|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can I convince you?
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
Earlier today, I had a bit of a spat with someone who wouldn't accept any evidence that contradicted a false statement they had made.
This got me thinking about what sort of evidence or line of argument we might accept to change our views on, well, anything. While many of our convictions may be deep-seated and dear to us, are there any that we would not let go of, nomatter what?
If we do hold on to some with a gentler grip than others, how might we convince one another to change positions? For while we might take heed of Ephesians 4:14 it might be foolish to take that as an instruction to be stubborn. After all, what if we're wrong about something?
As a corollary to this, can shipmates recall specific times when they've changed their minds over important issues (perhaps prompted to do so on these very discussion boards) and would you be willing to share?
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
If someone has a deep-rooted conviction about something, it is unlikely to be changed quickly. Far more likely is that a gentle pointing out of inadequacies of the position may lead to the conviction becoming slightly less deep-rooted. Over time, someone may then gradually come to the point of beginning to accept that they were wrong.
At the moment, I am reading The Bible's Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An Evangelical's Change of Heart, by Mark Achtemeier. I can't say that I am enjoying the book, but it is interesting to read an account of how someone moved (over a period of time) from being convinced that SSM was wrong to accepting and affirming SSM.
On a similar line, my personal change of view on the matter happened over some years. it started with a gradual questioning of some of the "proof texts", which got me to the point where I was very much an "agnostic" on the matter. Then a long conversation with a gay couple was the incident that really pushed me into being sure that I had been wrong before.
Whilst talking with real people (rather than just engaging in theoretical discussions) was important for me, I recognise that it wouldn't have had the same effect if I hadn't already done a considerable amount of questioning beforehand.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
As far as I can see, you are trying to debunk this. Efforts at debunking it appear to have fallen foul of the Streisand Effect.
On the issue of the truthfulness or otherwise of media "news" such as this, I think this thread covers the bases pretty well when it comes to forming one's own opinion. I take the view that it's unwise to publish your appraisal unless the issue impacts you or large numbers of people directly. In such cases, it takes real skill to communicate in a way that will not backfire.
On the issue of theological truth, I would say my views have changed on many things and the Ship has played a large part in that. But this post is long enough already and the subject is a little different to some fake tweet.
[x-post]
[ 06. August 2014, 17:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
My views have changed a lot over the years and the Ship has played a big part in that.
I was very much a GLE (Good Little Evangelical) when I began posting here and the Ship's helped open me up to more 'High Church' and sacramental theology and spirituality - and indeed some more liberal views on certain issues ...
Although, I suspect that trajectory had already started before I joined.
I'd still say that I've got evangelicalism in my spiritual DNA but it's now only one element alongside others.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
For a long time, I held a very black-and-white view on guns among the general population. This has become much more nuanced, in part because of arguments presented on The Ship, and in part because I read multiple views, blogged or otherwise, elsewhere.
My interactions with IRL people did not help as much, because so many are intensely polarised in their views, e.g. that "the gummint wants to take all our guns before they implant the microchips", through "ya gotta be able to protect yourself at any cost to someone else" to "all gun owners are certifiable loons". The moderate hunters and sport shooters don't seem to be able to make themselves heard in public.
I admit to having had a distorted view of gun people, due to negative family experience, until I realised how much of that was actually due to crazy people, whose effect was multiplied by having guns (Having a grandfather who died while police chief in Sarajevo does that to one)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Women's ordination, from unconvinced of its validity to being convinced of its validity.
The morality of masturbation, from anti to pro.
Both here on the Ship, but it was something like 11 years ago now...
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
For a long time, I held a very black-and-white view on guns among the general population. This has become much more nuanced, in part because of arguments presented on The Ship, and in part because I read multiple views, blogged or otherwise, elsewhere.
My interactions with IRL people did not help as much, because so many are intensely polarised in their views, e.g. that "the gummint wants to take all our guns before they implant the microchips", through "ya gotta be able to protect yourself at any cost to someone else" to "all gun owners are certifiable loons". The moderate hunters and sport shooters don't seem to be able to make themselves heard in public.
I admit to having had a distorted view of gun people, due to negative family experience, until I realised how much of that was actually due to crazy people, whose effect was multiplied by having guns (Having a grandfather who died while police chief in Sarajevo does that to one)
Had a similar experience, on the same subject: kept getting my ass handed to me arguing gun control. I was all ready to grit my teeth, blame my showing, and wise up, but when I went looking for knockdown arguments, I found none. Loathed as I was to admit it, the other side made sense. So I changed my mind.
The most effective person at convincing you is you. I now try to subject every opinion I hold to ruthless examination. Am I biased? -- hell yeah, course I am, but how's my bias colored my judgment?
Critical thinking is a skill that needs to be taught. It's no surprise that schools tend not to teach it, as it undermines their own authority. Even colleges are patchy. Most who pick it up, pick it up by osmosis. Many never pick it up at all, and that includes the most intelligent.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In my case the arc of my moral universe has been long, but it bends toward justice.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Critical thinking is a skill that needs to be taught. It's no surprise that schools tend not to teach it, as it undermines their own authority. Even colleges are patchy. Most who pick it up, pick it up by osmosis. Many never pick it up at all, and that includes the most intelligent.
I suspect the reason it is not taught is far more mundane - it's not easily measurable, and schools are generally assessed on what is measurable. Besides, elements of it are widely taught. Source analysis in history (or modern studies up here), proof in mathematics, analysis of bias in media studies. Plus there is, in England, an actual (As-Level if memory serves) course in Critical Thinking.
I get a little tired of the insinuation that all schools are hothouses of authoritarian thought control.
[ 06. August 2014, 20:56: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I suspect the reason it is not taught is far more mundane - it's not easily measurable, and schools are generally assessed on what is measurable. Besides, elements of it are widely taught. Source analysis in history (or modern studies up here), proof in mathematics, analysis of bias in media studies. Plus there is, in England, an actual (As-Level if memory serves) course in Critical Thinking.
I get a little tired of the insinuation that all schools are hothouses of authoritarian thought control.
Nah, brainwashing does nothing for the stats. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I'm using "authority" in a more-or-less neutral sense, & don't really blame schools for relying on it: if every child questions every statement by a teacher, many schools would be unworkable. Authority is a good way to impart factual basics.
Analyzing pre-selected sources to give a pre-selected isn't really getting away from it. Critical thinking as a transferable skillset is a separate discipline. Even an AS-level is a late stage to be introducing it.
The basic problem, worked into the design of schools, is that they're expected to combine two conflicting goals: education, and coercion. Teachers have to work within the framework they're given.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amir Emrra
Apprentice
# 18100
|
Posted
The OPer's cited problem, is that, as so often happens, logic does not come into it; emotions can play a larger part than logic in forming beliefs. As I am just discovering for myself, even apparently adult, logical decisions can actually be driven by unmet childhood needs.
Posts: 37 | From: UK | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think I did personal Marxism. Started with crude fearful fundamentism, jumped to faithless feel good Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (a 1970s thing), ended up more deliberately Anglican.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Bertrand Russell:
“If a person is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
I'm reluctant to respond to TheAlethiophile because my experience of SoF has made me less and less a lover of Truth (though the lower case 't' sort is quite useful).
Inevitably we all hold beliefs which we think are true but are in fact false. A few years following SOF makes me very aware that there are no two of us with the same beliefs and thus at most one with only true beliefs (he/she knows who they are).
On the other hand, you seem (perhaps with a couple of exceptions) people I'd be happy to know - but more for your attitudes than for your beliefs. One person, I forget whom, used to have the sig line: "It's better to be kind than right". Mine is much the same, stolen from someone else I admire.
It's not just down to SoF, though that's contributed a lot, but I'm not Alethiophile's rival. Truth, to me, seems overrated. If we knew when we had found it there wouldn't be a problem, but even total psychological conviction doesn't make something a Truth. I'll settle for James' "what it is better to believe".
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I'm reluctant to respond to TheAlethiophile because my experience of SoF has made me less and less a lover of Truth (though the lower case 't' sort is quite useful).
I hope my username doesn't put you off. I am much more an explorer of truth, not a guardian of it.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”
So right. Reminds me of this quote:
quote:
"When a person becomes involved in an immoral activity, he looks around for ideas such as will support the notion that the thing is not an evil, until he becomes thoroughly convinced it is not. At this point he strives so far as he can to get rid of external restraints and to make it allowable and smart, and at length even attractive and honourable." Swedenborg
It is easy to see that we all do these. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to do anything different. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Bertrand Russell:
“If a person is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”
So I guess that quote just accords with your instincts? It would be very Russellian to think of applying that quote to itself (is the quote true in regard to itself or false in regard to itself? Russell liked those types of paradoxes.)
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
So I guess that quote just accords with your instincts?
If these kinds of factors were absolutely determinative there would be no point in discussing anything.
I think we would all agree that these are just tendencies, which vary from person to person.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
On the other hand, you seem (perhaps with a couple of exceptions) people I'd be happy to know - but more for your attitudes than for your beliefs. One person, I forget whom, used to have the sig line: "It's better to be kind than right". Mine is much the same, stolen from someone else I admire.
I agree!
And that's my signature but as I am fairly new it may well have been someone else's before. It's been my mantra/motto for many a year and I read it in a book back in the early 80s but not sure which book now.
I have shifted my position politically, socially and theologically (and in some quite paradoxical directions too) over the years since then but I think I can honestly say that even back then when I was so sure about so many things, I still believed that my opinions (like Scripture) should never be used as an offensive weapon!
I shy away from attempting to persuade, I prefer to accompany people who will let me go with them on their own exploration of new territory.
And I run a mile (physically if possible but emotionally if not) when someone else expresses disapproval or judgement of me for my opinions or even worse tries to bludgeon me into agreeing with them.
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
So I guess that quote just accords with your instincts?
If these kinds of factors were absolutely determinative there would be no point in discussing anything.
Hume put it slightly differently. I can't find the quote, but something like: If there are equally good arguments for and against something, your emotions decide whether or not you accept it. Of course your emotions may not be explicit - they may make you think one argument is stronger than another so you believe you have decided rationally.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I recently finished a Coursera course on emotional intelligence which said our beliefs have a strong emotional component. That's why facts alone rarely convince anyone - or not deeply, if it's just abstract facts to us the next set of facts easily sways us to the next position. Space is full of ether, space is totally empty, space is full of solar winds -- sure, whatever, for most of us it doesn't affect our lives, therefore we are happy to accept whatever we are told to believe and be done with the topic.
If it matters to us personally, that's an emotional aspect. The emotional reasons why the belief matters to us are why it's hard to change that belief.
So to convince people about things that don't affect their lives, facts may be enough. To convince them deeply enough that they won't yield to the next argument, or will change their behavior, or will fight to the death for the cause, you need to get to their emotions, then also toss in some (real or fake) facts.
They called Regan the "great communicator" - I never understood why, then a PBS article played part of a pre-election debate on health care: the other side gave facts and figures, Reagan said "there you go again." The PBS guy cheered "what great communication that was!" Huh? Reagan didn't say anything, not one fact. The PBS guy explained "He communicated to the voters' hearts" assuring them they'll be fine if he's the President.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
I was quite a few years back fairly hardliner conservative, fairly close to the Tea Party movement in the US right now. Thankfully I read a little more and reexamined my views over time, and changed those views in the course of several years.
Can I just say: ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
(There's a whole thread largely about the Tea-Party-direction of the US Republican party here in Purgatory and I genuinely struggle with whether there is hope in such matters. Virtually everyone I've known who was heading in Tea Party directions seems to have just gone further and further that way...)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
So to convince people about things that don't affect their lives, facts may be enough. To convince them deeply enough that they won't yield to the next argument, or will change their behavior, or will fight to the death for the cause, you need to get to their emotions, then also toss in some (real or fake) facts.
Agree entirely. For example, people who get angry when you don't agree with them at once make me associate their ideas with someone being angry with me. So I'm less likely to accept the idea.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
They called Regan the "great communicator" - I never understood why, then a PBS article played part of a pre-election debate on health care: the other side gave facts and figures, Reagan said "there you go again." The PBS guy cheered "what great communication that was!" Huh? Reagan didn't say anything, not one fact. The PBS guy explained "He communicated to the voters' hearts" assuring them they'll be fine if he's the President.
That reminds me of this description of the power of narrative:
quote:
“Psychologists have found that pure evidence is often less persuasive than narrative in the court of public opinion…The experts whose goal is to disseminate and translate population-based evidence will, in the name of science, shun individual stories…But each time, those who espouse only evidence—without narratives about real people—struggle to control the debate. Typically, they lose. Facts and figures are essential, but insufficient, to translate the data and promote the acceptance of evidence-based practices and policies. Narratives— in the forms of storytelling, testimonials, and entertainment— have been shown to improve individual health behaviors in multiple settings. Moreover, evidence from social psychology research suggests that narratives, when compared with reporting statistical evidence alone, can have uniquely persuasive effects in overcoming preconceived beliefs and cognitive biases.” (The Importance of Narrative in Communicating Evidence-Based Science, By Jason Karlawish Monday, November 28th, 2011, Journal of the American Medical Association)
I find this amazing. Stories are able to break through people's resistance and change their minds. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
From an Economist review of a new book on Reagan:
quote:
Those who tried to fight Reagan with statistics were doomed: he was offering moral perorations, while his critics looked like "pedantic asses"
I'm all in favour of the truth, but I've learned that how it's told plays an important role in it prevailing.
[ 08. August 2014, 10:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The moderate hunters and sport shooters don't seem to be able to make themselves heard in public.
Have you ever wondered why that is?
As an aside I recently read Ace Atkins attempting to replicate Robert Parker in a Spenser knockoff. Ace wrote about a 'safety' on a .38.
What more do you need to say?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The moderate hunters and sport shooters don't seem to be able to make themselves heard in public.
Have you ever wondered why that is?
Hunters need to come up with stories that tug at people's hearts so hunting doesn't just sound like "I enjoy killing."
There are stories of protecting a family with little kids from a grizzly bear attack, or feeding a family who would otherwise have to rely on food stamps. These days, hunting as a way to get meat that is healthy instead of full of antibiotics, or to get meat from animals who lived happy lives in nature instead of in a cage so small they can't turn around, would have some appeal to some of the public.
I love venison, I guess it's not allowed to be commercially sold, I get it only once a decade when a hunter allows me a bite of his treasured catch.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I love venison, I guess it's not allowed to be commercially sold, I get it only once a decade when a hunter allows me a bite of his treasured catch.
Actually, it is available commercially! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't know where you are in Texas but a quick Googling of "venison" and "texas" yields at least two sources, so bon appetit.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
