- cross-posted to:
- confidently_incorrect
- cross-posted to:
- confidently_incorrect
You must log in or register to comment.
Humans are rationalizing creatures, much more than rational ones. Our first gut reaction is trying to make sense of why we think what we think and why we behave how we behave, rather than trying to figure out if it does actually make sense. If this natural tendency could be changed, the world would be far less of a shithole.
This is why, rather than slapping people in the face with a mountain of research, I try to ask them questions that lead them to the conclusion I want them to reach. Oh we discuss along the way, but you get a lot less of the black and white thinking bold statements that someone entrenched in their beliefs tends to make
The research backs up your statement. Especially if you yourself are genuinely interested in the conversation, and also willing to update your own thinking, along with helping get everyone in the conversation to start understanding the real answers.
In case you haven’t listened to it, the You Are Not So Smart podcast covers the topic of how to get people to change on a pretty regular basis. It’s a great podcast that talks a lot about conspiracies, misinformation, and how to combat them.
https://youarenotsosmart.com/podcast/
My favorite part of this podcast is that if you listen to it from the start (nearly 300 episodes at this point), you can hear him slowly become very jaded and pessimistic, but then as the podcast goes on, he starts turning around his opinion and gets exited and optimistic about all the progress that is made. It’s a really great podcast and makes me excited for the future.
Thanks for the recommendation!
This is just the Socratic method. It’s like…the oldest formal rhetorical strategy.
Shhhh don’t burst his bubble.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
-Descartes or some shit
A stitch in time saves nine.
-Pliny the elder
(Psst it’s not actually the socratic method)
I don’t think so? The Socratic method wasn’t necessarily a strategy intended to carefully persuade someone by bypassing psychological blockers. If anything, Socrates’ counterparts were often antagonized and angered by his questions because he exposed contradictions.
I think the ethos behind it was that Socrates presumed he knew nothing, other people seemed like they knew things, so he asked them what they knew, since others were so bold as to make knowledge claims.
Ahh, after all this time, the Socratic Method still reigns
We’re also to some extent innately combative creatures. People will say “Oh, I showed people the facts and they still didn’t change their mind. They’re just idiots stuck in their ways.” Okay, cool. When you tried to present these facts, did you do it in such a way as to treat them courteously or as an equal, or did you do it in such a way that you got to feel like you were dunking on them rhetorically? Because it’s not as simple as presenting someone with facts. It’s doing so in a way that doesn’t make it feel like you’re trying to establish some kind of superiority over them. Because then they’re not presenting facts to you, they’re just attacking you and your position. And these are very different things, conceptually and emotionally.
No , we’re not.
Yes, we are.
Just putting this here for giggles, I don’t disagree with you lol
Oh I’m sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
Oh, just the five minute one.
Just the five minutes. Thank you. Anyway, I did.
Can’t tell if this is a joke. You’re being combative in your comment.
That is - IMO - what critical thinking is meant to be … thinking about alternative explanations and evaluating their viability or probability.
Unfortunately a lot of people use the term “critical thinking” as just another way to rationalize why they are against something, without actually weighing the options.
I do that and i’m the weird one.
I try real hard to not only change my mind but vocally (typographically) acknowledge when I was wrong because it’s so goddamnit rare and infuriating.
Same here. I work in tech and you’d be amazed how many people are so much less on guard around me because of this.
deleted by creator
same here, even when someone hasn’t changed my mind 100% I’ll often acknowledge if any of their arguments made me want to delve deeper into a topic and think more about my opinion on it
This is like a 21st century Monty Python skit.
These comments are quite devoid of meme energy
deleted by creator
Lemmy is too political
deleted by creator
A shit post about Chad farquad saying “E” after being asked what’s the second vowel is political?
Absurdist humor has a long history of being political. Shitposting is how disenfranchised young generations process and cope with societal alienation.
The underlying Chad Farquaad is funny because it is a commentary on beauty standards. And regular Farquaad is funny because of Shrek’s satirical and political nature (ESPECIALLY Farquaad and his kingdom which both overtly represent Disney Corporation and capitalism).
These underlying, inherently politically-laden factors, are core to the shitpost’s comedic value.deleted by creator
there’s no escape, bitch
politics is reality and you just want fantasy… but if you keep reading fantasy, you’ll eventually notice something horrible about it. Spoiler alert: its politics
Damn, ok, relax… It’s like you guys are on cocaine or something and I accidentally brought up politics. I meant that Lemmy is too political to be dumb about memes. That’s it… Chill.
If there’s one I’ve learned after being on the internet for 17 years, it’s this; you can throw an entire mountain of evidence at a conspiracy theorist and they STILL won’t believe you.
On the internet your identity is a collection of the opinions that you wrote under that name. So if you changing your opinion on anything you’re changing your identity.
All the more difficult if you use your own name as your identity and you have acquired followers because of the opinions you’ve expressed.
Pretty sure this meme originates from an actual, specific Twitter exchange. Which became so legendary that people just repeated it secondhand, and now the secondhand repetition of it is getting screenshotted and posted.
To me or sounds like Monty Python: ‘You don’t have to follow me, your all individuals, you have mine of your own!’
(Crowd): YES, WE’RE ALL INDIVDUALS, WE HAVE MINDS OF OUR OWN!
(One person in the crowd): No, wait, I’m not!
Where are the links to the studies?
Yeah well I still think it works
Back in the shower where OP thought of this neat little argument.
I think there is a difference between being exposed to evidence of the contrary and sitting on it for a while. I don’t think you can change someone’s mind in a conversation. Rarely so. But if the person is “forced” to think about the topic and the evidence, eventually they will change their mind.
I think that studies show that while facts can help, most significant changes of mind happen when a person is emotionally invested in the change.
It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it. - Edmund Way Teale
Damn, everyone could have been right if the OG just relented. He changed his mind to agree people don’t change their minds? Chess grandmaster move right there… What a missed opportunity.
Sounds like you were dealing with a troll
This is like a meta level recursion.
Hahah. If the commentor just went “you’re right, I just changed my mind”. That itself would make the OP some pause 😂
I mean, you can change people’s minds on the internet, they just have to be willing to change; and that part can’t be controlled by you.
An oft-repeated phrase between my friends an I in high school was when a dumb redneck kid told a friend of mine in class, “my opinions is facts.”
