Convincing: How do you convince the unconvincable?
https://lemm.ee/post/27162770
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jeffhykin@lemm.ee
You can’t the mind that refuses to change.
“Against stupidity, the gods themselves, contend in vain.” Friedrich Schiller
Or, ‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.’
Don’t waste time with the people who refuse to listen; work on building a network of like minded people.
What can someone who lives in an apartment building do? Or a student in a dorm? Which candidates should we support.
Your time is a limited resource, don’t waste it pounding deaf ears.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Dagwood222@lemm.ee
don’t waste time with people who refuse to listen; work on building a network of like minded people
And anybody who says this is “building an echo chamber“ means they feel entitled to your space and attention even when they don’t feel any need to include others in their own.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from acastcandream@beehaw.org
Just pointing this out. Nobody has all the answers, and we can all learn something new. Talking to the convinced isn’t a waste of time if you’re listening.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Dagwood222@lemm.ee
Didn’t say anything that necessitated this response.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from acastcandream@beehaw.org
I was agreeing with you
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Dagwood222@lemm.ee
Huh interesting. Even rereading it I am taking it 2 very different ways. Read it the wrong way the first time, my mistake.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from acastcandream@beehaw.org
It’s all good
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Dagwood222@lemm.ee
I’ve always been fond of
‘Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.’ - Mark Twain.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
Many people can’t imagine different perspective due to their limited intuition, they need concrete examples of improvements so they can imitate these.
In other words, if your intention is to convince someone about your improvement, show to that person how the improvement works well on you, without impose your vision directly.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from SolarPunker@slrpnk.net
Showing instead of convincing. Everybody can talk, what counts is the tangible outcome.
It goes hand in hand with avoiding putting someone in the defensive. I find it hard sometimes, I usually make my opinion clear but try to change topic and remain open to talk about other stuff. That’s not great and I’d like to be more skillful in being silent.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from schmorpel@slrpnk.net
Don’t try to point out why they are wrong, but rather why you believe what you believe.
And when they tell you why they believe what they do, no matter how ridiculous it might seem, respect their opinion and explain which points exactly you disagree with and why.
I think the idea of trying to convince the other is flawed in itself. It implies that you are right and they are wrong. Approach any conversation with that mindset, and neither their nor your opinion will change.
Instead, try to see a discussion as a way to exchange perspectives with the goal of finding the truth. Only if you are open to the idea of changing your mind can you hope to change that of your conversation partner.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
I find it incredibly rare that “others” are as interested in finding “truth”. Especially when they’ve been brainwashed repeatedly by their idols ignore logic and fact with faith and opinion.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
I think the idea of trying to convince the other is flawed in itself.
In recent years I’ve come to this conclusion as well. For me it’s a matter of treating people the way I want to be treated — like an intelligent adult who can make their own decisions. I’m all too happy to discuss my opinions, but I’m generally not interested in persuading anyone, nor do I want to be persuaded. I am interested in information that is relevant, so that’s what I try to offer as well. If that information makes someone consider an idea they had not considered before, great! If not, that’s honestly fine, too.
In movies you can change someone’s whole worldview with a rousing 2-minute speech, but in reality I think real change takes months or years. I don’t expect to reach a consensus with someone I fundamentally disagree with in the course of a single conversation.
That said, I will admit that in my personal life this approach has its drawbacks. I have been criticized for being too passive and conflict-averse. I won’t pretend I have all problems of social dynamics figured out.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
This is such an awesome answer; exactly what I was looking for. Simple, general, and something I can actually try. Thanks for replying
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jeffhykin@lemm.ee
As much as I hate to say it, I think learning to make use of the same communication strategies that bad-faith argument people tend to use is the way to go. In specific:
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mozz@mbin.grits.dev
I wouldn’t point out a gish gallop, it’s just a waste of time. Just ignore points that are not relevant to the discussion. If they call attention back to a point by emphasizing it later, then go ahead and dismantle it. Usually people won’t bother though.
Staying focused on-topic is definitely one of the most important things to remember.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Carrolade@lemmy.world
I absolutely think that if someone's shifting topics aggressively as an argumentation tactic it's productive to point it out.
You don't gotta dwell on it but calling out if someone's using bad faith tactics is part of your communication with the audience (and then, I agree, pivot it back around to just talking about what you wanted to talk about.)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mozz@mbin.grits.dev
Very briefly I suppose. Just be aware you’re opening another door for them to deflect more, by arguing about that now.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Carrolade@lemmy.world
Arguing with who? If they can get you deflected by starting an argument about something else, that's on you. Just say "Lol nice Gish Gallop" and continue explaining the truth.
Here's an example of what I was talking about -- it's a little bit shooting fish in a barrel because the guy was pretty unpopular anyway, but I still felt it was worth articulating some of the positive-side talking points (not just "Biden's good I like him," which is easy to misconstrue into something, but specific tangible examples that are easy to get your head around). But, at the same time, calling out how silly the person's POV on it was. You can't get drawn into a back-and-forth, no; that side of it I do agree with. But if you're playing cards with someone and they're trying to cheat, it's absolutely okay to point out "hey he's cheating, this is how" as long as you're also continuing to play the game.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mozz@mbin.grits.dev
Yeah, that works. It’s very briefly touching on it. Personally though I prefer to keep a laser focus on the most relevant points. Acknowledging anything they do that is outside of the topic of the conversation gives them further engagement on whatever they’re doing. It’s an offshoot of the don’t feed the trolls philosophy I suppose, except in this case its not feeding a trolling method while continuing to engage with the troll themselves.
I think when the convo is reviewed, it becomes pretty clear to an observer who is staying on topic and who is taking the shotgun approach.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Carrolade@lemmy.world
anticar.org
Trove of resources.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
I remember getting into political arguments that went nowhere at the time but resulted in me changing my mind years later. The people I argued with never knew about my change of heart. As far as they knew I was one of those people who get more entrenched in their beliefs.
What I’m getting at is that your arguments can hit home without looking like it. What you’re seeing as getting defensive could just be the early stages for them changing their minds.
This can be especially true if someone’s political beliefs are part of their identity. You don’t make those kind of changes all at once.
So I’d say just argue in good faith, don’t try to score points, provide food for thought if you can, and hope for the other person to eventually find their way to the truth.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Octorine@midwest.social
Has happened to me, and also I’ve had the rare opportunity to hear back from someone later. We had a very heated discussion about a very hot topic. Took about 2 hours lol, seemingly zero progress. Agreed to disagree.
A few years pass, we’re still friendly, and they eventually confess to me that I did change their mind that night. Just took them a long time to process it.
Basically I took the same approach as the person who changed my mind, which you have laid out very succinctly,
argue in good faith, don’t try to score points, provide food for thought if you can, and hope for the other person to eventually find their way to the truth.
I came up with some truly stupid things while trying to justify my ridiculous beliefs. Deserved to be made fun of frankly, but this person instead treated me with respect. People are not perfectly rational truth-seeking robots, often just being a jerk is enough to convince them you’re wrong regardless of any other factors.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Carnelian@lemmy.world
In terms of dialogue, you can’t beat Street Epistemology
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from confluence@lemmy.world
Have you heard of reactance Theory?
It basically states that people will react to a something they perceive as a challenge of something they identify with, or perceive as a loss of freedom, with reactivity and defensiveness.
Rather than explaining your point of view, you approach and ask their opinions with curiosity. Listen openly.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
I think something that works pretty well related to this is, find something at the core of how they feel about things that you actually agree with, and compliment them on being right about that. Then talk about what you think the implications of that thing are.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com This content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).Proxy Information
text/gemini