When you interact with people, you often do it on your grounds, i.e. in your area of expertise. This inherently means that you are more likely to be right in a discussion. I believe this transfers to other areas of your life – where you are not the expert. So you automatically assume you’re right even if you aren’t. However, in my experience this doesn’t apply to situations where you are very aware that you are the (intellectually) subordinate person, e.g. when talking to a doctor.
People don’t like making mistakes. I don’t know if it’s innate or a cultural phenomenon, but in my experience, the immediate reaction to a mistake is a bad feeling—even for inconsequential ones in a friendly environment. Being wrong is not only making a mistake, but living by it. There’s a much greater incentive to not be wrong. The easiest way for an individual to “not be wrong” (in their view) is to assume that the other is wrong, so they reject their hypotheses in a discussion.
Because we’re emotional creatures first, we default to what’s familiar or comfortable. Logic/critical thinking take sustained practice and a lot of effort. There’s a study that suggests that many of our conscious choices are simply post-hoc rationalizations for decisions made in the unconscious.
I absolutely no longer trust anyone that insists they’re naturally and perfectly logical, they are unquestionably hiding some fixation or personal opinion which–if challenged–will make them unravel in the worst fashion.
There was a study about sometihng simiilar a while back. It was posted on Reddit, so if that site hasn’t imploded yet, you might be able to find it. I don’t remember the whole thing, but it said a lot of people rather double-down on their already accepted beliefs than open themselves up to new results. It wasn’t everyone, of course and it wasn’t for all topics either. Maybe someone can go find that study and post it here for OP.
That’s great question! From psychological perspective, people like to think that they are right. If they encounter some person or situation that threatens their believes they have three choices:
accept that they were wrong - might cause some unpleasant emotions, risks being perceived as not trustworthy/knowledgeable
assume the other party is wrong - the belief is upheld, no negative consequences
find some condition under which the belief in question does not apply - middle ground
Of course, there are many situational and personal qualities that affect how easily person accepts other view as their own.
Eg. if you are self-proclaimed expert on some topic, naturally opinions different than yours are wrong, at least to you. However, if you approach your expertise with attitude of trying to understand underlying principles, it would be easier to accommodate for new, sometimes very surprising facts or theories.
Also, humans are very susceptible to biases, meaning the world they perceive is different to what “objectively” is. One of them is attribution bias, which causes people to assume some results depend on their actions - even if there in no basis for that. This bias started the whole “vaccines cause autism” belief. The reaserch paper which started the whole thing is based on a survey directed to parents of autistic childen asking, do they think autism of their child was caused by a vaccine. It is ridiculous belief for most nowadays, but it provided a clear cause of the disease for those parents.
I know my writing can be confusing sometimes, so let me know if you would like some clarification.
I think you could argue that this is an example of cognitive dissonance. It is uncomfortable to come face to face with new information that contradicts your beliefs or actions, and it requires energy if you want to integrate that new information into your worldview and adjust your actions. It is much easier to deny that information, even when it is clearly true.
For example, when it came out that aspartame might cause cancer, if you (like me) have eaten/drunk a lot of products containing it or have had a strong belief that it was completely safe, then it may be more comfortable for you to criticize WHO or think “well, it’s not really relevant for me because my family isn’t predisposed for cancer.” If you didn’t care about aspartame or artificial sweeteners before, you will probably readily accept that there may or may not be a cancer link.
I can only read the beginning of his tweet/story as someone who is not signed up to Twitter. He also says there is a link somewhere, but I don’t see one.
When it comes to changing someone’s mind, I believe it helps to first question whether there’s even a need to do so. If there is, then asking questions is vital. You can’t just hit someone with Facts & Logic™ and expect that it will immediately undo something they may have had drilled into them since childhood, or something that requires recognition that would challenge other dearly held beliefs (e.g. “if my dad did a bad thing, then is he not the great, infallible man I thought he was? If he’s a bad person and people tell me I look and act just like him, does that mean I’m a bad person, too?”). Finding out why someone believes what they believe, and taking time to understand it yourself and validate their experience is instrumental in opening up people’s hearts and minds. Or, at least, that’s been my experience and is therefore true to me. 😉
Every person I know who is one of those people that can’t be persuaded by logical arguments backed by irrefutable sources seems to have a powerful sense of ego/pride trending towards narcissistic. My father is like that, my stepdaughter-in-law, my former best friend, my kids former football coach, they’re all people think they’re smarter than everyone else, they still suffer from the same self doubt we all face but instead of facing those self doubts and finding teachable moments to learn and grow from, they instead doubledown on how great they are, and how much better than you they think they are.
Is there even an objective truth though? I’d say there technically is, but I think we all have our own subjective versions of what our “truth” is that rise and fall like a sine wave around the straight line of objective Truth.
Just remember that what is popular is not always true, and what is true is not always popular.
Seriously, that title is worded like a straight up attack. Such a question, while open ended in who would consider what truth, still leads to the same outcome: engagement based purely on outrage and “proving the other side wrong.”
I sometimes wonder if people post things like this with the intention of filtering through comments to block people that post their political viewpoints in response. If thats the case, I would conssider this a very effective and intelligent post. However, I don’t think that this is the case.
On one hand people often don’t like to hear bad news or an idea that means they have to do a thing or face a problem. On the other hand how a person is told the idea is a big part of a negative reaction. Often there is no reason to tell someone the thing at all.
I’ll be straight forward if someone asks but I’m not “brutality honest”. OP sounds like the “brutality honest” without anyone asking type.
Humans are more influenced by emotions than logic, which means that critical thinking alone may not convince them. Only those who are receptive to logical reasoning can be persuaded.
Some people honestly believe the Earth is 6000 years old. And not a little amount of people, giant percentages of the United States of America. They believe dinosaur bones were placed by Satan. These people walk amongst us.
how are you going to reason with somebody like that??
The vast majority, virtually all, believe so because they believe that is what the Bible says.
And since they also believe their interpretation is the only correct one, and said interpretation requires everything be accepted OR they’ll go to eternal hellfire and burn forever there, as they deserve, there is basically no way to change this worldview without shattering it entirely. It benefits from being fragile because it causes so much mental anguish to depart from it, and people who walk away can turn into totally different people as a result of rejecting it and thus being rejected by their friends and family and community at large.
You, as a single, and likely, stranger to them, can’t get them to change. Alternative points of view or lifestyles are evidence of Satan’s trickery, so directed and deliberate debate with these people functions for them as a test of faith: they just have to weather the blows and they get Good Christian points and become closer to God. Nevermind that you have no intention of causing them harm or tricking them: you want to do the opposite, but it doesn’t matter.
The best you can do is be a kind person and be sure of yourself and your views. Planting a seed of doubt is much better than being used as a piece of evidence that they should not be looking for friends in worldly places.
Which is funny, since the idea that you’ll go off the deep end and become a cruelly nihilistic hedonist if you ever leave is such a constant drumbeat in that culture.
Yup. I was going to be a pastor until, at college for it… some LGBTQ protests came to campus (late 2k’s) and saw people being down right hateful. And everyone else being okay with that.
Made me realize…. I was an asshole. I didn’t want to be an asshole.
I mean - it may be that OP finds himself constantly coming across Young Earthers - but I am interested in hearing directly about the kinds of opinions they find the rest of the world struggles with.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community space dedicated to being helpful and answering each others’ questions on various topics.
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All posts titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That’s it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it’s in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content. Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Matrix Chat Room
To find & join our chat room, log into fluffychat.im(or any other matrix client) and put #nostupidquestions:matrix.org on the search bar.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
When you interact with people, you often do it on your grounds, i.e. in your area of expertise. This inherently means that you are more likely to be right in a discussion. I believe this transfers to other areas of your life – where you are not the expert. So you automatically assume you’re right even if you aren’t. However, in my experience this doesn’t apply to situations where you are very aware that you are the (intellectually) subordinate person, e.g. when talking to a doctor.
People don’t like making mistakes. I don’t know if it’s innate or a cultural phenomenon, but in my experience, the immediate reaction to a mistake is a bad feeling—even for inconsequential ones in a friendly environment. Being wrong is not only making a mistake, but living by it. There’s a much greater incentive to not be wrong. The easiest way for an individual to “not be wrong” (in their view) is to assume that the other is wrong, so they reject their hypotheses in a discussion.
Because we’re emotional creatures first, we default to what’s familiar or comfortable. Logic/critical thinking take sustained practice and a lot of effort. There’s a study that suggests that many of our conscious choices are simply post-hoc rationalizations for decisions made in the unconscious.
I absolutely no longer trust anyone that insists they’re naturally and perfectly logical, they are unquestionably hiding some fixation or personal opinion which–if challenged–will make them unravel in the worst fashion.
Agree. Every single “logical” person I’ve met has had no more logic than anyone else, just incredibly low EQ.
deleted by creator
There was a study about sometihng simiilar a while back. It was posted on Reddit, so if that site hasn’t imploded yet, you might be able to find it. I don’t remember the whole thing, but it said a lot of people rather double-down on their already accepted beliefs than open themselves up to new results. It wasn’t everyone, of course and it wasn’t for all topics either. Maybe someone can go find that study and post it here for OP.
No they don’t. 🧌
Really though, look up brain plasticity.
That’s great question! From psychological perspective, people like to think that they are right. If they encounter some person or situation that threatens their believes they have three choices:
Eg. if you are self-proclaimed expert on some topic, naturally opinions different than yours are wrong, at least to you. However, if you approach your expertise with attitude of trying to understand underlying principles, it would be easier to accommodate for new, sometimes very surprising facts or theories.
Also, humans are very susceptible to biases, meaning the world they perceive is different to what “objectively” is. One of them is attribution bias, which causes people to assume some results depend on their actions - even if there in no basis for that. This bias started the whole “vaccines cause autism” belief. The reaserch paper which started the whole thing is based on a survey directed to parents of autistic childen asking, do they think autism of their child was caused by a vaccine. It is ridiculous belief for most nowadays, but it provided a clear cause of the disease for those parents.
I know my writing can be confusing sometimes, so let me know if you would like some clarification.
I think you could argue that this is an example of cognitive dissonance. It is uncomfortable to come face to face with new information that contradicts your beliefs or actions, and it requires energy if you want to integrate that new information into your worldview and adjust your actions. It is much easier to deny that information, even when it is clearly true.
For example, when it came out that aspartame might cause cancer, if you (like me) have eaten/drunk a lot of products containing it or have had a strong belief that it was completely safe, then it may be more comfortable for you to criticize WHO or think “well, it’s not really relevant for me because my family isn’t predisposed for cancer.” If you didn’t care about aspartame or artificial sweeteners before, you will probably readily accept that there may or may not be a cancer link.
This might be spot on
https://twitter.com/juliusgoat/status/1679817901350567936?s=46&t=93HlSZBQz_rGRu4plCicig
Has the answer.
I can only read the beginning of his tweet/story as someone who is not signed up to Twitter. He also says there is a link somewhere, but I don’t see one.
yeah linking to Twitter threads is a complete mess now since Elon fucked that up
https://nitter.1d4.us/juliusgoat/status/1679817901350567936
damn it’s cool that nitter is working again!
When it comes to changing someone’s mind, I believe it helps to first question whether there’s even a need to do so. If there is, then asking questions is vital. You can’t just hit someone with Facts & Logic™ and expect that it will immediately undo something they may have had drilled into them since childhood, or something that requires recognition that would challenge other dearly held beliefs (e.g. “if my dad did a bad thing, then is he not the great, infallible man I thought he was? If he’s a bad person and people tell me I look and act just like him, does that mean I’m a bad person, too?”). Finding out why someone believes what they believe, and taking time to understand it yourself and validate their experience is instrumental in opening up people’s hearts and minds. Or, at least, that’s been my experience and is therefore true to me. 😉
Could you make an example? They most likely see you the same way.
Pride/ego
Every person I know who is one of those people that can’t be persuaded by logical arguments backed by irrefutable sources seems to have a powerful sense of ego/pride trending towards narcissistic. My father is like that, my stepdaughter-in-law, my former best friend, my kids former football coach, they’re all people think they’re smarter than everyone else, they still suffer from the same self doubt we all face but instead of facing those self doubts and finding teachable moments to learn and grow from, they instead doubledown on how great they are, and how much better than you they think they are.
I hate to tell you this, but this isn’t only a trait of narcissists. This is something that most people do. It’s a lot worse with narcissists, though.
Hence why I said “trending towards narcissistic”
Is there even an objective truth though? I’d say there technically is, but I think we all have our own subjective versions of what our “truth” is that rise and fall like a sine wave around the straight line of objective Truth.
Just remember that what is popular is not always true, and what is true is not always popular.
Your title is un-self critical and condescending, so your conversations probably aren’t terribly productive in either direction.
That turn of phrase has never been used by someone conversing in good faith and with an open mind.
Edit: Jack Nicholson excepted
Seriously, that title is worded like a straight up attack. Such a question, while open ended in who would consider what truth, still leads to the same outcome: engagement based purely on outrage and “proving the other side wrong.”
I sometimes wonder if people post things like this with the intention of filtering through comments to block people that post their political viewpoints in response. If thats the case, I would conssider this a very effective and intelligent post. However, I don’t think that this is the case.
My goodness that sounds like a lot of work lol.
“Can’t handle the truth” = I’m gonna write you off as a whole person and call you weak and stupid because we disagree.
On one hand people often don’t like to hear bad news or an idea that means they have to do a thing or face a problem. On the other hand how a person is told the idea is a big part of a negative reaction. Often there is no reason to tell someone the thing at all.
I’ll be straight forward if someone asks but I’m not “brutality honest”. OP sounds like the “brutality honest” without anyone asking type.
I enjoy your username
He needed a good title. You cant judge a persons conversation skills based on that…
Humans are more influenced by emotions than logic, which means that critical thinking alone may not convince them. Only those who are receptive to logical reasoning can be persuaded.
A video about it
I’d be interested in a example. What is an example of a truth that you have found it difficult to get people to accept?
Some people honestly believe the Earth is 6000 years old. And not a little amount of people, giant percentages of the United States of America. They believe dinosaur bones were placed by Satan. These people walk amongst us.
how are you going to reason with somebody like that??
Only morons would believe the world was 6000 years old. The universe started last Thursday.
“you can never reason a man out of an opinion he was not reasoned into”
@ArtVandelay Logic is not what got them into this situation, logic is not what will get them out of it
@lemminer @HeartyBeast @leapingleopard
The vast majority, virtually all, believe so because they believe that is what the Bible says.
And since they also believe their interpretation is the only correct one, and said interpretation requires everything be accepted OR they’ll go to eternal hellfire and burn forever there, as they deserve, there is basically no way to change this worldview without shattering it entirely. It benefits from being fragile because it causes so much mental anguish to depart from it, and people who walk away can turn into totally different people as a result of rejecting it and thus being rejected by their friends and family and community at large.
You, as a single, and likely, stranger to them, can’t get them to change. Alternative points of view or lifestyles are evidence of Satan’s trickery, so directed and deliberate debate with these people functions for them as a test of faith: they just have to weather the blows and they get Good Christian points and become closer to God. Nevermind that you have no intention of causing them harm or tricking them: you want to do the opposite, but it doesn’t matter.
The best you can do is be a kind person and be sure of yourself and your views. Planting a seed of doubt is much better than being used as a piece of evidence that they should not be looking for friends in worldly places.
While I never believed in YE creationism… i did a become a better person when I turned apostate.
A substantially better person, if I’m being honest.
Which is funny, since the idea that you’ll go off the deep end and become a cruelly nihilistic hedonist if you ever leave is such a constant drumbeat in that culture.
Yup. I was going to be a pastor until, at college for it… some LGBTQ protests came to campus (late 2k’s) and saw people being down right hateful. And everyone else being okay with that.
Made me realize…. I was an asshole. I didn’t want to be an asshole.
I mean - it may be that OP finds himself constantly coming across Young Earthers - but I am interested in hearing directly about the kinds of opinions they find the rest of the world struggles with.