I do think there are a subset of people who are genuinely open minded. These people are actively curious and looking to iterate toward a more accurate view of reality.
When you meet people like this there are no 'tactics' ... it's just about presenting the truth in good faith as you see it and listening actively to understand their point of view.
The problem I encounter is that many people posture as 'open-minded', but in reality they want to hear your opinion for the same reason an opponent wants you to show your cards after they've folded to a successful poker bluff. In this case it simply tells them "what side you're on" or "which tribe you belong to".
As a heuristic, I've found it's very difficult to formulate thoughtful questions if you're not genuinely curious about a topic. Therefore, I tend to use the 'questioning level of thoughtfulness' (QLOT) of my discussion partner as the signal of whether or not I'm dealing with someone who desires a good faith discussion.
> When you meet people like this there are no 'tactics' ... it's just about presenting the truth in good faith
I will argue with tactics, but it’s not necessarily out of bad faith. Usually people are terrible at having an open-minded conversation, and you need to peel back the layers because most individuals won’t tell you why they believe something.
You’ll get all these canned responses and talking points from mainstream media (Or, if we’re talking about technology, the analog would be taking points from a particular corporation or vendor). But people won’t outright say “I don’t agree with that policy because I don’t trust that person” or “I got screwed over by a traumatic experience with X therefore I’m against X”. Most people aren’t capable of engaging on that level without a great deal of emotional maturity; of course, we’re far away from reality and facts at this point but humans are emotional creatures and emotion drives our decision making.
Yeah and those open minded people might really be on to something there.
I didn't particularly like the premise of the article, which seems to be that the goal is to change the other's mind. But think about it, what could be more beneficial to me than having an argument that changes my mind? If I convince someone of my opinion (whether by "weapon" or by "gift") then they learned something (ideally...) but if I change my mind thanks to the conversation, then I just learned something, I got to make that improvement to myself.
A day where nobody changed your mind is a day of stagnation.
I guess I should try to get better at asking good questions. Even if I'm genuinely curious about something, I always have trouble coming up with thoughtful questions, especially on the spot.
(I guess for me, "thoughtfulness" requires putting thought into something, and if I'm actively participating in a conversation, I can't do that. It's way easier if I have already invested time into the topic at hand at some point beforehand.)
> I tend to use the 'questioning level of thoughtfulness' (QLOT) of my discussion partner as the signal
That's easier to do if participants have aligned interests and desires. Harder when communicating with someone that is very different from yourself. In that case it's productive if the discussion is approached with patience as a learning experience. Without suspicions that the other person is only learning about you so their tribe can use it against you later.
I sometimes argue, because I feel an inner compulsion to do so — maybe as a kind of performance art — but I've given up on trying to change anyone's mind.
I spent years as a graduate student in a philosophy PhD program, and what I found is that, essentially, no professional philosopher changes any other professional philosopher's mind about anything important, ever. We're just endlessly arguing. Intelligently, usually respectfully arguing, but accomplishing nothing, getting nowhere. And philosophers are supposed to be, at least nominally, the most "rational" among us.
This is not to say that philosophers never change their minds: they occasionally do. But not as a result of arguing! It's usually more self-correction than other-correction.
I think it's better to read books than to argue. There's less personal ego involved, because you can "engage" with the author of a book in a way that's not like a sporting event. There's no winner and loser. You don't have to admit to the author that you were wrong, because you never even have to talk to the author, and the author will probably never even know that you read the book. You're almost forced to argue with yourself in this situation. You can change your own mind even if you can't change other minds.
When you argue publicly, your goal shouldn't be to change your opponent's view, but to influence the people in the audience who don't have a strong opinion yet.
I am trying to assess whether philosophers not changing their minds is something that is desirable or not. On one hand, they represent their theses after long periods of introspection and studying. On the other hand, their virtue signaling propensity may relate to various ego ambitions.
Definitely, debate for the shake of debate feels like an excercise for the philosopher rather than identifying why different views exist and where these fall short. In the long term, it may lead to change of the philosopher. Given everybody keeps an open mind, I don't think that this is necessary a bad thing.
> philosophers never change their minds: they occasionally do. But not as a result of arguing! It's usually more self-correction than other-correction
So, as a rational philosopher you're not trying to express an absolute truth that is generally applicable. Rather, you're iterating towards the most accurate and appropriate expression of yourself. Hmm, I think I've heard that philosophy before... existentialism?
Philosophers are paid thinkers, and they fulfill an important social function, like theologians to a God, in this case the Market. To understand them it's important to pay attention to what they ignore, most importantly: this is where all of them will agree - pawns in the great game being played by the Invisible Hand against itself.
I find it strange that this article presumes that you have all the right answers and that there isn't the possibility that you are the one who needs their mind changed. It points out that listening is valuable, but not because there's a possibility that the person you're talking to is in the right, no, you should listen to other people because studies show that listening to other people will manipulate them into seeing things your way.
I feel like if you really wanted to live in a world of open-minded people, you should probably start by being open-minded yourself.
Here's a good trick I picked up for discussing contentious things - if you're ever tempted to dish out a sick burn, try to rephrase the point into a genuine question. Then the other person will have to walk through the logic of it, and if it turns out there is a real logic to their side of things, you don't get your ego bruised, cause you just asked a genuine question.
Shouldn't different people in different circumstances of life, have different opinions/philosophies/ideologies anyway?
How about this: if you want to change people's minds, work on changing their circumstances first.
This is Michael Shellenberger's philosophy around saving the planet/climate. Basically, that economic justice has to come first because only people who are comfortable and middle class can afford the mental and emotional costs associated with caring about that stuff.
And yes, achieving that result on a global scale may well involve the construction of a bunch of new oil and gas infrastructure in places like Africa and South America— well meaning westerners should focus on what can be done at home to reduce, and stop protesting exactly the kind of thing that helps more people enter the middle class.
If certain values are circumstantial, couldn't that just be combined into a higher-level formulation? Eg if a lower-class person values family, and a higher-class person values fulfillment, then you simply say "fulfillment is valuable when monetary and social needs are met" (aka Maslow's hierarchy of needs [1]), and that's something both people can agree on. No need to change anybody's circumstances.
That's a damn good point. Philosophy is merely perspective's shadow (moral philosophy included!). If you want to change the way they think then change what they see.
Our #1 tool for that is drugs. So cheap and convenient. #2 is video entertainment, but that's a bit shallow and ephemeral. #3 is what... raucous demonstrations?
And speaking of demonstrations, you can't beat "scientific culture" for having a pre-existing setup for managing the "changing philosophies by changing perspectives" process. But most of us aren't scientists. (Or squishy, openminded experimentalists, even)
An interesting idea related to this: the pedagogical benefits of esotericism.
Melzer writes: “Just as education must begin by addressing the student where he is, so, as he learns and changes, it must stay with him. The internal or dialectical critique of received opinion takes place not in a single stroke but in a series of successive approximations to the truth, each of which will seem in its time to be the final one.”
As someone who's wasted too much time arguing with people online, I find it very unlikely you'll change anyone's mind that way.
If your values are so great, live them. Show by example why your values are the best way to live, by emobdying them and having an enviable life that people want to emulate. I think that would change far more minds than arguing.
> But just as you are not your car or your house, you are not your beliefs.
While I get what the author is trying to say here, this doesn't feel like a great analogy to me. If I'm not attached to my beliefs, wouldn't that make me aloof? Most people's beliefs are their identity. And if you detach yourself from your beliefs, it's almost like you're trying to detach yourself from self. It feels like a very relativistic mindset, which is fine, but antithetical to some worldviews.
> Stop wielding your values as a weapon and start offering them as a gift.
This is incredibly spot on. I might even say it differently as
“Stop treating your values as an indication of your superiority, and start treating them as a relatable story of growth.”
A lot (I mean a lot) of people I talk with are constantly trying to put on a display of how what they are is some kind of superior way of being. And it’s impossible to listen to them because they’re speaking with a childish “I’m this and your not” way of thinking.
I always try to separate facts, deduction and values.
* We can agree and disagree about the facts. This is the worst case and it is probably not worth discussing and try to change someone's mind if we disagree about basic facts.
* One can discuss the logic/deduction that goes from these facts. That's probably the most meaningful thing to discuss and one can try to change somebody's mind on that.
* People have different value systems (i.e. what's important for the society and how much). And here there is no right or wrong. At best one can agree that our values are different, and it can be worth discussing (but likely nobody will change their mind)
Honestly, I do not really think most online commenters want to convince anybody of anything. For most of history, discussion of current events by normal people has just been venting to your likeminded friends in the pub. The problem I think is on the part of people who expect convincing rhetoric in online conversations.
are we happier now that we can reach millions of minds? or were we happier with smaller circles of family and friends? is there a great injustice that needs each and every one of us to play the persuasion game?
I don’t necessarily agree with all of the points in this article, but I think, from personal experience, this is the strongest point:
> Empathetic listening, of course, is an act of generosity—a gift
It really works. I’ve had people come up to me, years later, to tell me how much they valued me listening to them, even though we are on opposite sides of the value spectrum.
I find it odd that people seek to change minds to be honest.
For some reason I'm a hard-core libertarian so I kind of hate my own core values. I'd even go so far as to acknowledge that my ideal world would be close to hell for most people. I don't want to be this way. I just seem to have a preference for it.
I realised several years ago that if I ever got my own way it would make the world objectively a worse place for the average person to live and therefore I have an ethical duty to vote against my own self interest and instead try to vote for what I believe is in the interest of the collective good.
I think a lot of political division we see today just stems of a lack of empathy and understanding. Instead of trying to find ways we can compromise and share this Earth together we seek to force our own values on to others. And this seems to be true at all levels of society, from Twitter debates about trans rights, to democracy vs autocracy debates at the level of nation states.
Plus I think most disagreements we have can generally be solved with more localism and secessionism. Here in the UK for example I don't know why I don't just let Muslim communities practise Sharia law if they wish and allow communities who dislike immigration set their own rules on who is and isn't allowed to live there. But like I say, I know people disagree with me on these things.
> I don't want to be this way. I just seem to have a preference for it.
Aren't you being a sort of "preference fatalist"? Do you think it's impossible to change preferences?
Maybe a good place to start would be to research people who have changed preferences. I think motivation is not the mythical black box that oms people ascribe to. We're motivated by cognitive processes and experiences. If we expose ourselves to different experiences and try to see value in different things, our brain can adapt and start saying "Okay, this thing I didn't find motivating is getting motivating!" -- motivation is built by yourself. I call this concept "freedom of utility" -- you're free to choose what to care about; although of course there are limits to the flexibility of some of our instincts for various reasons related to just being limited, finite beings overall.
(I'm speaking of the general issue of changing values and changing your mind -- hopefully not too personal)
In your case, I think at a level you've already adopted different values (which I think is admirable and necessary for humans to achieve a good existence), but you're finding it hard reconciling your various intuitions and various rational thoughts. I think it's a slow process, but we should let the truth and what we ultimately find genuinely best win -- discuss it with other people, think about it, test its consequences (in real life or thought), this is how you change your mind.
I'll take the opportunity to insert some thoughts from metaphysics here. It says that the evolution of humanity begins with total unity, and just as total lack of reason: if one was to lose a finger, others would feel the pain, but wouldn't understand why. In order to develop reason, humanity descends into individualism. The extreme social division today is the sign of passing the midpoint of evolution when mind is fully developed, but the sense of unity is lost. After that the course of evolution will take us back, but we'll get to keep the skill of reasoning. Returning to the origin will be forced by shared hardships: the divisiveness will die off under their pressure.
> For some reason I'm a hard-core libertarian so I kind of hate my own core values. I'd even go so far as to acknowledge that my ideal world would be close to hell for most people. I don't want to be this way. I just seem to have a preference for it.
Honest question, have you ever considered this to be a legitimate data point that would act to falsify your hard-core libertarian values?
Offering your values as a gift still seems way too presumptuous.
I think you can express how you feel about things and why if someone's interested, or if they express their feelings first. Anything more than that is unwelcome to the vast majority of people.
The article is paywalls and I don’t have access. So I have to start by apologizing, since I’m commenting on something I haven’t actually read, but I think this is important. Many people wiser than I likely learned this sooner than I did, but they failed to tell me so I ended up learning it on my own, and I feel I would be remiss if I did not share.
The truth is, you cannot change the mind of another person. Only they can do that. All you can do is plant seeds, and be patient. If they were the right seeds, and planted in the right way, you may observe them growing but it takes time. Sometimes as little as hours or days, but often months or even years.
Every belief has a context it is built on. When you try to change a mind, it involves challenging that context, which is painful for most people. But contexts evolve as experiences are gained, so plant the seeds which will be watered best by those new experiences.
And as you do that, who knows? Maybe you will find seeds from someone else have taken root, and have grown into new beliefs you hold.
Try a less clear cut debate topic. One where intuition works against you.
Like the wave of anti-trans legislation and framing of our mere existence as grooming in red states. It's much harder to see the outright wrongness and evil.
It's easy with the Russians. We got propaganda pieces where the message to foreigners is always "we fight nazis in Ukraine" and the message inward is "we fight against having to go to pride parades and having our children turned gay by satanists". [1]
Now trans people? Hardly anyone bothers to read up on us, but we're the wedge anyhow. Even most democrats seem to have little interest in defending us beyond some surface level posturing. This debate solely exists to mobilize republican voters with a heavily framed appeal to their intuition and disgust reflex. We're just the next cataclysmic threat that can only be averted through national rebirth (hey, wanna make america great? again?). Because apparently CRT lost steam.
I think I earned the right to be cynical about both bloodsport-type debates and this "just be like, nice, dude" because the outcome of this debate has a really good chance at fucking up my life.
seems like the article is a cope about how to deal with anti-vaxxers. listen to their point of view, but offer the vaccine as a gift. as others have said, if you genuinely listened your mind may itself be changed, then you are now influenced by the 'misinformation'.
> Stop wielding your values as a weapon and start offering them as a gift.
It's about time this was put forth.
I've been screaming from the bottom of my lungs for ages that woke virtue signalling only makes enemies.
If you tell your opponent you're better than them, you're engaging in high school football rivalry. You'll never come to a meeting of the minds. It only makes the disagreement more bitter.
The left and the right, at the end of the day, really aren't that much different at all. There are only a few concepts we disagree upon. Yet we're engaging in petty team squabbles and letting the lizard parts of our brains turn it into tribalistic "us vs them".
An analogy, probably incorrect, is the hygiene hypothesis. An under-exposed immune system in a clean room learns to attack its host instead. Similarly, since we're not regularly engaging in tribe vs tribe, fighting off assailants that would throttle us in the night, or staying by the fire to stay away lions and bears, we turn that defense mechanism against those with different ideals.
At the end of the day, we're all suffering and dying together.
You have a great point. I think you could agree your point would have been made better without the cheap shot to score points against woke bogeymen.
To your point though, we need to stick together as humans, from every country, because the common person from China has more in common with the common person in America than either common person has with those in power trying to split us up by race and ideology. Divide and conquer doesn’t work if you don’t buy in to the divisions!
"woke virtue signaling" is the same thing that "political correctness" was ten years ago, right?
I mean, when I hear people complaining about "woke virtue signaling" I don't know what that means other than "being respectful" and "modeling good behavior".
If you're limiting that description to actual hypocrisy, then that's one thing. But in the absence of modeling good behavior, the only alternative is behavior that gets worse and worse. Because as soon as someone tries to stand up for a higher bar, it's "woke virtue signaling".
The phrase almost sounds like an incantation at this point, like it has no meaning other than to express a grievance.
Alternatively, after climbing past that initial resistance, joining in trying to raise the bar can actually be kind of fun, if the intent is more in improving one's own behavior than in just (hypocritically) judging others.
The idea that one side of the political discourse is engaging in "virtual signaling" and "wielding their values as weapons" is not a new one. Surprisingly enough, it is always the side that the disagrees with the author, that is totally disingenuous in the expression values, go figure.
> I’ve been screaming from the bottom of my lungs for ages that woke virtue signaling only makes enemies
That sentence right there makes me seriously skeptical of how well your conversations turn out, as well as how open minded you are when talking with people you disagree with.
I'm not following. The very term "woke virtue signaling" is itself a loaded, aggressive frame that is designed to "make enemies".
You don't think, to pick an example, that vegans eat vegan because they want to and not to signal to you? What's your solution for them to change your mind except to... eat meat with you in solidarity I guess?
The point being that what you're picking up as "virtue signaling" is largely in your own interpretation. Most of the hippies are just living their lives. But yeah, sometimes that involves being trans or gay or whatever in a way that isn't invisible to you.
[+] [-] jondeval|3 years ago|reply
When you meet people like this there are no 'tactics' ... it's just about presenting the truth in good faith as you see it and listening actively to understand their point of view.
The problem I encounter is that many people posture as 'open-minded', but in reality they want to hear your opinion for the same reason an opponent wants you to show your cards after they've folded to a successful poker bluff. In this case it simply tells them "what side you're on" or "which tribe you belong to".
As a heuristic, I've found it's very difficult to formulate thoughtful questions if you're not genuinely curious about a topic. Therefore, I tend to use the 'questioning level of thoughtfulness' (QLOT) of my discussion partner as the signal of whether or not I'm dealing with someone who desires a good faith discussion.
[+] [-] oceanplexian|3 years ago|reply
I will argue with tactics, but it’s not necessarily out of bad faith. Usually people are terrible at having an open-minded conversation, and you need to peel back the layers because most individuals won’t tell you why they believe something.
You’ll get all these canned responses and talking points from mainstream media (Or, if we’re talking about technology, the analog would be taking points from a particular corporation or vendor). But people won’t outright say “I don’t agree with that policy because I don’t trust that person” or “I got screwed over by a traumatic experience with X therefore I’m against X”. Most people aren’t capable of engaging on that level without a great deal of emotional maturity; of course, we’re far away from reality and facts at this point but humans are emotional creatures and emotion drives our decision making.
[+] [-] black_puppydog|3 years ago|reply
I didn't particularly like the premise of the article, which seems to be that the goal is to change the other's mind. But think about it, what could be more beneficial to me than having an argument that changes my mind? If I convince someone of my opinion (whether by "weapon" or by "gift") then they learned something (ideally...) but if I change my mind thanks to the conversation, then I just learned something, I got to make that improvement to myself.
A day where nobody changed your mind is a day of stagnation.
[+] [-] stefandesu|3 years ago|reply
(I guess for me, "thoughtfulness" requires putting thought into something, and if I'm actively participating in a conversation, I can't do that. It's way easier if I have already invested time into the topic at hand at some point beforehand.)
[+] [-] mozey|3 years ago|reply
That's easier to do if participants have aligned interests and desires. Harder when communicating with someone that is very different from yourself. In that case it's productive if the discussion is approached with patience as a learning experience. Without suspicions that the other person is only learning about you so their tribe can use it against you later.
[+] [-] lapcat|3 years ago|reply
I spent years as a graduate student in a philosophy PhD program, and what I found is that, essentially, no professional philosopher changes any other professional philosopher's mind about anything important, ever. We're just endlessly arguing. Intelligently, usually respectfully arguing, but accomplishing nothing, getting nowhere. And philosophers are supposed to be, at least nominally, the most "rational" among us.
This is not to say that philosophers never change their minds: they occasionally do. But not as a result of arguing! It's usually more self-correction than other-correction.
I think it's better to read books than to argue. There's less personal ego involved, because you can "engage" with the author of a book in a way that's not like a sporting event. There's no winner and loser. You don't have to admit to the author that you were wrong, because you never even have to talk to the author, and the author will probably never even know that you read the book. You're almost forced to argue with yourself in this situation. You can change your own mind even if you can't change other minds.
[+] [-] adrianN|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minifridge|3 years ago|reply
Definitely, debate for the shake of debate feels like an excercise for the philosopher rather than identifying why different views exist and where these fall short. In the long term, it may lead to change of the philosopher. Given everybody keeps an open mind, I don't think that this is necessary a bad thing.
[+] [-] mozey|3 years ago|reply
So, as a rational philosopher you're not trying to express an absolute truth that is generally applicable. Rather, you're iterating towards the most accurate and appropriate expression of yourself. Hmm, I think I've heard that philosophy before... existentialism?
[+] [-] gverrilla|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rickdicker|3 years ago|reply
Here's a good trick I picked up for discussing contentious things - if you're ever tempted to dish out a sick burn, try to rephrase the point into a genuine question. Then the other person will have to walk through the logic of it, and if it turns out there is a real logic to their side of things, you don't get your ego bruised, cause you just asked a genuine question.
[+] [-] goethes_kind|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikepurvis|3 years ago|reply
And yes, achieving that result on a global scale may well involve the construction of a bunch of new oil and gas infrastructure in places like Africa and South America— well meaning westerners should focus on what can be done at home to reduce, and stop protesting exactly the kind of thing that helps more people enter the middle class.
[+] [-] woojoo666|3 years ago|reply
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
[+] [-] rufus_foreman|3 years ago|reply
It's about reality.
I'm reading the things people write, I'm looking at the arguments they make, and they make no sense. None.
That's what this is about.
Am I going insane? Or is it "them"?
[+] [-] swayvil|3 years ago|reply
Our #1 tool for that is drugs. So cheap and convenient. #2 is video entertainment, but that's a bit shallow and ephemeral. #3 is what... raucous demonstrations?
And speaking of demonstrations, you can't beat "scientific culture" for having a pre-existing setup for managing the "changing philosophies by changing perspectives" process. But most of us aren't scientists. (Or squishy, openminded experimentalists, even)
[+] [-] 2devnull|3 years ago|reply
Melzer writes: “Just as education must begin by addressing the student where he is, so, as he learns and changes, it must stay with him. The internal or dialectical critique of received opinion takes place not in a single stroke but in a series of successive approximations to the truth, each of which will seem in its time to be the final one.”
[+] [-] imgabe|3 years ago|reply
If your values are so great, live them. Show by example why your values are the best way to live, by emobdying them and having an enviable life that people want to emulate. I think that would change far more minds than arguing.
[+] [-] andsoitis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _gabe_|3 years ago|reply
While I get what the author is trying to say here, this doesn't feel like a great analogy to me. If I'm not attached to my beliefs, wouldn't that make me aloof? Most people's beliefs are their identity. And if you detach yourself from your beliefs, it's almost like you're trying to detach yourself from self. It feels like a very relativistic mindset, which is fine, but antithetical to some worldviews.
[+] [-] raydiatian|3 years ago|reply
This is incredibly spot on. I might even say it differently as
“Stop treating your values as an indication of your superiority, and start treating them as a relatable story of growth.”
A lot (I mean a lot) of people I talk with are constantly trying to put on a display of how what they are is some kind of superior way of being. And it’s impossible to listen to them because they’re speaking with a childish “I’m this and your not” way of thinking.
[+] [-] sega_sai|3 years ago|reply
* We can agree and disagree about the facts. This is the worst case and it is probably not worth discussing and try to change someone's mind if we disagree about basic facts.
* One can discuss the logic/deduction that goes from these facts. That's probably the most meaningful thing to discuss and one can try to change somebody's mind on that.
* People have different value systems (i.e. what's important for the society and how much). And here there is no right or wrong. At best one can agree that our values are different, and it can be worth discussing (but likely nobody will change their mind)
[+] [-] bee_rider|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zopa|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blondin|3 years ago|reply
are we happier now that we can reach millions of minds? or were we happier with smaller circles of family and friends? is there a great injustice that needs each and every one of us to play the persuasion game?
[+] [-] sammalloy|3 years ago|reply
> Empathetic listening, of course, is an act of generosity—a gift
It really works. I’ve had people come up to me, years later, to tell me how much they valued me listening to them, even though we are on opposite sides of the value spectrum.
[+] [-] kypro|3 years ago|reply
For some reason I'm a hard-core libertarian so I kind of hate my own core values. I'd even go so far as to acknowledge that my ideal world would be close to hell for most people. I don't want to be this way. I just seem to have a preference for it.
I realised several years ago that if I ever got my own way it would make the world objectively a worse place for the average person to live and therefore I have an ethical duty to vote against my own self interest and instead try to vote for what I believe is in the interest of the collective good.
I think a lot of political division we see today just stems of a lack of empathy and understanding. Instead of trying to find ways we can compromise and share this Earth together we seek to force our own values on to others. And this seems to be true at all levels of society, from Twitter debates about trans rights, to democracy vs autocracy debates at the level of nation states.
Plus I think most disagreements we have can generally be solved with more localism and secessionism. Here in the UK for example I don't know why I don't just let Muslim communities practise Sharia law if they wish and allow communities who dislike immigration set their own rules on who is and isn't allowed to live there. But like I say, I know people disagree with me on these things.
[+] [-] gnramires|3 years ago|reply
Aren't you being a sort of "preference fatalist"? Do you think it's impossible to change preferences?
Maybe a good place to start would be to research people who have changed preferences. I think motivation is not the mythical black box that oms people ascribe to. We're motivated by cognitive processes and experiences. If we expose ourselves to different experiences and try to see value in different things, our brain can adapt and start saying "Okay, this thing I didn't find motivating is getting motivating!" -- motivation is built by yourself. I call this concept "freedom of utility" -- you're free to choose what to care about; although of course there are limits to the flexibility of some of our instincts for various reasons related to just being limited, finite beings overall.
(I'm speaking of the general issue of changing values and changing your mind -- hopefully not too personal)
In your case, I think at a level you've already adopted different values (which I think is admirable and necessary for humans to achieve a good existence), but you're finding it hard reconciling your various intuitions and various rational thoughts. I think it's a slow process, but we should let the truth and what we ultimately find genuinely best win -- discuss it with other people, think about it, test its consequences (in real life or thought), this is how you change your mind.
[+] [-] cgrealy|3 years ago|reply
A simple example of this would be abortion.
[+] [-] peacefulhat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akomtu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dr_dshiv|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jondeval|3 years ago|reply
Honest question, have you ever considered this to be a legitimate data point that would act to falsify your hard-core libertarian values?
[+] [-] civilized|3 years ago|reply
I think you can express how you feel about things and why if someone's interested, or if they express their feelings first. Anything more than that is unwelcome to the vast majority of people.
[+] [-] tacitusarc|3 years ago|reply
The truth is, you cannot change the mind of another person. Only they can do that. All you can do is plant seeds, and be patient. If they were the right seeds, and planted in the right way, you may observe them growing but it takes time. Sometimes as little as hours or days, but often months or even years.
Every belief has a context it is built on. When you try to change a mind, it involves challenging that context, which is painful for most people. But contexts evolve as experiences are gained, so plant the seeds which will be watered best by those new experiences.
And as you do that, who knows? Maybe you will find seeds from someone else have taken root, and have grown into new beliefs you hold.
[+] [-] paulpauper|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wnscooke|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saghm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Giorgi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sascha_sl|3 years ago|reply
Like the wave of anti-trans legislation and framing of our mere existence as grooming in red states. It's much harder to see the outright wrongness and evil.
It's easy with the Russians. We got propaganda pieces where the message to foreigners is always "we fight nazis in Ukraine" and the message inward is "we fight against having to go to pride parades and having our children turned gay by satanists". [1]
Now trans people? Hardly anyone bothers to read up on us, but we're the wedge anyhow. Even most democrats seem to have little interest in defending us beyond some surface level posturing. This debate solely exists to mobilize republican voters with a heavily framed appeal to their intuition and disgust reflex. We're just the next cataclysmic threat that can only be averted through national rebirth (hey, wanna make america great? again?). Because apparently CRT lost steam.
I think I earned the right to be cynical about both bloodsport-type debates and this "just be like, nice, dude" because the outcome of this debate has a really good chance at fucking up my life.
[1]: https://twitter.com/KateGoesTech/status/1580141225138536450
[+] [-] uwagar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] echelon|3 years ago|reply
It's about time this was put forth.
I've been screaming from the bottom of my lungs for ages that woke virtue signalling only makes enemies.
If you tell your opponent you're better than them, you're engaging in high school football rivalry. You'll never come to a meeting of the minds. It only makes the disagreement more bitter.
The left and the right, at the end of the day, really aren't that much different at all. There are only a few concepts we disagree upon. Yet we're engaging in petty team squabbles and letting the lizard parts of our brains turn it into tribalistic "us vs them".
An analogy, probably incorrect, is the hygiene hypothesis. An under-exposed immune system in a clean room learns to attack its host instead. Similarly, since we're not regularly engaging in tribe vs tribe, fighting off assailants that would throttle us in the night, or staying by the fire to stay away lions and bears, we turn that defense mechanism against those with different ideals.
At the end of the day, we're all suffering and dying together.
[+] [-] ok_dad|3 years ago|reply
To your point though, we need to stick together as humans, from every country, because the common person from China has more in common with the common person in America than either common person has with those in power trying to split us up by race and ideology. Divide and conquer doesn’t work if you don’t buy in to the divisions!
[+] [-] tunesmith|3 years ago|reply
I mean, when I hear people complaining about "woke virtue signaling" I don't know what that means other than "being respectful" and "modeling good behavior".
If you're limiting that description to actual hypocrisy, then that's one thing. But in the absence of modeling good behavior, the only alternative is behavior that gets worse and worse. Because as soon as someone tries to stand up for a higher bar, it's "woke virtue signaling".
The phrase almost sounds like an incantation at this point, like it has no meaning other than to express a grievance.
Alternatively, after climbing past that initial resistance, joining in trying to raise the bar can actually be kind of fun, if the intent is more in improving one's own behavior than in just (hypocritically) judging others.
[+] [-] bee_rider|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tchaffee|3 years ago|reply
> tell your opponent you're better than them.
You just did the latter. By assuming your opponents are not sincere in the former.
[+] [-] Forgeties79|3 years ago|reply
That sentence right there makes me seriously skeptical of how well your conversations turn out, as well as how open minded you are when talking with people you disagree with.
[+] [-] ajross|3 years ago|reply
I'm not following. The very term "woke virtue signaling" is itself a loaded, aggressive frame that is designed to "make enemies".
You don't think, to pick an example, that vegans eat vegan because they want to and not to signal to you? What's your solution for them to change your mind except to... eat meat with you in solidarity I guess?
The point being that what you're picking up as "virtue signaling" is largely in your own interpretation. Most of the hippies are just living their lives. But yeah, sometimes that involves being trans or gay or whatever in a way that isn't invisible to you.
[+] [-] boplicity|3 years ago|reply
There you go.
[+] [-] tdeck|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]