This is actually a very interesting psychological phenomenon. I’m no psychologist, but stretching what I learned from “how to win friends and influence people” to the extreme, directly opposing someone’s viewpoint generally forces them to defend it. By defending it, they rationalize the reasons why they adhere to the idea, and thus end up convincing themselves of their belief.
Your opposition literally only serves to force them to rationalize their belief, and deepen their belief in that thing.
It’s fascinating, but stupid. In my experience, the most intelligent people I’ve ever spoken to will always take opposition seriously, even if with a grain of salt. When struck with an opposing viewpoint, they usually inquire about it, asking the speaker to justify their position so they can understand why they came to this conclusion. The mildly intelligent will then use that justification to tear down the person’s belief in that system. The highly intelligent will then ask questions that cause the speaker to question their own beliefs.
But doing nothing more than asking specific and pointed questions about someone’s beliefs, I have seen very intelligent and clever people, get others to convince themselves that they’re wrong in what they believe.
Long story short, your neighbor isn’t wrong, but they’re also not exactly correct. The character of a person, IMO, is not in what they believe in, but how they react to adversity. Whether that adversity is political, intellectual, physical, or emotional; how you deal with difficulty is the content of your character.
If making people of color, LGBTQIA+ people, and women, equal, by granting them the same rights and freedoms as everyone else (including bodily autonomy, and the ability to live, vote, and marry who they wish), causes you to start to lean towards fascism, what do you think that says about your character?
This is actually a very interesting psychological phenomenon. I’m no psychologist, but stretching what I learned from “how to win friends and influence people” to the extreme, directly opposing someone’s viewpoint generally forces them to defend it. By defending it, they rationalize the reasons why they adhere to the idea, and thus end up convincing themselves of their belief.
Your opposition literally only serves to force them to rationalize their belief, and deepen their belief in that thing.
It’s fascinating, but stupid. In my experience, the most intelligent people I’ve ever spoken to will always take opposition seriously, even if with a grain of salt. When struck with an opposing viewpoint, they usually inquire about it, asking the speaker to justify their position so they can understand why they came to this conclusion. The mildly intelligent will then use that justification to tear down the person’s belief in that system. The highly intelligent will then ask questions that cause the speaker to question their own beliefs.
But doing nothing more than asking specific and pointed questions about someone’s beliefs, I have seen very intelligent and clever people, get others to convince themselves that they’re wrong in what they believe.
Long story short, your neighbor isn’t wrong, but they’re also not exactly correct. The character of a person, IMO, is not in what they believe in, but how they react to adversity. Whether that adversity is political, intellectual, physical, or emotional; how you deal with difficulty is the content of your character.
If making people of color, LGBTQIA+ people, and women, equal, by granting them the same rights and freedoms as everyone else (including bodily autonomy, and the ability to live, vote, and marry who they wish), causes you to start to lean towards fascism, what do you think that says about your character?