
| bit patronizing or insincere).
|
| The solution is to be sincere. As to the reasoning behind it,
| it's not merely to appease the other person, it's to
| _actually consider their point of view_ , because they might
| be right. If you don't consider their point of view then
| you're not considering all options, and more importantly
| you're willfully ignoring an option being presented by the
| person you are communicating with. That's not just dumb, it's
| disrespectful.
| lamename wrote:
| The point of this, particularly for children (e.g. as a
| parent), is to build emotional bonds and stability, not to
| get them to do what you want. That can be a nice side effect
| in the moment, and is indeed more likely over the long term
| with this approach. But the chief goal is emotional safety,
| validation, etc.
| pjmorris wrote:
| Based on my own experience, YMMV, I find that those who need
| the validation before working directly on a solution are more
| annoyed by missing the validation than those who don't need
| the validation but get it anyway. Of course, it's good to
| learn the working styles of those you work with frequently.
| latexr wrote:
| > Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone
| "validates" my emotions
|
| Picture a situation where someone is running a loud machine
| within your earshot. It's been a while and it's getting on
| your nerves, so you ask them to stop. Now imagine the answer
| is either:
|
| "Oh, I'm so sorry. I didn't realise someone was so close. I
| know this is loud but could I ask you to bear with it for
| just ten more minutes? I promise I'll be over by then. It's
| important I finish now because <valid reason>."
|
| Or:
|
| "Fuck off, asshole. I don't give a shit about you. I'll be
| done when I feel like it."
|
| Allow me to suggest you'd appreciate and care for the first
| answer more. You'd probably even have a better day with it,
| even if the first person ended up taking twelve minutes while
| the second took eight.
|
| > (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or
| insincere)
|
| I propose this could be a version of the toupee fallacy1. The
| attempts you view as patronising and insincere are the ones
| which are obviously so. Perhaps from people who read a self-
| help book about how to control others and get what they want.
| Or like when you call a company for support and the agent
| repeats your name over and over. But there are people who are
| genuine and do it reflexively and honestly because they truly
| care about their fellow human being.
|
| > There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve
| it or at least compromise in good faith.
|
| That's not the default state for most people. It should be,
| but it's not. One reframing I like to give, e.g. when people
| ask me for advice on an argument they're having with a
| spouse, is "remember it's not you against them, but you and
| them together against the problem". Simple and highly
| effective with reasonable people, as it allows them to take a
| step back and look at the issue from a more rational vantage
| point.
|
| 1 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toupee_fallacy
| wwilim wrote:
| I'm 31 this year and it works on me, so...
| hex4def6 wrote:
| >Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone
| "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a
| bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be
| solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise
| in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most
| likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
|
| I assume ads don't work on you either, right? You buy purely
| based on a logical calculus of requirements and whether a
| product is fit-for-purpose. I assume the obverse must also be
| true; if they invalidate your emotions it doesn't affect you
| either?
|
| Imagine you lose your parking receipt and have to pay for the
| whole day. An attendant that says: "You were stupid for
| losing your ticket. It says in 1-ft letters at the entrance
| 'lost tickets pay full day.' We don't make exceptions for
| people that can't keep track of their stuff."
|
| vs
|
| "Damn dude, that sucks. You're not the only one today --
| previous woman had her wallet stolen as well. Sorry I can't
| help, boss doesn't let me make exceptions"
|
| Of course people validate other's emotions. You are affected
| by it. You only notice when someone does it poorly. Your
| perception of whether an exchange in which you had to
| compromise went well or not is highly colored by the attitude
| and "fluff" that the other person presented.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| Funny thing is, the detection of any preference, for
| anything, is a readout of an emotional response.
|
| People with brain injuries impacting emotional centers are
| unable to make any kind of choice and therefore don't know
| what to calculate for.
|
| https://youtu.be/T46bSyh0xc0?si=pX04LLKwMQuMtnH_
|
| Mentioned at about 90seconds in of this lecture by George
| Lakoff.
| jajko wrote:
| Ads work on you? A serious question.
|
| They ellicit so much immediate mental resistance on my side
| (coupled with ads-free life mostly via Firefox & ublock
| origin that propagates way beyond just blocks of static
| ads, ie no youtube ads at all) that any of those rare times
| I experience them, I add some small amount of hate towards
| given brand & product.
|
| Somehow, brands that invest heavily in pushy ads tend not
| to be my main focus anyway so google et al just keep
| missing badly with me.
|
| Something about preserving moral integrity, not subject to
| external manipulation etc. Subtle but powerful aspects of
| existence
| Tryk wrote:
| Tell me 5 cars brands on the top of your head.
| CBarkleyU wrote:
| Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Ford
| csa wrote:
| > Ads work on you? A serious question. They ellicit so
| much immediate mental resistance on my side
|
| The ads that work on folks like you are almost certainly
| the ones that you don't notice or maybe barely notice.
|
| This is fantastically difficult to prove without a fairly
| invasive tracking of someone's life over time.
|
| That said, really good mentalists are masters of this
| type of shaping of one's thinking -- Derren Brown has
| videos on this.
| burnished wrote:
| I feel the same way. But they can still work because at
| some point you will be buying a product and all else
| being equal it is likely that you will pick one that
| seems more familiar, which will be months or years after
| the irritation fades.
|
| But also I think the knee jerk reaction to ads like that
| is uncommon, or at least this is the first time I've seen
| anyone else publicly share this opinion. I think most
| people see them as a nuisance or a service as opposed to
| an underhanded attempt at manipulation.
|
| I didnt really understand that at all until I got an ad
| for things I actually wanted (catalogue from a restaurant
| supply store, turns out cotton candy machines are
| surprisingly affordable). Obviously very different in
| content from most ads but I think it reflected the
| positive feelings other people must get from some ads
| where they feel reminded of a thing they like.
| mordnis wrote:
| Can you give a different example? I also am of the opinion
| that I do not care for validation. The problem with the
| example you gave is that I just wouldn't whine about the
| ticket because it was my mistake.
| justonceokay wrote:
| So you're saying that you would have exactly the same
| opinion of the parking attendant whether they said the
| first or the second option? Of course it's more your
| fault than it is the attendants, but we can still treat
| each other with care.
| lupusreal wrote:
| I wouldn't be asking for an exception in the first place.
| Not in that circumstance or anything even remotely like
| it. Dead serious. Growing up, my mother was constantly
| trying to sweet talk exceptions out of people, and it
| usually worked, but I found this behavior to be morally
| reprehensible and not being this sort of person became a
| central pillar of my personality. I have similarly grown
| cold and indifferent to anybody who tries it on me.
|
| Some people in this thread seem to believe that all
| people are alike and all respond in the same way to
| corporate propaganda, false pleasantries, etc. This isn't
| the case. You're looking at a forest but have lost sight
| of the trees.
| Scarblac wrote:
| Why would I have an opinion of the parking attendant at
| all? They're a a cog in the machine. If I thought about
| their phrasing at all, I'd assume they had a bad night,
| or not. Anyway I lost the ticket, it's my problem.
| nindalf wrote:
| I read HN for absolutely wild comments like this one. To
| be clear, I think you're being completely honest here.
| It's just fascinating seeing someone with such an unusual
| thought process.
| justonceokay wrote:
| GP here, same for me. This whole comment section is
| FUBAR.
| Scarblac wrote:
| Tbf I am Dutch, and also drunk. But yeah, if I lost the
| ticket I'd assume I was going to have to pay the full
| rate, period.
|
| I'd try to speak to someone because who knows, but that's
| all.
|
| And there's someone on the other side who is just like me
| but with a shitty job, and they get to tell me I have to
| pay full rate. I don't really care how polite they go
| about it.
| theonething wrote:
| > don't really care how polite they go about it.
|
| Does that apply to everybody or just customer service
| people?
|
| How about your coworker, boss, teacher, spouse, children,
| parents? Say you make a mistake and they correct you by
| saying "Not like that, you fuckhead". That's no different
| to you than "Oh, oops, I think it's this way."?
|
| Even a customer service person, if they correct you the
| first way, you don't mind?
| Scarblac wrote:
| A minimum wage worker (probably the other side of the
| ticket machine call) gets a lot of leeway, a well paid
| manager needs to do better.
|
| I don't care that much about phrasing, not as much as
| others do.
| rixed wrote:
| It can be both honest and naive
| mottosso wrote:
| I was nodding the whole time until I got to this comment.
| This is the one that is unusual to me, because it _would_
| be my fault and the person informing me is just doing
| their job; well or not. They have no opinion about me nor
| should I of them. The whole transaction would be
| effortless if not for having emotions mixed in, I think
| those are best saved for personal relationships.
| mystified5016 wrote:
| I think it's a pretty immature and childish thing to get
| upset at the attendant in _any_ case. Unacceptable
| behavior from adults, honestly.
|
| They're doing their job same as I would in their place.
| Nothing either of us can do, and they really have no
| involvement in the first place. Blaming the attendant is
| what you'd do if you weren't emotionally mature enough to
| accept your own mistakes.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| There's a difference between blaming them and being a
| little annoyed at their callous, semi-aggressive
| response.
|
| No one likes being called stupid. It's unpleasant and
| completely unnecessary. I try to not spend time with
| people like that.
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| No one is _blaming_ the attendant. People are reacting
| (or not, as some claim) to their _attitude_.
|
| The side issue of blame can be taken out with a different
| example: You stub your toe. A person sees. Suppose that
| they either wince in sympathy, or laugh derisively.
|
| Do you feel the same about that person either way? For
| avoidance of doubt: Are there any situations in which
| your future behaviour towards them would depend on which
| of these 2 reactions they gave?
| theonething wrote:
| you make a mistake at work and boss says
|
| "You did x and fucked up the server.Don't do that again
| you dumbfuck"
|
| vs
|
| "Shit happens. Make x a learning experience."
| methyl wrote:
| I'd honestly prefer the first option
| ignoramous wrote:
| It is just one of the techniques made popular by the book
| _How to Talk so Kids Will Listen & Listen so Kids Will Talk_.
|
| Summary: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/summarise-chapter-
| by-chapte...
| RangerScience wrote:
| The validation is that you're having the experience you're
| having, not that it's, say, an intractable problem, or
| necessarily the emotional experience you're having about it.
|
| It's this:
|
| 1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: You are having problem
| X. 3. Them: Here are possible solutions.
|
| There are lots of variations on this. There are also multiple
| reasons to do it: validation and calibration being (AFAIK)
| the main ones. One way to look at it is that validation says
| I'm not going to fight you about your subjective experience.
|
| Contrast:
|
| 1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: Here are possible
| solutions.
|
| This can come across as "your problem will be fixed but you
| do not matter".
|
| Contrast:
|
| 1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: You are not having
| problem X.
|
| Now it's an argument.
| skobes wrote:
| Are you sure you are not experiencing some selection bias
| yourself, where you only recall the validation attempts that
| landed as patronizing or insincere, and do not notice when
| they are adeptly executed?
| jkaptur wrote:
| Validation can serve the purpose of communicating that one
| person deeply understands the other's problem.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| The problem a lot of people in our field / on the internet
| have is that they _think_ every problem is purely a logical
| problem to be solved, and that the person that has the
| problem is completely rational about it. But that 's not the
| reality, and a lot of problems are emotional in nature - or,
| elicit an emotional response, which can't be resolved by just
| ignoring the emotional aspect and focusing on the functional.
| Because sometimes there just isn't a logical / functional
| problem to be solved.
|
| And you're making the assumption that you can play a part in
| solving the problem, but what if that removes someone else's
| agency or responsibility? They will feel belittled, passed
| by, ignored, or they will not learn anything.
| zizee wrote:
| Better than what some people do: argue that the problem you
| have raised doesn't exist.
| hatradiowigwam wrote:
| How do you stop doing that if it's a habit you find out is
| very ingrained in you?
|
| EG.. You are angry at me because I doubled parked. I tell
| you that the spot I pick was the only one available at the
| time I took it, and if that is no longer the case(cars have
| moved) it's not my problem. You are upset about something
| you do not have the right to be upset about.
|
| I understand the above example is obviously...stupid. I am
| the stupid person that will argue with you that I didn't do
| anything wrong, since at that moment in time it was the
| only option available.
|
| My question is.. how can I stop being like this? It's not
| good in my life, and negatively impacts my closest
| relationships.
| korse wrote:
| >>but think there's some selection bias at play with regard
| to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this
| approach as advice and how well the advice actually works
|
| Correct. As previously stated, this advice works wonders on
| toddlers. Congratulations on not being a toddler!
| helle253 wrote:
| this reminds me of something that happened to me just
| yesterday:
|
| i was at the playground, trying to convince my daughter to go
| down the slide on her own.
|
| She kept saying it was too scary, so I went down first to show
| her it wasnt scary. Then, still not convinced, she said there
| were monsters in the slide! I, of course, told her I got rid of
| them on the way down. She pondered for a moment, then decided
| it wasn't so scary anymore. Shortly thereafter she went down
| the slide herself!
|
| It was a funny, insightful moment, negotiating her fears
| without invalidating them.
| tdb7893 wrote:
| Even in engineering it's important for people to understand
| what people want and to make sure people feel heard and
| validated. I've found that especially when dealing with people
| up the management chain understanding what they want and even
| using the techniques you describe is very effective. My
| experience is that pretty much everyone, but especially people
| in engineering fields and data driven science fields (me
| included), vastly overestimates how "logical" they are. At the
| end of the day we are all just a species of ape
| karaterobot wrote:
| What's a different path to the solution of getting a kid to eat
| vegetables and go to bed? I'd say if you can get them to freely
| choose to do those, then you've won the argument. If it comes
| down to the equivalent of telling them "because I say so" in
| such a positive and constructive way that they don't freak out,
| you haven't won an argument. You _have_ gotten what you wanted,
| but not by winning an argument, because the kid 's opinion
| didn't change, just their response.
|
| Now, what you're talking about is an extremely valuable skill--
| much more valuable than trying to argue with toddlers--but it's
| not the same thing in my opinion.
| kristianc wrote:
| It's what Chris Voss calls tactical empathy.
| scott_w wrote:
| This is only useful if the person is arguing in good faith,
| something a quick listen to Nick Ferrari, Nigel Farage, Ben
| Shapiro or any other shock jock will quickly disabuse you of.
| dfltr wrote:
| I think there's an additional step of "Find out what they
| want" that was left out of the original comment because the
| desires of actual toddlers are (usually) not fundamentally
| evil.
|
| Do they want to exterminate your loved ones? Do they want to
| ship dissenters off to concentration camps? Do they want to
| simply profit off of the people in power who are doing those
| things? If so, the whole process has an early return case
| that's more along the lines of "Antifa rally at Omaha Beach."
| scott_w wrote:
| Your problem is you can't really pull this out of evil
| people so easily. They'll happily lie to your face, despite
| evidence you present to the contrary. The truth is a
| flexible concept to them.
| melenaboija wrote:
| > if it is
|
| This is the crux to me.
|
| And more than that is how much of my truth (not absolute truth,
| if such thing exists, but my point of view) I want to give up
| to enter a common territory to discuss.
| subpixel wrote:
| My wife has found this is also quite effective with me.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I usually talked with my toddlers asking them "why"? Why do you
| want to stay late? why don't you want to eat carrots?
|
| They were usually thinking about trading and I was patiently
| waiting.
|
| They do not like carrots (me neither btw), ok, so you get to
| pick a vegetable.
|
| They want to play longer, ok, you play in your bed. Etc.
|
| Of course this did not work all the time, especially when I was
| tired and maybe not that patient so more traditional ways of
| persuasion were used (no, nothing violent, just "do it because
| I said so")
| MadcapJake wrote:
| As a parent, I often found that if I actually explained why
| instead of the usual "Because I told you so", then I got a lot
| further in making them rationally arrive at the right behavior
| themselves (as toddlers are wont to do). I suspect that the "I
| told you so", not only does it completely nullify their desire
| but it also forces them to accept not learning and hurts their
| pride (which is where the tantrum comes from). These are
| undesirable outcomes and since parents use this trick all the
| time, it leads to learned behavior. Disclaimer: This is just my
| own analysis and I know there are times when it's too
| challenging to do this but it's a principle you have to focus
| on.
| elif wrote:
| I'm lucky enough that I get to take my tyke to the zoo 5 days a
| week and while I agree with your take, I also have seen enough
| of the parents making the mistake outlined in the original post
| to know that it _was_ actually talking about toddlers.
|
| You would be shocked to see how many supposed adults engage in
| one sided arguments with crying children, usually centered on
| the parents feelings.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| If you don't think you would be able to fool the person that you
| have the same views as them, you probably will not be able to
| have a productive argument with them.
|
| i.e. if you couldn't sit at the table with a bunch of (insert
| ideology) adherents and blend right in, you probably don't
| understand their views well enough to dissuade them from it.
| erichocean wrote:
| Jonathan Haidt's finding from _The Righteous Mind_ that
| conservatives tend to understand liberal moral foundations
| better than liberals understand conservative ones is an
| important example.
|
| His research shows conservatives operate across a broader range
| of moral foundations--care, fairness, loyalty, authority,
| sanctity, and liberty--while liberals lean heavily on care and
| fairness
|
| This gives conservatives an easier time modeling liberal views,
| as they already incorporate those priorities. Liberals,
| however, often struggle to grasp the weight conservatives place
| on loyalty, authority, or sanctity, seeing them as less
| "rational."
|
| The author is an example of this: he views his opponents as
| less rational--literal "toddlers"--and thus their arguments can
| be dismissed.
| pmarreck wrote:
| > "What sort of information would make it likely you could see
| this in a different way?"
|
| That's the argument to falsifiability, put in human terms.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| "If you're not changing your mind, it's likely you're not
| actually having an argument (or you're hanging out with the wrong
| people.)"
|
| Or you're the toddler. We all are at some point
| firefoxd wrote:
| When you reach "The cliff of Irrational Arguments" you need to
| stop and reevaluate what is the purpose of the discussion.
|
| There was a joke about the man who was threatening to jump off a
| cliff. No professional could convince him otherwise with sound
| arguments. It took a another mental patient to make an irrational
| threat, cut the cliff down, to scare him off.
|
| Edit to add link: https://idiallo.com/blog/the-cliff-of-
| irrational-arguments
| miltonlost wrote:
| > If you're regularly having arguments with well-informed people
| of goodwill, you will probably 'lose' half of them-changing your
| mind based on what you've learned. If you're not changing your
| mind, it's likely you're not actually having an argument (or
| you're hanging out with the wrong people.) While it can be fun to
| change someone else's position, it's also a gift to learn enough
| to change ours.
|
| What kind of arguments are these? Are these "this episode of TV
| was not good" or "the earth is flat" or "I think rent is too
| high"? This statistic seems a) made-up, and b) as simplistic as
| conflating all "arguments" into one group of indistinguishable
| arguments.
| blacksqr wrote:
| I recommend the book _How To Talk So Kids Will Listen And Listen
| So Kids Will Talk._
|
| The same basic techniques work on toddlers, teens and many
| adults.
| porphyra wrote:
| So, whenever you fail to change someone's mind, you can just
| dismiss them as being a toddler. This mindset explains how the
| current state of, say, US politics became so polarized and
| extremist.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Gotta admit, I was certain this was going to be another article
| about tariffs.
| 1832 wrote:
| I'll remember this for my Faceit solo Q lobbies.
| mattlondon wrote:
| Much to the same opening as the article I have a little saying I
| have to myself:
|
| Don't get into a battle of wills with a kid - they don't even
| know they're taking part.
| jvilalta wrote:
| For those actually trying to talk to a toddler, I recommend Adele
| Faber's How to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will
| talk.
|
| Also maybe useful for talking to middle aged toddlers.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| This book isn't actually appropriate for toddler age children,
| but there is a "sequel" that focuses on toddlers. While there
| are some nice ideas in the book, it tends to ignore the most
| challenging parts of parenting. If you're going to spend the
| time reading a parenting book, I'd recommend a research-based
| parenting program.
| slig wrote:
| >I'd recommend a research-based parenting program.
|
| Can you share the ones you liked, please?
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| Incredible Years has a series of books for different ages.
| sepositus wrote:
| > It probably doesn't pay to argue over things we have chosen to
| believe as part of our identity.
|
| In a world where things are increasingly becoming a part of our
| identity (i.e., Democrat/Republican), this presents a real
| problem. I agree it hardly does good to argue with people about
| these things, but the problem is that the list of valid things to
| argue over seems to be diminishing yearly.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Toddlers are smart enough To know you are putting on a show of an
| argument and do the same.
| penguin_booze wrote:
| Mandatory reference to the argument clinic:
| https://youtu.be/DkQhK8O9Jik.
| slackfan wrote:
| Clickbait title, clickbait article, in itself arguing in bad
| faith.
| torcete wrote:
| Having a Colt 45 by my side usually helps.
| theGeatZhopa wrote:
| The knowing has lost against the believing every single time in
| the whole history of antroposophic argumentation. No chance to
| stand 3 rounds against the believers
| jt-hill wrote:
| Classic mistake theory vs conflict theory. Just being right is
| not a good enough reason for someone to believe you. They have to
| believe you're on their side.
| dartharva wrote:
| The world wouldn't have progressed if everybody'd had this
| attitude. To actually bring real change you _don 't have a
| choice_ but to engage with the toddlers.
|
| Those who don't, will lose. E.g. Democrats in the last election.
| sherburt3 wrote:
| Demeaning and applying labels to people who disagree with you are
| not really conducive to the healthy arguments the author is
| looking for.
| skwee357 wrote:
| I gave up trying to change people's mind in this widely divided
| world.
|
| For starters, I will be arguing with a dozen of "social media
| influencers" who shaped the opinion and identity of my opponent.
|
| And in the end, most people are not really interested in changing
| their opinion. They want me to change mine, or validate theirs,
| but would conveniently dismiss anything that does not match their
| world view.
| al_borland wrote:
| That last part is where my head was going while reading this
| piece. If both people are of the mindset that the other should
| change their mind, which is usually the case, it goes nowhere.
|
| The person most open to having they mind changed is often the
| least likely to need it changed, as they've likely already
| looked at both side in good faith. That said, they may have a
| blind spot, or haven't considered a particular view.
| jchw wrote:
| > Toddlers (which includes defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat
| earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk
| show hosts)
|
| If you've already decided your peer is a "toddler", correctly or
| incorrectly, you're _definitely_ going to struggle to have any
| meaningful kind of dialog, that 's for sure.
|
| > If you're not changing your mind, it's likely you're not
| actually having an argument (or you're hanging out with the wrong
| people.)
|
| Well, why do people argue in the first place?
|
| Ultimately, it is probably something along the lines of "to
| spread one's own opinion", a cause not particularly noble in and
| of itself. Still, it is probably necessary. Most people are not
| aware of how seriously one's own perception is subjective; it
| feels like human nature, yet it's apparent if you look across
| enough people and enough culture that almost everything about our
| perception of issues is strongly impacted by culture, down to the
| language we use (though to be clear, I am not a believer in
| force-feeding the euphemism treadmill; fixing problems you
| manufactured isn't a net win for anyone. But I digress.) With
| that in mind, I think the importance of argument is apparent.
|
| On an individual level, we have issues important enough to us,
| that we have formed opinions on. When we hear or see an argument
| that we disagree with, sometimes we feel enticed to debate it. In
| a public space, it's often more a performance than it is an
| actual argument between two people, but it's still an argument at
| its core.
|
| In truth, there is not that much to gain from _most_ arguments as
| they boil down to people who actually believe the same things but
| have a different framing of the situation, leading to a different
| outcome. You might change someone 's mind by arguing with them,
| but only if they are both factually wrong about something and
| have the humility to admit it (and I think it is genuinely hard
| to sometimes, humans are just like that.) If they see the same
| exact factual information and have a different viewpoint, the
| real argument is one of trying to demonstrate which viewpoint
| holds more water. That's the real difficulty.
|
| I don't really wind up having a lot of private one-on-one debates
| with people anymore. The reason is not because I don't want to
| grow or learn, it's because I've had a lot of debates about the
| issues most important to me and I feel like I understand the
| opposing viewpoints enough. I don't _agree_ with them, but not
| because I can 't figure out how someone could justify it.
|
| Granted, there are viewpoints that I have an explanation for that
| I think holders of those viewpoints would not find to be
| particularly charitable, but that's not my modus operandi and I
| do adjust this when possible. In a lot of cases, e.g. abortion,
| gun rights, fiscal policies, I can see fairly reasonable
| arguments going different ways, and it often depends on what
| things you think are most important. This even extends to stuff
| that is less controversial that I have strong opinions on, like
| privacy rights and cryptography. The less charitable views are
| mostly reserved for the kinds of silly arguments you find
| spreading primarily from one moron to another, like conspiracies,
| or anything driven primarily by outrage bait.
|
| I can see why you wouldn't argue with those people, but
| personally I think there are cases where you should. Ultimately,
| I think public debate is better than the ominous viewpoint
| suppression systems that modern social media deploys. (In many
| cases, both are worse than simply having reasonable moderation
| that can make subjective calls.)
|
| Ultimately, I don't really think conspiracy nuts are toddlers or
| especially emotionally immature. I think a lot of them feel a
| disconnect from society and a distrust of authority, and find
| connection and possibly even a weird sense of security from
| conspiracy theories. Sometimes having someone to blame and grand
| explanations for why things are the way they are just makes us as
| humans feel better. But should you argue with them? At the very
| least, probably not for your sake or theirs, but maybe for other
| people's sakes sometimes.
|
| Or maybe even more, it might be worth asking what it _really_
| means to "win" an argument. Changing the other person's view is
| not the definition I'd go with.
| klinquist wrote:
| I assumed this would be about prompt engineering. I often feel
| like I'm arguing with toddlers when interacting with LLMs :).
| dkarl wrote:
| > Toddlers (which includes defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat
| earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk
| show hosts)
|
| I think people are unfair to bureaucrats. Bureaucrats have a job
| to do: they carry out policy determined by other people and
| encoded via a dizzying array of rules that combine specificity
| and vagueness in unexpected ways, many of which have a history of
| harm, exploitation, and public debate behind them that ordinary
| people have no patience to learn.
|
| People are only interested in their own situation, and they are
| convinced that their situation is _different_. Sometimes it is.
| Sometimes they 're suffering from an entirely natural partiality
| towards themselves. So they want the bureaucrat to be creative.
| They justify it by saying that the rules can be bent just for
| this circumstance, just for them, it doesn't have to apply to any
| other circumstance. Why can't the bureaucrat relax their rigid
| bureaucratic brain enough to realize that every circumstance is
| unique and the rules were written for other circumstances, not
| this one?
|
| But that's exactly what the bureaucrat is not supposed to do. The
| public, their elected representatives, their interest groups, and
| other policy stakeholders expend _incredible_ quantities of time
| in campaigns, pubic debate, open meetings, closed meetings,
| collection and collation of feedback, et cetera ad infinitum. It
| 's not the bureaucrat's place to second-guess the results of that
| process or innovate outside the bounds decided on during that
| process.
|
| In the gray areas within those boundaries, yes, the bureaucrat is
| happy to listen to arguments and make decisions based on reason
| and evidence. That's their job. Gray areas where bureaucrats get
| to apply judgment are inevitable, often even intentional, but the
| gray areas aren't always where you want or expect them to be.
| Bureaucrats don't have latitude to decide that a rule that went
| through two rounds of public feedback, got debated until 11pm at
| a public meeting, went through multiple rounds of drafting and
| review by the staff of an elected official, and was finally
| signed off on and announced as a shiny new policy in the media,
| should be changed for you because the way it applies to your
| situation doesn't make sense to you. They can't invent a gray
| area where the political process provided a bright line.
|
| You can argue that a lot of rules were hastily dashed out by a
| junior aide and made it through the rest of the policy-making
| process without any further scrutiny. That's true. But it's not
| like when you become a bureaucrat they give you a special pair of
| glasses that show you which rules were just one person's ill-
| informed guess and which rules emerged from decades of painful
| history or hours of public debate and compromise. That would be
| nice to know, and sometimes bureaucrats know that information
| because they were around and paying attention when the rules were
| made. Sometimes they can bend a rule because they know that this
| particular rule is not important to anybody. But just because
| they won't bend a rule in your case doesn't mean they're narrow-
| minded, stubborn, or petty.
| pphysch wrote:
| Hence the "defensive" qualifier. Defensive bureaucrats hide
| behind the "just doing my job / following orders" excuse. This
| is problematic when it is at odds with ethics, especially in
| civil service organizations.
|
| Following protocol is critical to the function of large human
| organizations, but it's not everything. People who blindly
| follow protocol without heed to societal values and ethics are
| no different than killer robots.
|
| Adolf Eichmann was a defensive bureaucrat.
| Arubis wrote:
| "There are three ways of dealing with opposition. The recommended
| and stupid way is to directly engage it in a cooperative spirit.
| This never works unless there is genuinely some sort of
| misunderstanding that can be easily clarified." (Venkatesh Rao,
| Be Slightly Evil)
| prvc wrote:
| Before asking "How to win an argument with a toddler?", first
| ask: 1- "Might the toddler be right?" 2-
| "Am I the toddler in this interaction?"
| immibis wrote:
| This is the stated reason that Vaush (some Twitch/YT zoomer
| political commentator) stopped doing debate streams. He said they
| were only having the effect of elevating the people he was
| debating with rather than conveying information or changing
| minds.
| henlobenlo wrote:
| 99% of people have zero epistemic foundation for any of their
| views so debated on the facts mean nothing
| LinuxAmbulance wrote:
| A terrifying amount of views are held on the basis of how good
| they make the holder feel.
| subjectsigma wrote:
| I don't think this should be terrifying, this is how it works
| and how it's always worked. Understanding this is more
| helpful than pretending people are rational machines and if
| they don't agree with your reasoning, that means they are
| defective and therefore dangerous.
| YesThatTom2 wrote:
| This is how Trump will win and become king.
| dumbfounder wrote:
| Everyone is capable of being a toddler. This article frames it
| like there are a bunch of idiots out there that are always wrong.
| I think he is acting like a toddler when he points out the people
| that are always wrong. It is good to analyze your own actions and
| try to minimize when we act like toddlers. Because we all do. But
| yes, some more than others.
| jmward01 wrote:
| I think there is a difference between having a discussion and
| having an argument. You are in a discussion if you are actually
| open to change and seeking a better understanding. You are in an
| argument if you are just out to change the other side. An
| argument is a fight so knowing when to argue is critical to
| winning the fight. The challenge, I think, is that often people
| get themselves into a discussion when the other side is having an
| argument with them and don't realize it. That seems like a point
| this article is really driving at towards the end. The missing
| advice though is that if you recognize the other side is just
| going to be in an argument and not switch to a discussion then
| you probably need to back out.
| cess11 wrote:
| I get the impression that this person is using toddler as an
| insult and find it rather off-putting.
| AndrewOMartin wrote:
| > An argument, though, is an exchange of ideas that ought to
| surface insight and lead to a conclusion.
|
| No it isn't.
| hingusdingus wrote:
| Ice cream usually works for actual toddlers. (Didn't read the
| article yet.)
| SamBam wrote:
| > An argument, though, is an exchange of ideas that ought to
| surface insight and lead to a conclusion.
|
| No it isn't.
| benrutter wrote:
| I have a sort of recipe for openly discussing disagreements with
| someone:
|
| 1. Demonstrate that you understand their point, and concede
| ground where necessary (what you think is attractive about what
| they are saying, what it explains well, etc)
|
| 2. Explain (not tell) why it is that in spite of that, you don't
| hold the position they do (maybe it leads to some other
| conclusion, maybe there's another core principle at work)
|
| 3. Ask, with genuine curiosity, what they think about the problem
| you raised, how to they resolve it in their mind?
|
| I don't think that'll necessarily make you more likely to change
| their mind, but you'll certainly be more likely to learn
| something.
|
| And if they aren't actually interested in discussing, and are
| just engaging in some kind of show boating etc, it will become
| immediately clear because you are only leaving open the
| possibility of curious, open dialogue.
| alganet wrote:
| There are many kinds of arguments. Some arguments are
| psychological, not related to "winning" but understanding what
| makes the interlocutor tick.
|
| The article is formulaic. It doesn't make it inherently bad.
|
| The presenting of a persona interaction, followed by a recipe on
| how to deal with that, is one of those discussion tricks. Whoever
| answers must put itself in either the toddler's position or the
| adult position. Both positions are disfavorable (they're flat
| stereotypes)
|
| The author is actually playing neither, it is acting as an
| "overseer" of silly toddlers and silly adults that engage in
| arguments all wrong.
|
| It is a curious thing how far these things went.
|
| Tantrums can happen for all kinds of reasons, and adults can
| engage in fruitless argument for all kinds of reasons too. It's a
| human thing. Sometimes, even in perfectly reasonable discussions,
| no one learns anything. That is also a human thing.
|
| Changing one's point of view is something dramatic. To expect
| that in an argument is unreasonable, it's too high of a goal.
|
| Just making the other part understand the subject is a lesser,
| more attainable objective. They don't need to agree. Sometimes I
| feel glad when I notice that the other part found the core of the
| discussion, even if they are in opposition to my view. It means
| that they understood the subject, which is something rare these
| days.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| > An argument, though, is an exchange of ideas that ought to
| surface insight and lead to a conclusion.
|
| That's one definition, I suppose, but it's not the definition
| you'll find in any dictionary I've seen. The author here seems to
| be assuming that the only valid reason to argue is to learn.
| People argue for many reasons other than that.
|
| > If you're regularly having arguments with well-informed people
| of goodwill, you will probably 'lose' half of them-changing your
| mind based on what you've learned
|
| Again, the author's unspoken presupposition begs to be
| questioned. Why do most people actually argue in the public
| sphere? For instance, why do we have presidential debates? The
| candidates certainly aren't there to learn. They are not even
| trying to persuade their debate partner. They are arguing to
| convince or persuade their viewers of something. These could be
| undecided viewers, or they could be viewers who have already made
| up their mind but may either feel strengthened about their
| beliefs or weakened after listening.
|
| Similarly, if I'm debating someone online, it's often less to
| convince that person and more to convince anyone else who might
| be reading. I have heard of people in real life who have read
| debates I've engaged in and expressed both gratitude for my
| willingness to do so and that they were strengthened in their
| beliefs on the subject.
| mooreed wrote:
| Post reminds me of the absolutely lovely Monty python skit [1]
| that is not only humorous, but has a lot you can learn from.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
| renewiltord wrote:
| Sure. You should converge viewpoints over time in a sense of
| Aumann's Agreement Theorem. If you aren't, something is different
| about the argument purpose.
| subjectsigma wrote:
| People write articles like this and then wonder why we are so
| politically divided.
|
| I do agree there's a point past which someone is ideologically
| unable to be reasoned with. The classic example is neo-Nazis, of
| course. But also of course, there are redeemed neo-Nazis.
|
| Coming from a conservative family and living in a deep blue state
| I've had my fair share of arguments on both sides. As other
| commenters have stated, it's all about emotions. If you can make
| the other person feel like they are being heard and assuage their
| fears about X, Y, or Z, then you can make progress, even if it's
| small progress.
| disambiguation wrote:
| I don't think I've ever had an argument that I remember being a
| good use of my time.
| lokar wrote:
| I think it's rare to actually have minds change in an argument,
| and that's fine.
|
| What you should be doing is understanding each position and
| reducing the disagreement down to one (or a few) points that are
| either knowable (you could find the data, run an experiment, etc)
| or are a judgement call.
| techright75 wrote:
| Useless article that further demonstrates the leftist movement of
| what was once a great and fairly neutral site called Hacker News.
| rexpop wrote:
| > flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda
|
| I find it hard to think ill of a "leftist movement" that
| opposes "flat earthers," but pretty much every reasonable adult
| is, to a greater or lesser extent, "committed to a specific
| agenda"--leftists no less than the rest!
| MathMonkeyMan wrote:
| > Tell me about other strongly-held positions you've changed as
| the result of a discussion like this one...
|
| Fair point, but if somebody were actually to say that to me
| during a disagreement, I would assume that they were not acting
| in good faith.
|
| Now instead of disagreeing about politics or whatever, you're
| asking a rhetorical question that insinuates "you are
| unreasonable."
| gs17 wrote:
| Agreed, it feels like something someone who had never had a
| conversation with a human being that strongly disagreed with
| them would write. If it was an introspective question meant to
| question the framing of trying to convince people through
| arguments in general, it might be meaningful.
|
| I think it's fair to try to establish if the person you're
| talking to has an unfalsifiable belief and walk away if you're
| arguing with a brick wall, but that's definitely not the way to
| go about it.
| bdangubic wrote:
| my dad won everyone one of them... with a belt (or threat of the
| belt)...
| jumploops wrote:
| One of the surprising benefits of raising a toddler is gaining
| the ability to instantly tell when another adult has fallen into
| a "toddler-like" state (myself included!).
|
| Before having kids, I would try and explain someone's behavior in
| a logical sense.
|
| Toddlers, however, are mostly driven by their current physical
| needs (hungry/sleepy) and whatever they're currently doing
| (autonomy).
|
| We've found the most success in avoiding all boolean questions.
| Do you want to read a book? (when playing with trains before
| bedtime) Obvious no!
|
| Do you want to read this book or that book? Oh... a decision!
|
| It's striking how well tactics like these work outside the realm
| of toddlers.
| sethammons wrote:
| We had a VP make a similar observation during an all hands. In
| the following all hands, he had to apologize because people
| felt they were being insulted by being compared to kids. The
| irony of the situation was not lost on some of us
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| illusion of choice is extremely effective on c-suite as well. I
| recommend it for engineers trying to push changes up corporate
| ladders. Give them three options, the one nobody should ever
| do, the compromise solution, and the "whale" option. Just like
| product pricing.
|
| For very young toddlers distraction is also extremely effective
| but it stops working at some point. Not sure about how
| effective it is on c-suite someone will have to do some
| testing.
| torginus wrote:
| I dislike this line of reasoning - it's the presumption that _I
| 'm just too smart for my audience_ and unwillingness to recognize
| where they are coming from, even if some of their thinking seems
| to be irrational and biased - at the same time it's the refusal
| to acknowledge that I might be prone to biases and my thinking
| might be flawed and perspective incomplete from the point of
| others.
|
| It's literally giving up, declaring victory and then projecting
| passive-aggressive superiority.
| teekert wrote:
| Was hoping it was about actual toddlers. I keep having these
| discussions with my kids. I know they're just whining but they
| always reach this point where I think: "That's indeed quite
| reasonable". My wife says I shouldn't be a push over but I just
| want to be open minded.
| f33d5173 wrote:
| If you're losing half your arguments then you're doing somthing
| wrong. That would imply you and your opponent are both picking
| your initial positions via a coin flip, so that you're both
| discovering which side is "correct" for the first time in the
| midst of the argument. Rather, the first time a person encounters
| a subject, they won't have an opinion on it, so instead of
| arguing over it they will usually do some research or listen to
| other people's perspectives. Only once they feel they have
| gathered enough information to form an opinion will they tend to
| get into arguments over it. At that point they should be about,
| say, 90% confident in their opinion, so they should lose
| arguments about 10% of the time.
|
| But that's really an idealized view of opinion forming that has
| little to do with how people actually develop their beliefs.
| Usually people don't want to become part-time experts in every
| field under the sun prior to developing an opinion on a given
| subject. So they will take the shortcut of acknowledging some
| expert or authority whose opinion they have some reason to trust.
| When they get into an argument, they still argue their opinion in
| terms of object level facts, but their actual reason for holding
| that opinion is largely disconnected from those facts. If their
| interlocutor presented an extraordinrily strong case (usually
| alongside some reason to distrust experts) they might still
| change their view. Otherwise, they will exit the discussion
| either feeling more confident in their view owing to the
| impotence of their inquisitor, or they will leave feeling
| uncertain in their view due to the strong front put up by the
| opposition. Even in the latter case, they will seldom admit to
| having "lost" the argument. They will rather change tacts midway
| through the discussion - ceding what they discover to be an
| inadequate line of attack for one they deem more defensable. That
| will often come across to the opposition as a forfeiture, an
| admission of inadequacy. But since they were never strongly taken
| to a given reasoning for their view (beyond, as I said, trust in
| experts, but the expert opinion does not change midway through an
| argument), they are indifferent to whether a given line of
| reasoning bears out.
|
| I should emphasize that this is all really unavoidable, and that
| this is grounds for us to argue that even non toddlers (in fact
| we might argue, especially non toddlers) should not admit to
| having "lost" an argument any more than a small fraction of the
| time. This reflects that the goal of an argument is not usually
| to change minds, but rather for both sides to develop their
| understanding of the subject and to become more aware of why
| others would disagree with them.
|
| Since I assume that the present discussion is a propos recent US
| political issues, what has occurred there is that some portion of
| the population considers trump to be an "authority" (as I have
| used the term above). That is, they feel that trump must
| necessarily have good reason for believing what he does, and
| furthermore that whatever actions trump takes must have good
| reasons behind them; this jutifies to them their choice to
| believe the same things and to believe those actions are good.
| This is questionable in the first place because trump has done
| very little to establish himself as an authority on political
| matters. He is first of all lacking in political experience prior
| to his first term, and second of all demonstrated during that
| first term very little talent for statesmanship. So to say that
| the policies he is implementing now must be well thought out,
| owing to his history of thinking out policies prior to
| implementing them, is not concomitant with the evidence.
|
| In the second place, there is a clear demonstrated disconnect
| between trump's beliefs and his actions. He tends to take actions
| by justifying them in one way, but will later change course by
| giving an unrelated justification for his prior action (none of
| this to say that either are really his true reason). If we defend
| some position on the grounds that trump agrees with it at one
| point in time, we are liable to end up arguing against that
| position some time later on the same grounds. If the likelihood
| of contradicting ourselves is so high, then we cannot reasonably
| assign a high probability to the correctness of whatever position
| we are initially defending. (Or in other words, whereas I
| previously stated "the expert opinion does not change midway
| through an argument", this is liable to be false when we take
| trump as the "expert")
|
| We might attempt to persist in defending trump on grounds that we
| agree with his actions rather than his words. I would find that
| questionable as well, since he has never been reliable in acting
| in a single direction. His recent flip-flop on illegal
| immigration, which previously seemed like a core issue of his,
| seems like a good demonstration of this.
|
| Given all this, we come to the conclusion that those defending
| trump are defending the personage of trump rather than any
| particular belief or policy. He has developed, in other words, a
| cult of personality under which his followers will agree with
| anything he says or does (with some very limited exceptions like
| vaccines), even if they previously argued in strong terms against
| those same actions or beliefs. Such a cult of personality is not
| necessarily toddlerish, but is nonetheless highly regrettable.
| cycomanic wrote:
| An excellent text about engaging with extremists... (I don't
| agree with the authors simplification as toddlers) is the book
| "Subversive Denken, wie man Fundamentalismus diskutiert"
| (Unfortunately it's only available in German). The author
| distinguishes between different types of fundamentalists and
| makes the point that discussions with the convinced
| fundamentalist is often not possible, because even agreeing on
| facts is impossible as denying some facts is a proof of faith in
| the fundamentalist ideology. The discussion is then about
| convincing listeners instead via different techniques. Despite
| the title it is not primarily about religious fundamentalism but
| also political (quite timely at the moment) and the author gives
| historical examples of the type of techniques employed against
| fundamentalists.
| spongebobism wrote:
| "Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu
| verlieren: Anleitung zum subversiven Denken", by Hubert
| Schleichert
| Uzmanali wrote:
| If someone is emotionally invested in "being right," logic is
| just background noise.
| motohagiography wrote:
| I often ask, "what new fact could change my opinion about this?"
| it isn't a simple question. it requires you go upstream of your
| opinion and consider why or what caused you to think it, and then
| ask -even upstream of that- if there is some principle or axiom
| that is yielding an interpretation of that cause.
|
| questions like: would I still think this if I were happier; do I
| have a belief about my status that the circumstances do not
| reflect; do I share an ontology with this being at all; do I fear
| other consequences of agreeing with them?
|
| the irony of authority is it usually means dealing with someone
| who doesn't have the authority to compromise, and if you don't
| humiliate them for this fact that hangs over everything they do,
| they will often at least use their discretion.
| quantadev wrote:
| The mainstream media in America has turned half the country into
| proverbial "Unthinking Brainwashed Toddlers". I think the key
| problem about "Toddlers" is that they think with emotions rather
| than with logic and reason. They're old enough to know they're
| mad about something, but too unwise to reason about root causes
| and potential solutions, often unaware that THEY are the CAUSE of
| their problems.
|
| If you think you might be in the political party that's thinking
| in this way, then congratulations, you're probably right, and you
| should start using reason. To the other half, don't worry it's
| not you. The people I'm talking to know exactly who they are, and
| I don't even need to say which side it is, because at this point,
| in 2025, it has finally become utterly obvious to most.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| There are a number of highly contentious subjects where the other
| side seems to be a bunch of toddlers to us, no matter which side
| we find ourselves on.
|
| Abortion, climate change, free market capitalism, tax policy,
| racism, or identity politics are just a few. Even though both
| sides generally have some valid points to support their side;
| rarely does anyone's argument or debate cause someone else to
| switch sides.
|
| Too often both camps are firmly entrenched wIth many who feel
| that anyone in the other camp is not just wrong, but is evil.
|
| Neither side wants to give an inch in the public sphere, lest it
| be taken as a sign of weakness. This leads to the most shrill,
| radical voices taking center stage on both sides.
|
| The most extreme positions are promoted and reinforced. There are
| a number of vested interests in the media and political arenas
| who like it that way.
| talkingtab wrote:
| Very wrong headed in my opinion.
|
| It assumes we are talking about a toddler and we are not. People
| find "ways" to survive - even toddlers. I knew a three year old.
| He found a way, and knew how to use it. It was very interesting
| to watch - until you realized the back story.
|
| If something bad happened, as in he might be in trouble, he would
| run around the room as fast as possible and on the way create
| mayhem. He would knock over a paint jar, purposefully or not.
| Bump into another kid, knock over a chair. Soon all the adults in
| the room were dealing with an overwhelming set of emergencies.
| Todd was forgotten
|
| This happened over and over again until the pattern clicked. Some
| adult had to keep focused on Todd.
|
| It was a genius thing he came up with. He never faced
| consequences. One had to wonder how such a set of behaviors would
| evolve? Was he a bad kid? No. Mean, no. If you step back what you
| see is a survival skill for a very difficult situation. My guess
| is that the physical or psychological cost of being "caught" were
| so threatening that this response evolved as a life saving skill.
| In a three year old.
|
| One has to think about how this person would be if they did not
| have some intervention. Would they evolve this particular skill
| into an increasingly sophisticated way? Certainly inherent in the
| success of this mode is a fairly strong sense of contempt for
| people in general. And perhaps this contempt is well earned when
| given by a three or even four year old. After all where was
| everyone else when he was in the original situation? But in an
| adult? Pitiful.
|
| Fortunately for Todd, people took the time and had the care to
| help him feel safe without that mechanism. Unfortunately, this
| does not always happen, as we are seeing.
|
| The response to this kind of pattern is the same though, for any
| age Todd - three or not three.
|
| First the adults in the room have to focus on the source of the
| problems. And if not stopped, the blame must fall heavily on
| those so called adults.
|
| Second, the distraction thing has to be addressed. The problem is
| not this or that is broken. The problem is the Todd.
|
| So where are the adults in the room? We need to ask why the
| people in the room are not doing their job? And if we have no
| adults we need to get rid of the people in there. All of them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-15 23:01 UTC)