Dealing With Unreasonable People

[LovePrevails]

Here is a video on some options for dealing with unreasonable people or people who are being unreasonable

 

check it out, let me know if you find it useful, feedback!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiE6Uwd-8wA

[Stephen C]

I gotta watch this so I can figure out how to deal with you. <3Whoops, and myself.

[jpahmad]

Antony,

 

  You're exactly right.  We need to empathize first, meet them where they're at, and then lead them forward towards logic and reason.  This is what I can stand about religious debates.  Atheists keep trying to use reason to convince a mystic of their position.  You have to use emotion!

 

We all know why people become and stay mystical; they are afraid.  It is not a reasoning process that got them there.  Richard Dawkins keeps walking into the same brick wall over and over again.  I honestly can't stand it it. 

 

People didn't come to hail Jesus as the prophet because he made a good argument.  They worshiped him because he allegedly did amazing, emotionally moving things, like "walk on water", and "make the blind see again."  That's why.  People who are religious have emotional problems that need to be addressed. 

[dsayers]

I especially appreciated the part where you mention how keeping unreasonable people in your life is rewarding them for their anti-social behavior. It's an element that I think even people who value self-knowledge tend to overlook because it can be a very uncomfortable truth to accept. Or perhaps to put more innocently, a VERY hidden cost to the decision of keeping them in your life just because they're already in your life, you have history, etc.

[LovePrevails]

yes I think it's ultimately important to not keep damaging people in your life 

 

I also agree that it is worthy to try to empathise people down form their emotions, as that builds trust and can often open people up to new ideas they wouldn't consider form someone they did not trust

[Freedomain]

How to deal with unreasonable people. Don't.

 

[jpahmad]

That's 99% of the world Mike

[aFireInside]

I really like your intro you explained clearly how not dealing with them is the most common case but here are some other options. It was very clear and smooth. The video overall is informative.

[cynicist]

Haha, I recognize your voice from a few call-in shows! Nice to put a voice to a face.

 

 

Interesting video, but I would avoid mentioning emotional states around people you think are unreasonable. Saying something like, "you seem angry" is just going to make them defensive or provoke them to escalate. 

[ribuck]

That's 99% of the world Mike

 

Which leaves the other 1%. Seventy million people ought to be enough for anyone!

[LovePrevails]

Interesting video, but I would avoid mentioning emotional states around people you think are unreasonable. Saying something like, "you seem angry" is just going to make them defensive or provoke them to escalate. 

 

I do not believe that that is the case if you are being genuinely empathetic - a lot of the time people do not feel like they have "permission" to experience what they are experiencing unless someone points it out 

this is a primary approach that is promoted in a lot of the literature around improving relationships - 

"I can see you are feeling frustrated about it, " often leads to seeing some relief in the other person,

I  have several times talked people down from anger by identifying it and containing the process of them coming out of the defensive instead of debating witht hem while they are angry rather than debating with them

 

you need to choose your moments to be fair and it might take some practice, it is definitely a useful discipline though

if you master it people will really trust you and take more interest with what you are saying because you "get them"

don't continue to try it on people it doesn't work on though obviously

[jpahmad]

I don't see how "going Galt"  and removing yourself from unreasonable people's lives is going to accomplish anything.  I know that they can be damaging to your own life by being abusive, and in that case, you should remove yourself.  However, in the case that they are people who are for the most part benign, and only guilty of having some warped ill-conceived view points (most of the time when it comes to politics/economics and religion) it is very important that we begin to plant the seeds of rational thinking. 

 

Some here will say that by disengaging with unreasonable people, they will soon realize their errors and change their ways.  There is no proof of that and I have never seen it happen in my life...ever.  How many people have defood and then seen their family suddenly change their world outlook? 

 

Now, if someone does ultimately see the error in their ways as a result of losing a friend, then that means that they are reasonable.  But this can't be possible if they are an unreasonable person.  It takes a reasonable person to look back, re-trace their steps, and see where their thought process went wrong. 

 

The implication is that the only way to transform an unreasonable person into a reasonable person, is to stop being friends with them.  If that were the case, then no one would have to "defoo" for more than a short period of time.

[dsayers]

Some here will say that by disengaging with unreasonable people, they will soon realize their errors and change their ways.

 

I don't know that anybody has ever said that. I know that what *I* have said, in your presence no less, is that cutting somebody out of your life that refuses to face the reality of advocating violence against others/you brings the consequences of holding such a position to them directly. Statism is not a rational conclusion. It's what people arrive at because they're told it's true and remain because social norms allow them to do so. If Statists (like racists for example) suddenly lost people in their lives for holding such a destructive position, Statism would disappear overnight.

 

It's the most effective way we can bring about change. However, cutting destructive people out of your life isn't about them and isn't even about the world. If you care about yourself, you shouldn't keep destructive people in your life. Just like you don't invite people that wildly swing chainsaws around to hang out in your living room.

[PatrickC]

Some here will say that by disengaging with unreasonable people, they will soon realize their errors and change their ways.  There is no proof of that and I have never seen it happen in my life...ever.  How many people have defood and then seen their family suddenly change their world outlook? 

 

You know it's interesting you mention this. I have recently had two old friends get back in contact with me after I took a five year hiatus from them. Both of them apologised for their behaviour towards me in the past and displayed demonstrable steps in self improvement. Not just in the way they interact around me or others, but in their own lives as well. I'm still somewhat cautious around them, but I found it interesting that my absence had really caused them to rethink their lives.

 

Of course it's all anecdotal and there are perhaps more benign folk on the periphery of our lives that we can still engage with from time to time. But engaging closely with people that don't share your values will cause you all kinds of unpleasant anxiety and dissociative effects.

[jpahmad]

@dsayers, I don't think they know that they are advocating violence against others.  At most, they might think that the violence they advocate is some form of self-defense.  I could be wrong about this, but please give me an example to demonstrate your position. 

 

Also, when mentioning "some here will say..." I was referring to something xelent said in another post, which is the same thing he said above. 

 

@xelent, You apparently have empirical evidence which disproves my theory.  That may be the case.  But I think it has to be investigated further.  Let me ask you, what do you think it was that made them feel badly about their behavior towards you.  You can't say for certain that it was your lack of presence in their lives that caused them to change.  Maybe someone else came into their lives and showed them where they were wrong in their thinking, and then this lead them to feel bad about arguments they made in the past, which included arguments with you.  Could this be a possibility?

[PatrickC]

Yes, that's entirely plausible. Except they decided by their own volition to seek me out personally and discuss my absence in this regard.

[dsayers]

@dsayers, I don't think they know that they are advocating violence against others.

 

This is a play by play recreation of our conversation yesterday found here. Was there a flaw in that conversation or are you expecting different results this time?

 

This is the part where I point out that it wasn't being talked about as a first step. That how when you sit down and talk to your friend about this, they no longer are operating out of obliviousness.

 

Speaking as somebody who hurt/pushed away people he cared about in the past, I guarantee you that anybody with an ounce of empathy, when confronted with the possibility that they're causing harm to others, would at the very least express curiousity.

 

If you suggest to somebody that they're advocating violence and they immediately respond with "no I'm not," it is best for your own sake to put distance between the two of you and seek out relationships where that distinction isn't necessary.

[jpahmad]

This is somewhat of a play-by-play recreation of yesterday.  I don't think it has been resolved.  At least to my satisfaction. 

 

We both agree what the first step should be:  Bring up the issue, point something out, hope their reaction is positive.

I agree that if this doesn't work, then distancing yourself from this person is a good action assuming that their is nothing of value left in the relationship. 

But there is usually always something of value there.  That's why you were friends in the first place.  In my experience, I have had different views with almost everybody I'm friends with; I'm an anarchist and an atheist so its not surprising.  I also think about these things way more than most of my friends.  They have not taken the time to go through the logical thought process that lead one inevitably to where we are on this forum.  Come on, everybody who is religious advocates violence against children and non-believers.  But these people are not bad people.  And I am using religion as an example here.  Here's the thing, if you use logic and reason to try to convert a religious person to atheism, 99% of the time you're going to fail.  You should fail.  It is unreasonable to expect someone to discard the very thing that props them up emotionally and gives them security.  They will reject it over and over again....unless....you offer an emotional substitute. 

 

So before giving up the effort to enlighten people, you need to attack the matter from an emotional angle.  Once you've primed them emotionally, then you can bring in the logic and reason.  This takes a long time and may not be worth the effort.  But it's how you change the world.  It's always been emotion first. 

 

I was in high school when I finally rejected religion and god.  I was told that those who don't accept Jesus as their savor will go to hell.  This was emotionally unacceptable.  It would mean that half my family was going to burn in Hell.  From that point on I followed science and philosophy and never looked back.  But it started with something that rocked my world emotionally. 

 

There are people that are convinced they have been cursed by evil spirits.  I know one.  She is in her 50s and completely useless and unproductive.  Has been that way for years.  In fact, everyone around her is superstitious as well and they play into this narrative.  So they feel sorry for her.  It works out great for her.  Try convincing her that there is no curse and that she is just using the story to leech off people.  It will never happen.  It would wreck her emotionally. 

 

I got off here on a tangent.  And completely lost sight of my argument. I'll try to get it back together here.

[PatrickC]

I'll be honest jpahmad, I really have no idea what any of the above meant fella.

[dsayers]

This is somewhat of a play-by-play recreation of yesterday.  I don't think it has been resolved.  At least to my satisfaction. 

 

That's fine. It would be better to pick up where it was left off then, rather than making statements as if they weren't challenged or clarified.

 

We both agree what the first step should be:  Bring up the issue, point something out, hope their reaction is positive.

I agree that if this doesn't work, then distancing yourself from this person is a good action assuming that their is nothing of value left in the relationship. 

But there is usually always something of value there.  That's why you were friends in the first place.  In my experience, I have had different views with almost everybody I'm friends with; I'm an anarchist and an atheist so its not surprising.

 

But we're not just talking about different views here. If somebody advocates violence, you make it clear that you understand that they advocate violence, they do nothing to address the fact that they advocate violence, and you remain in their lives, you are saying to them that you support their actions. You are culpable in their advocacy of violence. This makes you morally accountable.

 

To be clear, I'm a hypocrite in this realm. I live under my father's roof and I have tried to talk to him about his aggression and abuse. Not only was he not interested in my experience, but he defended such things, claiming they were necessary. I have chosen to stay, for the value that you mentioned above (in this case, a place to stay). However, this doesn't change the fact that I'm reinforcing his aggressive ways and doing myself a disservice by choosing that value over a morally consistent lifestyle.

[jpahmad]

dsayers, I'm not talking about people like your father.  Remember, I said those who are "benign" irrational people.  You're father is obviously not "benign."  He is directly abusive and violent. 

 

Someone who votes, is indirectly violent.  They support an empire that murders.  So, by your reasoning, if you interact with anyone who votes, you are culpable in murder.  Good luck escaping that association. 

Yes, that's entirely plausible. Except they decided by their own volition to seek me out personally and discuss my absence in this regard.

 

 

so can you clarify this event?  They came to you to find out why you have been missing in their lives, without a clue as to why that might be?

 

or

 

they came to you to offer apologies and already knew why you dumped them from your life?

[dsayers]

So, by your reasoning, if you interact with anyone who votes, you are culpable in murder.

 

Whew! I was afraid you were going to leave out the step where you put words into my mouth.

 

You sort of skipped the steps of being friends with that person, sitting down and talking to them about the reality of their voting, etc. THAT was what I was saying. If you think that "my reasoning" is flawed, why not address it? The knee-jerk appeal to emotion isn't productive.

[PatrickC]

they came to you to offer apologies and already knew why you dumped them from your life?

 

Yes, they knew. maybe not the details exactly. But they knew well enough.

[BlackHeron]

Dealing with unreasonable people, when you don't need to, is unreasonable.

 

It's not about them, it's about you.   You can't change people, and it's not your job.  If they are truly unreasonable then do ahead and go Galt on them, not for the purpose of changing their minds but simply to preserve your own. Avoiding poison people is self-defense. 

[jpahmad]

Whew! I was afraid you were going to leave out the step where you put words into my mouth.

 

You sort of skipped the steps of being friends with that person, sitting down and talking to them about the reality of their voting, etc. THAT was what I was saying. If you think that "my reasoning" is flawed, why not address it? The knee-jerk appeal to emotion isn't productive.

 

I didn't want to let you down by leaving out that important step

 

I was planning on you countering with the above statement.  Yes, of course you should sit down with them them and explain, however, this step is a lot of work, right?  It's not something that can be done in an hour's discussion.  Most people have no idea what's going on, and you have to spend a significant amount of energy to cut through all the propaganda that has been pumped into them for years.  It's not easy work.  Stef has been making a career of it! 

 

I really do think people will initially show revulsion to what we suggest here on the forum.  For us, it's a storm that has to be weathered.  Well, no, let me rephrase that.  It's a storm that can be weathered.  And you can slowly but surely chip away at someone's conscience. 

 

There are people here that post about how their spouses are not being reasonable.  Or, hold irrational beliefs.  They also claim to have a pretty decent relationship in spite of that.  What would be your advice to them? 

Dealing with unreasonable people, when you don't need to, is unreasonable.

 

It's not about them, it's about you.   You can't change people, and it's not your job.  If they are truly unreasonable then do ahead and go Galt on them, not for the purpose of changing their minds but simply to preserve your own. Avoiding poison people is self-defense. 

 

What does Stef do everyday?  Does he only broadcast his videos to reasonable people.  If that were the case, than his efforts are wasted on those minds that don't need his guidance. 

 

Everybody is unreasonable at some point in their lives.  That's why Freedomain Radio is needed.  I can be unreasonable.  I might be unreasonable right now.  I don't think I am, but It may be the case. 

 

Now, if you "go galt" from someone who is unreasonable, and then they return later and apologize by accepting how they were unreasonable in the past, well, then you can't say they are unreasonable people.  All you can say, is that they were in a temporary state of unreason when you left them.

[BlackHeron]

There is a difference between people who are occasionally acting unreasonably, and those who simply are unreasonable. 

 

To be unreasonable is to be beyond reason.

 

Words mean things. 

[jpahmad]

There is a difference between people who are occasionally acting unreasonably, and those who simply are unreasonable. 

 

To be unreasonable is to be beyond reason.

 

Words mean things. 

 

Have you met someone who is "beyond reason"?  What empirical evidence do you have that these people exist?  Assuming they are not mentally handicapped.

[BlackHeron]

Have you met someone who is "beyond reason"?  What empirical evidence do you have that these people exist?  Assuming they are not mentally handicapped.

 

QED

[PatrickC]

Have you met someone who is "beyond reason"?  What empirical evidence do you have that these people exist? 

 

^^^^^^^

[jpahmad]

"Beyond reason" in the way I am using it means:  without the capacity to reason.  Or, without the mental faculties to reason.  Which would mean they can't be human.  Unless, you have an example for me?

 

 

 

Yes, they knew. maybe not the details exactly. But they knew well enough.

 

Xelent, you can't make this claim and then also claim that these individuals can't reason.

[dsayers]

Check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. I think you have a fundamental lack of understanding as to how people think. There are lots of people like myself that could tell something was wrong and just needed to hear it put into perspective. There are others that so desperately NEED for the propaganda they've built their life around to be true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to preserve and/or discount anything they view as threatening their oxygen.

 

Avoiding poison people is self-defense. 

 

Exactly.

[jpahmad]

Check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. I think you have a fundamental lack of understanding as to how people think. There are lots of people like myself that could tell something was wrong and just needed to hear it put into perspective. There are others that so desperately NEED for the propaganda they've built their life around to be true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to preserve and/or discount anything they view as threatening their oxygen.

 

 

Exactly.

Yes, dsayers, that's exactly it!  I understand this and agree with you.  I'm just taking it a step further.  When you say there are "others that so desperately need the propaganda" it tells me that they are emotionally dependent on something, an idea, a concept, which keeps their ego up or fear at bay.

 

To break them of this cycle of irrationality and self-deception, you have to appeal to their emotions when confronting them.  Otherwise you will most certainly always fail.  Once you have emotionally stabilized them, then you can start getting them to listen to your argument from reason. 

 

 

In religion, there is fear.  Fear is the strongest human emotion, which is why it is utilized by every psychopathic dictator in history.  It's going to take more than one session to break someone from this deep visceral fear of the wrath of "god" that has been pumped into them since birth.  It's gonna take serious work.  Not just a few philosophical debates.  

 

Your father, will most likely never be able to accept what he has done.  It would destroy him, he would have to erase himself.  The truth is to painful to accept.  Therefore, I agree, as soon as you can, you should kick him out of your life.  But this is not the case for all "irrational" people.

[dsayers]

Once you have emotionally stabilized them, then you can start getting them to listen to your argument from reason. 

 

This is where we disagree. It seems as if from your perspective, everybody can be saved and that it's only a matter of technique and time. I accept that if somebody arrives at a conclusion not by way of reason and evidence, then reason and evidence will not be able to sway them. Sad but true.

 

The topic is dealing with unreasonable people and it's already been pointed out that trying to reason with an unreasonable person is unreasonable. If you want to share reason with somebody that doesn't speak the language, don't interact with them. In this way, you can maintain your own reasonability while demonstrating to them what reason looks like.

[jpahmad]

This is where we disagree. It seems as if from your perspective, everybody can be saved and that it's only a matter of technique and time. I accept that if somebody arrives at a conclusion not by way of reason and evidence, then reason and evidence will not be able to sway them. Sad but true.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough.  It is quite possible that you're theory is valid.  However, how would you explain what happened in xelent's story below?  Xelent claims that they were unreasonable, which is why he detached himself from the relationship.  But then, they returned in his life as reasonable people?

 

Yes, they knew. maybe not the details exactly. But they knew well enough.

This is where we disagree. It seems as if from your perspective, everybody can be saved and that it's only a matter of technique and time.

 

 

And yes, you nailed it.  That is my view point.  You can add "natural causes" to time and technique as well.

[dsayers]

I'm not suggesting that a person could never find reason in the future. I'm saying that we have to be astute enough to grade effort:yield and invest accordingly.