Arguing with irrationality

[_LiveFree_]

Just now, Tyler H said:

Sorry, I recognize equivocation has a negative, deceptive connotation to it and that's not what I meant. I just meant that you were treating the questions as synonymous. Perhaps I should have used the term conflating. I guess how I interpret the questions is that people who don't listen to reason, can be influenced- just not by reason. And people who's minds can't be changed, well if nothing can change their mind, neither reason, evidence, deception, appeal to self interest, nothing, then trying to influence their thoughts or behavior would be worse than a waste of time. 

There are very very very few people in the world (like an incredibly tiny completely insignificant amount) who cannot be influenced by any means as you describe (why waste time worrying about them at all?). Everyone is influenced by something. Human beings have evolved to be highly adaptable, which means highly susceptible to influence. What you are really talking about here is overcoming negative influence. Is that correct?

[Tyler H]

2 minutes ago, _LiveFree_ said:

There are very very very few people in the world (like an incredibly tiny completely insignificant amount) who cannot be influenced by any means as you describe (why waste time worrying about them at all?). Everyone is influenced by something. Human beings have evolved to be highly adaptable, which means highly susceptible to influence. What you are really talking about here is overcoming negative influence. Is that correct?

Hmm, maybe. What do you mean by negative influence?

[_LiveFree_]

23 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Hmm, maybe. What do you mean by negative influence?

Well, negative could mean anything you, in particular, dislike. I think in the context of this discussion we're talking about things like socialism, statism, violence, MSM and gov propaganda, etc. 

It's possible to take a more personal view and say negative influence is anything that gets you to act against yourself or your own well being and joy. This would include the previous examples, but also include things like peer pressure, chemical dependencies, abusive friendships or familial relationships. People engage these types of things in their lives because they believe by doing so it will bring more happiness than if they told the truth (maybe in the short run that is true, like a hit from a heroine needle). When this goes on long enough, they begin to believe the lie. Then someone like you, me or plato85 come along to change their mind and find someone who doesn't speak the language of reason. 

[Tyler H]

6 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

Well, negative could mean anything you, in particular, dislike. I think in the context of this discussion we're talking about things like socialism, statism, violence, MSM and gov propaganda, etc. 

It's possible to take a more personal view and say negative influence is anything that gets you to act against yourself or your own well being and joy. This would include the previous examples, but also include things like peer pressure, chemical dependencies, abusive friendships or familial relationships. People engage these types of things in their lives because they believe by doing so it will bring more happiness than if they told the truth (maybe in the short run that is true, like a hit from a heroine needle). When this goes on long enough, they begin to believe the lie. Then someone like you, me or plato85 come along to change their mind and find someone who doesn't speak the language of reason. 

I agree with all of that. And I don't think there are many people, if any, whose minds can't be changed. I was just differentiating the meaning I inferred from each phrasing of the two questions which I thought you were using synonymously. And the only reason I pointed it out was because when phrased one way it's a contradiction and when phrased the other there is room for manipulation. 

[Tyler H]

9 hours ago, Meister said:

Indeed. Like a dog chasing it's own tail isn't it.

A dog chasing its tail is not a contradiction.

[_LiveFree_]

3 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

I agree with all of that. And I don't think there are many people, if any, whose minds can't be changed. I was just differentiating the meaning I inferred from each phrasing of the two questions which I thought you were using synonymously. And the only reason I pointed it out was because when phrased one way it's a contradiction and when phrased the other there is room for manipulation. 

Right, but not once was I ever arguing about the very tiny small group. I was always talking about the group that can be manipulated. Does that make my position clearer?

[Tyler H]

8 minutes ago, _LiveFree_ said:

Right, but not once was I ever arguing about the very tiny small group. I was always talking about the group that can be manipulated. Does that make my position clearer?

My mistake.  Here's where I thought you were conflating the two questions.

On 4/25/2017 at 9:45 PM, _LiveFree_ said:

Yes it was all general. Not specific to you. However, now I'll make specific comments to you. 

How do you square a circle? What does blue look like when it's green? How can you know everything and be able to change anything? 

These are illogical questions.  Here's another one. 

How do you change a mind that isn't open to change? 

You can't. It's not that we haven't figured it out. It's that it is completely impossible because the question is illogical. 

I pointed out the distinction because while the argument works when worded as a contradiction I don't think it holds in regards to influencing people who don't listen to reason through methods that are not reason.  Does this explain some of my confusion?

 

[_LiveFree_]

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

My mistake.  Here's where I thought you were conflating the two questions.

I pointed out the distinction because while the argument works when worded as a contradiction I don't think it holds in regards to influencing people who don't listen to reason through methods that are not reason.  Does this explain some of my confusion?

 

On 4/25/2017 at 0:47 PM, _LiveFree_ said:

Thank you, yes I understand the confusion now.

If someone's mind is not open to reason and evidence, it is because of some emotional attachment to a thing that would be affected by a change of mind on the subject. The natural state of the human mind is curiosity. It wants to know new things. When the mind shuts down through some trauma, reason and evidence for whatever the issue you'd like to change their mind on cease being effective tools. You have to come at the problem sideways, backwards, and upside down. You can change someone's mind who's mind is not open, but it requires an enormous investment in time, patience, the skills to know what to ask and when, and the reputation with that person so they will give you the time needed. It's looking for food 5 miles under the surface of the sea, pitch black, and no bearings. Basically, you have to open their mind by applying reason, evidence, empathy, and emotional space over a long period of time to the memory of the original point of trauma that is shutting off their mind on whatever issue you want to change their mind on. Here's where it starts to suck. Even if you invest of yourself 100% into opening someone's mind, they may never do so. They can keep you spinning your wheels forever. 

So why did I give my original answer? Because it is not worth your time to do this. Why sacrifice yourself for one person? What about the other people in your life who would lose out on experiencing you? Why go deep sea diving with very low chances of success when there is low hanging fruit all around you? Some fruit has even fallen from the tree and lays at your feet. Time is of the essence and we need numbers. 

 

So make a choice. Are you going to live your own life and allow those who love you for who you really are to experience life with you? Or are you going to crucify yourself at the alter of someone else's cowardice, because you are too much of a coward to accept that they have their own choices to make, which may not include you? 

 

We are not talking about two different things.

 

 

edit: It also could be that they are only slightly hung up on something, but apply reason and evidence for the most part. If this is the case, start on common ground. Always start on common ground. 

 

Like I've been saying. We're talking about the same thing and I've already answered the question. 

If Tyler wants to change the mind of Robert on the concept of wealth redistribution, but Robert doesn't listen to reason on the topic, Robert likely has an emotional hangup somewhere. At great expense to himself, Tyler can go through the very intensive work in order to help Robert unravel the trauma related to his emotional block in order to change Robert's mind on wealth redistribution. However, is the expense to Tyler worth it? It is my position that due to the personal heavy burden on Tyler, other people in Tyler's life losing time with him, and the very low probability of success with Robert, it is not worth it. Especially when you consider there are others out there who are ready to have these conversations, who are ready to use reason and evidence not just on social issues, but on their own pasts. 

The original question of the thread is illogical. At the heart of this question is "How do I better change the world?" And the answer to that is my original short and sweet answer,  you change yourself.

 

Just as Robert is tasked to do.

[plato85]

The question is illogical if you think irrational is an absolute term rather than a relative term. You said yourself that:

On 29/04/2017 at 0:57 AM, _LiveFree_ said:

There are very very very few people in the world (like an incredibly tiny completely insignificant amount) who cannot be influenced by any means as you describe

ie [reason, evidence, deception, appeal to self interest]

 

 

[plato85]

On 29/04/2017 at 9:38 AM, _LiveFree_ said:

At the heart of this question is "How do I better change the world?" And the answer to that is my original short and sweet answer,  you change yourself.

The heart of my question is how?

You're describing methods that we all know don't work well, and telling me I'm wasting my effort, but that's not what I'm asking.

I started this thread to look for new ideas, and try to figure out different methods I haven't thought of that might work. That's the heart of the question.

[plato85]

On 4/29/2017 at 9:38 AM, _LiveFree_ said:

At the heart of this question is "How do I better change the world?" And the answer to that is my original short and sweet answer,  you change yourself.

You change yourself to fit the system rather than fight it.  That sounds like the road to serfdom.

I'm with you that arguing pure reason is not effective against a strong irrationality. That's why I'm asking for different ways to go about the problem. There's a huge population with an identical irrational relativist outlook. If I keep asking questions, eventually I might find the right question to get to the heart of the irrationality. If I find the right question then it might be easy to get through to everyone with that relativist outlook I'm not just trying the same thing over and over.

 

[Meister]

On 4/27/2017 at 7:10 AM, HasMat said:

Are you saying you have been playing Devil's Advocate, and trying to embody "arguing with irrationality"?

 

It sounds like you claim to bring forward an argument that disproves itself. Like serving up softball questions so others can tee off.

 

If subject could be fully disconnected from object then objective data could exist. Instead we have the observer effect.

 

Objectivity is a misnomer, what is really meant is "normalized" objectivity by comparing 2 peer observers object (after they try to reduce their own subject). You cannot observe an object without a subject. This is what Schrodingers cat is all about. Subjectivity and objectivity cannot fully divide/isolate.

 

I think the moral relativism problem is when people claim there is no "normalized" objectivity and relativity is infinitely boundless (this is the opposite error wherein you falsely believe you can truly isolated subjectivity--sciencism is when you truly believe you can isolate objects). We have a shared reality, but verification of its viewpoint invariance requires others not gas-light us. Epistemologically, verification of truth is gated behind social behavior. This is necessarily true (a priori) because of absolute objectivity being impossible and socially-aggregated "normalized" objectivity being the next-best-thing.

 

Reducing our own subjectivity and reporting our normalized object is how an Invisible Hand can aggregate normalized data towards an approximate truth. A real moral truth does exist for subjects, just like a real object exists. But we can't actually perceive either alone directly, because they are intertwined and have no coherence outside the other's context.

 

There is an objective reality we just can't experience it outside our own subject, and we can't test it outside other's feedback. Social feedback is an important tool to know if you are crazy or not. The Reason->Evidence cycle is only as valid as your sanity. Crazy people are Reason-Evidence cycling themselves to "know" they are Napoleon. Each of our perception of our own ability to judge our rationality is socially-derived. As a child this awareness commonly plagued me when I was told I was smart. Ultimately I had no irreducible access to whether this was true, its just something externals told me. I can't say my existential experience is any different than a mentally-retarded kid being told the same thing. Maybe that is me, as it were. My best evidence to the contrary is socially-derived, because if my thought-process sucked I wouldn't necessarily know/understand it. A reasonable proof doesn't conclusively map to the evidence I have access to.

 

My understanding of this thread is that its intent is more about rhetoric and less about epistemology, although you did bring it up.

 

In general I think we are very timid to name irrationality. When people say they should ostracize and boycott irrationality, they really mean the stronger fortified versions. We are all doing irrational things all the time, and need correction. Just like our spouses, children, others we love. "Arguing" is probably not a good activity re: irrationality, but if we love irrational people we care about helping them. Killing irrational people would start with suicide. We ought to be measured in our punishment of it, because we are aren't perfect.

 

I am not advocating for or against anything. I'm merely pointing out that there is no such thing as objectivity and reality.

I don't see how my argument disproves itself. 

You are simply claiming that there is an objective reality. You have no way of proving or knowing this by using rational.

 

Back to the original topic: People argue irrationally because rational is only a small part of consciousness and the human experience.

The vast majority of people simply act on their feelings, which in turn are caused by instincts and the subconsciousness, then they (ab)use rational to justify their feelings.

People aren't always convinced by rational because reality is not exclusively rational.

 

Examples:

Political elecitions aren't won through rational arguments. You can't convince a woman to pair-bond with you through rational arguments.

 

[Meister]

On 4/29/2017 at 0:10 AM, Tyler H said:

A dog chasing its tail is not a contradiction.

And neither is my argument.

[Tyler H]

On 4/30/2017 at 10:34 AM, Meister said:

I'm merely pointing out that there is no such thing as objectivity and reality.

 

On 4/30/2017 at 10:34 AM, Meister said:

People aren't always convinced by rational because reality is not exclusively rational.

So objectivity and reality do not exist, yet you continue to make objective statements about reality.  It's becoming difficult to take you seriously. 

[Meister]

2 hours ago, Tyler H said:

 

So objectivity and reality do not exist, yet you continue to make objective statements about reality.  It's becoming difficult to take you seriously. 

Ok. Good point.

I can't prove to you that there is no objectivity and you cannot prove to me that there is.

[DaVinci]

On 4/29/2017 at 11:46 PM, plato85 said:

You change yourself to fit the system rather than fight it.  That sounds like the road to serfdom.

I'm with you that arguing pure reason is not effective against a strong irrationality. That's why I'm asking for different ways to go about the problem. There's a huge population with an identical irrational relativist outlook. If I keep asking questions, eventually I might find the right question to get to the heart of the irrationality. If I find the right question then it might be easy to get through to everyone with that relativist outlook I'm not just trying the same thing over and over.

 

The issue isn't as much about arguments as it is about time. Nothing in the universe just is the way it is automatically. In the case of some things it took millions or billions of years to become what it is now. Humans aren't an exception to this. Either in terms of the evolution of our species or the development of a single person. That's why I find this "you're being irrational... I'm done with you" way of dealing with people to not make sense. It's like looking at a jumbled mass of molten rocks floating in space and telling them "Be a planet. Oh, You're not going to do it? No sense spending more time here" That's silly. You can't just will the biology of another human into a shape that bypasses time. 

 

I've argued before that most of the people who have been on this site for a while, and especially pre-Trump, are here because they were already non-conformists. The extreme lefties who did a 180 to anarchy are exceptions. That's why it's difficult to go to a lefty and expect them to just turn around on a dime. Even those who did turn took time to do so. 

 

Think of it like this: If you throw a baby out into the woods, assuming it survives, how long would it take that child to adjust back to current society if found at five, ten, or fifteen years old? It would probably take the fifteen year old longer to adjust than the five year old, right? The same thing is true of that dude walking down the street who thinks taxation is a "social contract" or whatever. You can't say "Taxation is immoral" and expect him to immediately go "Holy crap, I never looked at it like that before. You're totally right dude" 

[Tyler H]

3 hours ago, Meister said:

Ok. Good point.

I can't prove to you that there is no objectivity and you cannot prove to me that there is.

What is your criteria for proof?

[plato85]

Interesting way of putting it DaVinci.

Rather than pulling out the root of a tree, it may be more like un-weaving a jumper.

[plato85]

5 hours ago, DaVinci said:

The extreme lefties who did a 180 to anarchy are exceptions.

I was brought up pretty far left. My family, my school, my city are all quite left. I had dissenting thoughts but I'd seen regularly the way people were treated when they expressed them.

I remember one day I was in a cafe and I saw an article written by someone the left demonises as a far right extremist, I found some cute girl reading the same article over my shoulder. I expressed my embarrassment like I was accidentally reading it. Then I became even more embarrassed. That was the moment I realised I'd been completely brainwashed. I read his column there there was nothing extreme in it at all. The brainwashing unwraveled very quickly after that.

It's ironic, but the left love criticising religions for controlling their people through fear and ostracism. They never acknowledge that they're an ideology too, and they fear going against their herd.

After this experience, I then tried to see things from the oppositions point of view. One week later I googled 'I we being dumbed down?", I found John Taylor Gatto's video, which lead me to Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Ethics. So 3 months after that experience in the cafe, I'd replaced my whole world view with John Taylor Gatto, Plato and Aristotle.

I don't see why it needs to take years to convince people to be rational. I did the unwravling of my brainwashing myself, but all I needed was one moment to realise that I was brain washed.

[plato85]

I've come up with a theory to influence the irrational, based on conclusions I've derived from my previous post.

We've discussed how difficult it is to reason with someone who's irrational. The problem seems to be that irrational people rely on a strong subconscious mind, and reasoning only appeals to the conscious mind. 'Irrational mind' is just another way of describing the subconscious mind. So the question becomes, how do we influence the subconscious mind?

When I thought someone caught me reading something I wasn't supposed to, my subconscious came out and apologized. This was an over reaction that my conscious mind identified, and my conscious mind needed to unravel in my subconscious mind.

The idea I'm trying to put forward here is, if we can find a way to bring out people's irrational subconscious over-reactions, then their conscious mind will feel humiliated and fight back against their subconscious mind. 

This brings me to trolling.  I suspect the feminist in this video will go home afterwards and have a long hard think about her life. And the audience who support their views may also feel uneasy.

 

[Tyler H]

2 hours ago, plato85 said:

It's ironic, but the left love criticising religions for controlling their people through fear and ostracism. They never acknowledge that they're an ideology too, and they fear going against their herd.

For sure man. "Statism - it's just another religion."

There's a keyword in culture that describes them all. We're a tribal species. We need our tribe to be philosophical though- not geographical, not ethnic, not cultural. We ask, "can you think? Do you agree words are the means by which we resolve disputes? That all interactions should be voluntary? Cool. Welcome to the tribe."

 

 

[DaVinci]

2 hours ago, plato85 said:

I was brought up pretty far left. My family, my school, my city are all quite left. I had dissenting thoughts but I'd seen regularly the way people were treated when they expressed them.

I remember one day I was in a cafe and I saw an article written by someone the left demonises as a far right extremist, I found some cute girl reading the same article over my shoulder. I expressed my embarrassment like I was accidentally reading it. Then I became even more embarrassed. That was the moment I realised I'd been completely brainwashed. I read his column there there was nothing extreme in it at all. The brainwashing unwraveled very quickly after that.

It's ironic, but the left love criticising religions for controlling their people through fear and ostracism. They never acknowledge that they're an ideology too, and they fear going against their herd.

After this experience, I then tried to see things from the oppositions point of view. One week later I googled 'I we being dumbed down?", I found John Taylor Gatto's video, which lead me to Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Ethics. So 3 months after that experience in the cafe, I'd replaced my whole world view with John Taylor Gatto, Plato and Aristotle.

I don't see why it needs to take years to convince people to be rational. I did the unwravling of my brainwashing myself, but all I needed was one moment to realise that I was brain washed.

This is similar to the idea of the "light bulb moment". That "a-ha I've figured out the solution!" thing. We think it is this random moment of pure clarity, but really it is your brain connecting a bunch of things together that you have been considering over a period of time that then produces the "a-ha!" in a momentary fashion. But you didn't just "holy crap I have the cure to AIDS!" out of nowhere. You were working on it for months, and your brain was processing the information as you considered new things, and sometime even as you slept.

If you were reading an article by a "far right extremist" having grown up in a lefty culture then surely that means that even lefties are capable of considering more than one side. How many righties do you think dismissed you as a leftist wacko when really you were open to ideas other than those in the immediate vicinity? 

I say give people more time. No one just snaps back the other direction in the span of a few words or a few minutes, and if they do then it's probably because they were already putting in the work. 

 

[plato85]

3 hours ago, DaVinci said:

If you were reading an article by a "far right extremist" having grown up in a lefty culture then surely that means that even lefties are capable of considering more than one side. How many righties do you think dismissed you as a leftist wacko when really you were open to ideas other than those in the immediate vicinity? 

That's the dilemma. Lefties are louder, righties are quieter. When I was a leftie I think I was always open minded, but the problem is that lefties are always around and they always make it known that they are left. You might know this as virtue signalling, although when I was a leftie I made noise for the same reason I make noise now, I love debating, I love hearing ideas. But righties don't speak up especially to a leftie (you might know this as the silent majority). So if you're leftie and you are open minded, that doesn't mean you'll necessarily hear different opinions. This might have changed in the digital age, it's easier to seek out different ideas, or on the other hand the 'echo chamber' might make it worse.

As futile as it might see to argue with irrational people, if we don't then they won't hear any other opinion.

If the mainstream culture makes all the noise, and the counterculture thinks it's a waste of time to try to reason, then the mainstream culture wins.

PS

See my previous post which just got through the moderator.

[plato85]

I'm going through the FDR podcasts and I've found this one which is right on topic:

Molyneux discusses why It's so had to reason with people, and why people cling so tight to their moral code.

Morality Is Not Easy - Surviving the Cynics

December 10th 2005  

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/morality_is_not_easy__traffic_jam_2_Dec10_05.mp3

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/6/morality-is-not-easy-surviving-the-cynics

[DaVinci]

13 hours ago, plato85 said:

That's the dilemma. Lefties are louder, righties are quieter. When I was a leftie I think I was always open minded, but the problem is that lefties are always around and they always make it known that they are left. You might know this as virtue signalling, although when I was a leftie I made noise for the same reason I make noise now, I love debating, I love hearing ideas. But righties don't speak up especially to a leftie (you might know this as the silent majority). So if you're leftie and you are open minded, that doesn't mean you'll necessarily hear different opinions. This might have changed in the digital age, it's easier to seek out different ideas, or on the other hand the 'echo chamber' might make it worse.

As futile as it might see to argue with irrational people, if we don't then they won't hear any other opinion.

If the mainstream culture makes all the noise, and the counterculture thinks it's a waste of time to try to reason, then the mainstream culture wins.

PS

See my previous post which just got through the moderator.

Righties aren't quiet. Not since Trump won.  I've heard some of the dumbest crap from the right since Trump won. 

[plato85]

From Practicality of trolling:

7 hours ago, DaVinci said:

Well, I already responded to this in that other thread, so I guess just go re-read that. I still think the same thing. 

 

On 02/05/2017 at 0:18 PM, DaVinci said:

This is similar to the idea of the "light bulb moment". That "a-ha I've figured out the solution!" thing. We think it is this random moment of pure clarity, but really it is your brain connecting a bunch of things together that you have been considering over a period of time that then produces the "a-ha!" in a momentary fashion. But you didn't just "holy crap I have the cure to AIDS!" out of nowhere. You were working on it for months, and your brain was processing the information as you considered new things, and sometime even as you slept.

If you were reading an article by a "far right extremist" having grown up in a lefty culture then surely that means that even lefties are capable of considering more than one side. How many righties do you think dismissed you as a leftist wacko when really you were open to ideas other than those in the immediate vicinity? 

I say give people more time. No one just snaps back the other direction in the span of a few words or a few minutes, and if they do then it's probably because they were already putting in the work. 

My silence is suspended judgment. I don't necessarily disagree that it takes time. The question is how can we spend that time?

We have a range of options to influence irrational people, none are clearly effective, and we're trying to figure out the best method or combination of methods.

1. Socratic method - Ask questions until their brain starts working
2. Rational argument and debate - It hasn't worked for me yet, and it seems to cause people to become more irrational.
3. Trolling - I'm in theory stage
4. Give up - I don't think I'll ever give up

[_LiveFree_]

2 hours ago, plato85 said:

From Practicality of trolling:

 

My silence is suspended judgment. I don't necessarily disagree that it takes time. The question is how can we spend that time?

We have a range of options to influence irrational people, none are clearly effective, and we're trying to figure out the best method or combination of methods.

1. Socratic method - Ask questions until their brain starts working
2. Rational argument and debate - It hasn't worked for me yet, and it seems to cause people to become more irrational.
3. Trolling - I'm in theory stage
4. Give up - I don't think I'll ever give up

Completely disingenuous as another method has been put forth which you refuse to respond to. Extremely telling.  

[DaVinci]

8 hours ago, plato85 said:

From Practicality of trolling:

 

My silence is suspended judgment. I don't necessarily disagree that it takes time. The question is how can we spend that time?

We have a range of options to influence irrational people, none are clearly effective, and we're trying to figure out the best method or combination of methods.

1. Socratic method - Ask questions until their brain starts working
2. Rational argument and debate - It hasn't worked for me yet, and it seems to cause people to become more irrational.
3. Trolling - I'm in theory stage
4. Give up - I don't think I'll ever give up

The problem isn't in your potential solutions, it's in your premise. When you approach someone as irrational, or judge them so after a few minutes of interacting then you change the way you interact with them from that point on. Suddenly they aren't a person, they are a problem to be fixed, or ignored. 

 

Reverse the situation. If a hard core communist walked up to you and said "Be a communist" and you were like "No way" and they proceeded to try to change your mind for thirty minutes or said "Meh, you're irrational" and walked away how would you respond to that? You would probably be just as likely to double down on your current world views or view the communist as a psycho for so easily dismissing you as irrational. 

[_LiveFree_]

1 hour ago, DaVinci said:

The problem isn't in your potential solutions, it's in your premise. When you approach someone as irrational, or judge them so after a few minutes of interacting then you change the way you interact with them from that point on. Suddenly they aren't a person, they are a problem to be fixed, or ignored. 

 

Reverse the situation. If a hard core communist walked up to you and said "Be a communist" and you were like "No way" and they proceeded to try to change your mind for thirty minutes or said "Meh, you're irrational" and walked away how would you respond to that? You would probably be just as likely to double down on your current world views or view the communist as a psycho for so easily dismissing you as irrational. 

So your issue is with using judgement incorrectly? Do you not trust your own judgement?

[DaVinci]

2 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

So your issue is with using judgement incorrectly? Do you not trust your own judgement?

My issue? Don't know what that is supposed to mean. 

As for making judgements, I just don't think you can conclude who someone is in their entirety after just a few moments or a few words. For example, if someone is being manipulative they could tell you what they think you want to hear. So how do you know they are being disingenuous unless you keep probing, and keep probing? That's going to take a while, isn't it? 

There are also people who are capable of change, and who want to, but if you approach them looking to quickly dismiss them then you are approaching them as if they are a problem to be solved and not as a person. A lefty isn't just a set of political views inside a human shaped meat vessel. 

Do I trust my own judgment? Well, what does that mean? Judgement isn't just about negative things, right? I can judge someone as good, but a little misguided couldn't I? What would be the point of dismissing someone I thought was good just because they thought some things I think are irrational? I know several people both on the right and left who believe in God. Should I tell them I can't talk to them anymore because they believe in an invisible omnipotent deity? Is that trusting my judgement? 

 

[Tyler H]

1 hour ago, DaVinci said:

As for making judgements, I just don't think you can conclude who someone is in their entirety after just a few moments or a few words.

I thought studies said otherwise, but that might be old data. 

[plato85]

12 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

Completely disingenuous as another method has been put forth which you refuse to respond to. Extremely telling.  

I know you've put a lot of effort into that post, and I'll get to that post eventually once I have time to watch those videos.

 

6 hours ago, DaVinci said:

The problem isn't in your potential solutions, it's in your premise. When you approach someone as irrational, or judge them so after a few minutes of interacting then you change the way you interact with them from that point on. Suddenly they aren't a person, they are a problem to be fixed, or ignored.

I get where you're coming from, but it abstract to say they are not a person they are a problem to be fixed. If I didn't see them as a person I would ignore them. If I genuinely wanted to help someone as a person by influencing them to be rationale why couldn't I also see them as a problem to be fixed.

 

6 hours ago, DaVinci said:

Reverse the situation. If a hard core communist walked up to you and said "Be a communist" and you were like "No way" and they proceeded to try to change your mind for thirty minutes or said "Meh, you're irrational" and walked away how would you respond to that? You would probably be just as likely to double down on your current world views or view the communist as a psycho for so easily dismissing you as irrational. 

Yes that's the problem, and my question is about different ways to go about influencing someone who's irrational.

[DaVinci]

3 hours ago, plato85 said:

I know you've put a lot of effort into that post, and I'll get to that post eventually once I have time to watch those videos.

 

I get where you're coming from, but it abstract to say they are not a person they are a problem to be fixed. If I didn't see them as a person I would ignore them. If I genuinely wanted to help someone as a person by influencing them to be rationale why couldn't I also see them as a problem to be fixed.

 

Yes that's the problem, and my question is about different ways to go about influencing someone who's irrational.

You can see them as a problem to be solved, but why would you do that? What is your motivation?

[plato85]

I can't think of a higher value than civilisation and human greatness.

[Tyler H]

6 hours ago, plato85 said:

I can't think of a higher value than civilisation and human greatness.

Why do you value these things over anything else?