- cross-posted to:
- confidently_incorrect@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- confidently_incorrect@lemmy.world
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.
It’s a movie but CPT Jack was right, you cant trust an honest person, but people do anyways.
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
Where’s your pieces of flair? I mean, meme energy?
Lemmy is too political
Fucking everything is political. If you think something is too political its because your not political enough.
Your weekend is political, the 8 hour work day is political, the fucking air you breath and the pollution it is fucking political. EVERYTHING IS FUCKING POLITICAL!
A shit post about Chad farquad saying “E” after being asked what’s the second vowel is political?
Yes. First thing to mind are the copyright implications of remixing someone else’s character, and the copyright the meme creator gets to the work regardless. Is it explicitly legal to do or is it just that most creates don’t care much, what about if you try to earn profit by publishing a book of meme?
Then there are the platforms the meme it is hosted on, is it home hosted, is it hosted on a mega tech site, both of which come with a host of differing legal responsibilities and implications.
Careful, you’ll get banned from blahaj zone for talk like that
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.
All the best movies are political. Star Wars, Citizen Kane, Jurassic Park, the Matrix. Nobody can name a great movie that isn’t political, because politics is what makes movies fun. If they didn’t have politics, they’d suck.
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.
Well I don’t think that’s true
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
Hahah. If the commentor just went “you’re right, I just changed my mind”. That itself would make the OP some pause 😂
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
Are you a member of that movement that’s trying to segregate the realities of the left and right by convincing people that everyone who disagrees with them or has a bad opinion is faking?
Did you read the post in the screenshot?
Yes, it’s a person being exactly as unreasonable as the average person tends to be. You seem unwilling to admit that people can have bad opinions. So are you part of the partisan realists?
You seem unwilling to admit that people can have bad opinions.
You seem awfully hasty to shove words in my mouth based on absolutely nothing.
Also, if you think that the average person is as unreasonable as the person in the screenshot, I am begging you to go outside.
The average person knows that oil is making the world uninhabitable and still drives a car. In fact, when I go outside like you’re suggesting, there’s no more nature, I only see cars and infrastructure built for cars. So yes, the average person is this unreasonable, and going outside won’t convince me otherwise.
I agree that those are problems, and I agree that we need to invest more in public transportation, but the fact that public transportation in its current state sucks is not something I can immediately do anything about beyond voting and opting for jobs that don’t require me to physically commute. If I want to go to a friend’s house, or to a grocery store that’s too far for me to walk, I still have no choice but to drive.
I still don’t see what this has to do with me or the person you originally replied to (we’re two different people) trying to convince anyone that anyone who disagrees with them is a troll.
Well, you think the person described in the story is a troll because nobody is that unreasonable, right? You’re wrong. People really are that unreasonable. Not everyone whose words are incompatible with their actions is faking to try and trick you. Most people, like you, have some kind of made up excuse why it’s okay for them to act contrary to their own beliefs. Like the state of public transport. I’m sure the person in the story has an excuse just like yours.
I’m sure a person can have a bad opinion. I’m simply amazed so many people have such a shit opinion.
We’re not talking about pineapple on pizzas. We’re talking about basic human decency.
I am pretty sure keeping pineapple off pizza is basic human decency.
This is like a meta level recursion.
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.
