Oddly, I thought this discussion would be about actual toddlers.
There is a way to win an argument with a toddler. You find out what's bothering them, usually something emotional, and you validate it. "Yes! It's fun to stay up late! Yes! You don't want to eat your vegetables!" Once they feel heard, you've got a shot at getting them to do what you want.
That's a good way to win an argument with a non-toddler as well. Acknowledge that what they want is legitimate (if it is). Concede points of agreement. Talk about shared goals. Only then talk about a different path to the solution.
> find out what's bothering them, usually something emotional, and you validate it
This is a common refrain of counselors and the field of psychology in general, and yet I can't help but think there's some selection bias at play with regard to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice and how well the advice actually works.
Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
(I do understand however that some people prefer this validation, and if that's what they want, then sure, I'll attempt to do that.)
We have been redirecting our toddler pretty successfully in most “conflict” situations. Instead of telling him what he can’t do, give him a few options of things he can do. It’s not appropriate for all situations but a great strategy for drawing focus away from whatever is causing contention.
My parents did that; they managed to win the "go to bed at a reasonable time" argument, but never were terribly successful with the "eating vegetables" one. It didn't help that my dad almost never ate vegetables and even fairly young I was able to point out the hypocrisy.
I still don't eat a lot of vegetables; my health vitals are generally fine when I do bloodwork, as is my heart health when I get that checked so hopefully I don't end up in an early grave.
I'm lucky enough that I get to take my tyke to the zoo 5 days a week and while I agree with your take, I also have seen enough of the parents making the mistake outlined in the original post to know that it was actually talking about toddlers.
You would be shocked to see how many supposed adults engage in one sided arguments with crying children, usually centered on the parents feelings.
What's a different path to the solution of getting a kid to eat vegetables and go to bed? I'd say if you can get them to freely choose to do those, then you've won the argument. If it comes down to the equivalent of telling them "because I say so" in such a positive and constructive way that they don't freak out, you haven't won an argument. You have gotten what you wanted, but not by winning an argument, because the kid's opinion didn't change, just their response.
Now, what you're talking about is an extremely valuable skill—much more valuable than trying to argue with toddlers—but it's not the same thing in my opinion.
this reminds me of something that happened to me just yesterday:
i was at the playground, trying to convince my daughter to go down the slide on her own.
She kept saying it was too scary, so I went down first to show her it wasnt scary. Then, still not convinced, she said there were monsters in the slide! I, of course, told her I got rid of them on the way down. She pondered for a moment, then decided it wasn't so scary anymore. Shortly thereafter she went down the slide herself!
It was a funny, insightful moment, negotiating her fears without invalidating them.
I usually talked with my toddlers asking them "why"? Why do you want to stay late? why don't you want to eat carrots?
They were usually thinking about trading and I was patiently waiting.
They do not like carrots (me neither btw), ok, so you get to pick a vegetable.
They want to play longer, ok, you play in your bed. Etc.
Of course this did not work all the time, especially when I was tired and maybe not that patient so more traditional ways of persuasion were used (no, nothing violent, just "do it because I said so")
And more than that is how much of my truth (not absolute truth, if such thing exists, but my point of view) I want to give up to enter a common territory to discuss.
Even in engineering it's important for people to understand what people want and to make sure people feel heard and validated. I've found that especially when dealing with people up the management chain understanding what they want and even using the techniques you describe is very effective. My experience is that pretty much everyone, but especially people in engineering fields and data driven science fields (me included), vastly overestimates how "logical" they are. At the end of the day we are all just a species of ape
As a parent, I often found that if I actually explained why instead of the usual "Because I told you so", then I got a lot further in making them rationally arrive at the right behavior themselves (as toddlers are wont to do). I suspect that the "I told you so", not only does it completely nullify their desire but it also forces them to accept not learning and hurts their pride (which is where the tantrum comes from). These are undesirable outcomes and since parents use this trick all the time, it leads to learned behavior. Disclaimer: This is just my own analysis and I know there are times when it's too challenging to do this but it's a principle you have to focus on.
This is only useful if the person is arguing in good faith, something a quick listen to Nick Ferrari, Nigel Farage, Ben Shapiro or any other shock jock will quickly disabuse you of.
Nobody ever changes their opinion on things with anything remotely like a high degree of frequency, and that's not a particularly bad thing. The "real" point of an argument is not to persuade the other side (though that is what you aspire to nonetheless) but to exchange views, and often to indirectly explore your own views more deeply, at least in the scenario where your 'partner' can bring up something you weren't aware of.
Our views actually shifting is something that only happens over many years and often for reasons we aren't really in control of. Me of 10 years ago would vehemently disagree with me of today on many things, and there's probably pretty much no argument I could have engaged with him to persuade him of what I obviously think are 'more correct' views. It required, most of all, life experience that isn't going to be able to be communicated with words. If it were we'd all have the wisdom of a man who'd lived for millennia. And if not all of us, then at least somebody - but that somebody doesn't exist.
One who wants to debate while rejecting the real state of mankind is oft going to just find themselves in an echo chamber.
One of the surprising benefits of raising a toddler is gaining the ability to instantly tell when another adult has fallen into a "toddler-like" state (myself included!).
Before having kids, I would try and explain someone's behavior in a logical sense.
Toddlers, however, are mostly driven by their current physical needs (hungry/sleepy) and whatever they're currently doing (autonomy).
We've found the most success in avoiding all boolean questions. Do you want to read a book? (when playing with trains before bedtime) Obvious no!
Do you want to read this book or that book? Oh... a decision!
It's striking how well tactics like these work outside the realm of toddlers.
We had a VP make a similar observation during an all hands. In the following all hands, he had to apologize because people felt they were being insulted by being compared to kids. The irony of the situation was not lost on some of us
illusion of choice is extremely effective on c-suite as well. I recommend it for engineers trying to push changes up corporate ladders. Give them three options, the one nobody should ever do, the compromise solution, and the "whale" option. Just like product pricing.
For very young toddlers distraction is also extremely effective but it stops working at some point. Not sure about how effective it is on c-suite someone will have to do some testing.
Ideas in general are difficult to express and people struggle with conveying them separately from their private ideas, personal experiences, and personal reasons for believing what they believe.
If you want to be a good interlocutor, you have to deeply absorb what the other person is thinking and sometimes even help them develop their understanding with the hope that others can do the same for you. We are all toddlers at times.
It's why I found platforms like Twitter tended to have such volatility because the platform structure itself takes every opportunity to remove that charitibility.
If you come across an argument, people are writing in a limited space, you're presented with the most engaged with replies first (i.e. either towing the party line best or the most inflammatory opposition), accounts are pseudonymous, and your performance is numerically displayed below the post.
There's a downside to loosening up the mental resistance to mind-changing - you're more susceptible to cult indoctrination.
You can look no further than the Rationalist community who have internalized this to such a degree that cults are endemic to the community. Sure, there's positives to being open to changing one's beliefs, but like all advice, it's contextual. Some people probably do need to loosen up, but they are the least likely to do so. Those who hold their beliefs too loosely, could stand to tighten that knot a little more.
> If you’re not changing your mind, it’s likely you’re not actually having an argument
If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could be changed) why would you have an argument about it in the first place? Discussing the already settled is rather boring. Unless one is grandstanding for some other purpose, people move on once they've made up their mind. They don't keep exploring the same ideas over and over and over again once they've settled.
Argument is there to explore that to which you have not yet made a mind. Your mind won't change because there is no basis on which to change from.
"What would it take to convince you otherwise" is a question I've asked in the past, but I'm less and less convinced of its utility.
If the counterparty knew the answer to that, they would sit down with Google, not engage in an argument. Debate is mainly information sharing, but also to some degree about exploring the answer to that question.
Totally unrelated, but this reminds me of my favorite title of a math article: "How often should you beat your kids?" (it's about a certain simple combinatorial game)
(My favorite line: "Levasseur analyzes the game and shows that on average you will have a score of n + (sqrt(pn) - 1)/2 + O(1/sqrt(n)) while the kid will have exactly n. We maintain, however, that only the most degenerate parent would play against a two-year-old for money, so the question should be not by how much you expect to win, but with what probability you will win at all.")
> An argument, though, is an exchange of ideas that ought to surface insight and lead to a conclusion.
That's one definition, I suppose, but it's not the definition you'll find in any dictionary I've seen. The author here seems to be assuming that the only valid reason to argue is to learn. People argue for many reasons other than that.
> If you’re regularly having arguments with well-informed people of goodwill, you will probably ‘lose’ half of them–changing your mind based on what you’ve learned
Again, the author's unspoken presupposition begs to be questioned. Why do most people actually argue in the public sphere? For instance, why do we have presidential debates? The candidates certainly aren't there to learn. They are not even trying to persuade their debate partner. They are arguing to convince or persuade their viewers of something. These could be undecided viewers, or they could be viewers who have already made up their mind but may either feel strengthened about their beliefs or weakened after listening.
Similarly, if I'm debating someone online, it's often less to convince that person and more to convince anyone else who might be reading. I have heard of people in real life who have read debates I've engaged in and expressed both gratitude for my willingness to do so and that they were strengthened in their beliefs on the subject.
There are many kinds of arguments. Some arguments are psychological, not related to "winning" but understanding what makes the interlocutor tick.
The article is formulaic. It doesn't make it inherently bad.
The presenting of a persona interaction, followed by a recipe on how to deal with that, is one of those discussion tricks. Whoever answers must put itself in either the toddler's position or the adult position. Both positions are disfavorable (they're flat stereotypes)
The author is actually playing neither, it is acting as an "overseer" of silly toddlers and silly adults that engage in arguments all wrong.
It is a curious thing how far these things went.
Tantrums can happen for all kinds of reasons, and adults can engage in fruitless argument for all kinds of reasons too. It's a human thing. Sometimes, even in perfectly reasonable discussions, no one learns anything. That is also a human thing.
Changing one's point of view is something dramatic. To expect that in an argument is unreasonable, it's too high of a goal.
Just making the other part understand the subject is a lesser, more attainable objective. They don't need to agree. Sometimes I feel glad when I notice that the other part found the core of the discussion, even if they are in opposition to my view. It means that they understood the subject, which is something rare these days.
> Toddlers (which includes defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts) may indicate that they’d like to have an argument, but they’re actually engaging in connection, noise, play acting or a chance to earn status. It can be fun to be in opposition, to harangue or even to use power to change someone’s position.
Honestly, this article is now very good, because he doesn't seem to realize one of the most common reasons for "folks committed to a specific agenda" to play-act an "argument" (or a "discussion" or a "conversion") is persuasion, and not any of the other childish things he outlines.
Maybe he spends to much time in immature online spaces.
It's very hard to make someone else change his mind, even with the best arguments. See all the Russians believing they are freeing Ukraine from nazi, even when told the cold true facts it takes weeks of constant discussion to get them to actually understand it's all propaganda.
And that's something that is quite easily dismissible.
When I care enough about someone, first of all all I don't make a point to change their mind but think of having a discussion like a way to enrich both knowledge and point of views, at the end it's not the result but the journey that's interesting. How both people develop and adapt their reasoning to arguments.
Of course you got to be two willing people to make that happen, won't ever happen on Twitter for instance.
And if I'm dealing with someone who believe something completely and utterly stupid by all standards, like the earth is flat, and I need to change his mind. The best way is to plant a seed, listen to his reasoning, think of something that doesn't fit in his story but also can't be felt as aggressive. For instance, with flat earther, I would ask, looking interested what the edge of the earth look like then. If he can show me.
I gave up trying to change people’s mind in this widely divided world.
For starters, I will be arguing with a dozen of “social media influencers” who shaped the opinion and identity of my opponent.
And in the end, most people are not really interested in changing their opinion. They want me to change mine, or validate theirs, but would conveniently dismiss anything that does not match their world view.
I have a sort of recipe for openly discussing disagreements with someone:
1. Demonstrate that you understand their point, and concede ground where necessary (what you think is attractive about what they are saying, what it explains well, etc)
2. Explain (not tell) why it is that in spite of that, you don't hold the position they do (maybe it leads to some other conclusion, maybe there's another core principle at work)
3. Ask, with genuine curiosity, what they think about the problem you raised, how to they resolve it in their mind?
I don't think that'll necessarily make you more likely to change their mind, but you'll certainly be more likely to learn something.
And if they aren't actually interested in discussing, and are just engaging in some kind of show boating etc, it will become immediately clear because you are only leaving open the possibility of curious, open dialogue.
I often ask, "what new fact could change my opinion about this?" it isn't a simple question. it requires you go upstream of your opinion and consider why or what caused you to think it, and then ask -even upstream of that- if there is some principle or axiom that is yielding an interpretation of that cause.
questions like: would I still think this if I were happier; do I have a belief about my status that the circumstances do not reflect; do I share an ontology with this being at all; do I fear other consequences of agreeing with them?
the irony of authority is it usually means dealing with someone who doesn't have the authority to compromise, and if you don't humiliate them for this fact that hangs over everything they do, they will often at least use their discretion.
This post captures very well some mechanisms I learned about in the past years, the psychological mechanisms behind the behavior that people show towards people going through a high-risk pregnancy in a SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
[+] [-] ccleve|11 months ago|reply
There is a way to win an argument with a toddler. You find out what's bothering them, usually something emotional, and you validate it. "Yes! It's fun to stay up late! Yes! You don't want to eat your vegetables!" Once they feel heard, you've got a shot at getting them to do what you want.
That's a good way to win an argument with a non-toddler as well. Acknowledge that what they want is legitimate (if it is). Concede points of agreement. Talk about shared goals. Only then talk about a different path to the solution.
[+] [-] Xcelerate|11 months ago|reply
This is a common refrain of counselors and the field of psychology in general, and yet I can't help but think there's some selection bias at play with regard to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice and how well the advice actually works.
Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
(I do understand however that some people prefer this validation, and if that's what they want, then sure, I'll attempt to do that.)
[+] [-] tmountain|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Tade0|11 months ago|reply
Also there's the realisation that I've been effectively treated like one much more often than I would like to admit.
[+] [-] tombert|11 months ago|reply
I still don't eat a lot of vegetables; my health vitals are generally fine when I do bloodwork, as is my heart health when I get that checked so hopefully I don't end up in an early grave.
[+] [-] elif|11 months ago|reply
You would be shocked to see how many supposed adults engage in one sided arguments with crying children, usually centered on the parents feelings.
[+] [-] karaterobot|11 months ago|reply
Now, what you're talking about is an extremely valuable skill—much more valuable than trying to argue with toddlers—but it's not the same thing in my opinion.
[+] [-] helle253|11 months ago|reply
i was at the playground, trying to convince my daughter to go down the slide on her own.
She kept saying it was too scary, so I went down first to show her it wasnt scary. Then, still not convinced, she said there were monsters in the slide! I, of course, told her I got rid of them on the way down. She pondered for a moment, then decided it wasn't so scary anymore. Shortly thereafter she went down the slide herself!
It was a funny, insightful moment, negotiating her fears without invalidating them.
[+] [-] BrandoElFollito|11 months ago|reply
They were usually thinking about trading and I was patiently waiting.
They do not like carrots (me neither btw), ok, so you get to pick a vegetable.
They want to play longer, ok, you play in your bed. Etc.
Of course this did not work all the time, especially when I was tired and maybe not that patient so more traditional ways of persuasion were used (no, nothing violent, just "do it because I said so")
[+] [-] melenaboija|11 months ago|reply
This is the crux to me.
And more than that is how much of my truth (not absolute truth, if such thing exists, but my point of view) I want to give up to enter a common territory to discuss.
[+] [-] jvanderbot|11 months ago|reply
"Yeah, vegetables are kinda yucky, how about just the corn, then we can go play after"
I also feel like "deals" are basically how the world works. Positive and negative deals clearly stated.
[+] [-] tdb7893|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] card_zero|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MadcapJake|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] aredox|11 months ago|reply
Now imagine your toddler never grows, and you are stuck with it. You many years will you resist before you strangle it?
[+] [-] unknown|11 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kristianc|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bloomingeek|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] subpixel|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] scott_w|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] brainzap|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] zeroc8|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] nswest23|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mik09|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] budmichstelk|11 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ninetyninenine|11 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] somenameforme|11 months ago|reply
Our views actually shifting is something that only happens over many years and often for reasons we aren't really in control of. Me of 10 years ago would vehemently disagree with me of today on many things, and there's probably pretty much no argument I could have engaged with him to persuade him of what I obviously think are 'more correct' views. It required, most of all, life experience that isn't going to be able to be communicated with words. If it were we'd all have the wisdom of a man who'd lived for millennia. And if not all of us, then at least somebody - but that somebody doesn't exist.
One who wants to debate while rejecting the real state of mankind is oft going to just find themselves in an echo chamber.
[+] [-] jumploops|11 months ago|reply
Before having kids, I would try and explain someone's behavior in a logical sense.
Toddlers, however, are mostly driven by their current physical needs (hungry/sleepy) and whatever they're currently doing (autonomy).
We've found the most success in avoiding all boolean questions. Do you want to read a book? (when playing with trains before bedtime) Obvious no!
Do you want to read this book or that book? Oh... a decision!
It's striking how well tactics like these work outside the realm of toddlers.
[+] [-] sethammons|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Quarrelsome|11 months ago|reply
For very young toddlers distraction is also extremely effective but it stops working at some point. Not sure about how effective it is on c-suite someone will have to do some testing.
[+] [-] speak_plainly|11 months ago|reply
Ideas in general are difficult to express and people struggle with conveying them separately from their private ideas, personal experiences, and personal reasons for believing what they believe.
If you want to be a good interlocutor, you have to deeply absorb what the other person is thinking and sometimes even help them develop their understanding with the hope that others can do the same for you. We are all toddlers at times.
[+] [-] cryptopian|11 months ago|reply
If you come across an argument, people are writing in a limited space, you're presented with the most engaged with replies first (i.e. either towing the party line best or the most inflammatory opposition), accounts are pseudonymous, and your performance is numerically displayed below the post.
[+] [-] LiquidSky|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] prvc|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] kelseyfrog|11 months ago|reply
You can look no further than the Rationalist community who have internalized this to such a degree that cults are endemic to the community. Sure, there's positives to being open to changing one's beliefs, but like all advice, it's contextual. Some people probably do need to loosen up, but they are the least likely to do so. Those who hold their beliefs too loosely, could stand to tighten that knot a little more.
[+] [-] 9rx|11 months ago|reply
If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could be changed) why would you have an argument about it in the first place? Discussing the already settled is rather boring. Unless one is grandstanding for some other purpose, people move on once they've made up their mind. They don't keep exploring the same ideas over and over and over again once they've settled.
Argument is there to explore that to which you have not yet made a mind. Your mind won't change because there is no basis on which to change from.
[+] [-] kqr|11 months ago|reply
If the counterparty knew the answer to that, they would sit down with Google, not engage in an argument. Debate is mainly information sharing, but also to some degree about exploring the answer to that question.
[+] [-] MathMonkeyMan|11 months ago|reply
Fair point, but if somebody were actually to say that to me during a disagreement, I would assume that they were not acting in good faith.
Now instead of disagreeing about politics or whatever, you're asking a rhetorical question that insinuates "you are unreasonable."
[+] [-] woopwoop|11 months ago|reply
https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/zagier/files/math-mag/63-2/f...
(My favorite line: "Levasseur analyzes the game and shows that on average you will have a score of n + (sqrt(pn) - 1)/2 + O(1/sqrt(n)) while the kid will have exactly n. We maintain, however, that only the most degenerate parent would play against a two-year-old for money, so the question should be not by how much you expect to win, but with what probability you will win at all.")
[+] [-] PathOfEclipse|11 months ago|reply
That's one definition, I suppose, but it's not the definition you'll find in any dictionary I've seen. The author here seems to be assuming that the only valid reason to argue is to learn. People argue for many reasons other than that.
> If you’re regularly having arguments with well-informed people of goodwill, you will probably ‘lose’ half of them–changing your mind based on what you’ve learned
Again, the author's unspoken presupposition begs to be questioned. Why do most people actually argue in the public sphere? For instance, why do we have presidential debates? The candidates certainly aren't there to learn. They are not even trying to persuade their debate partner. They are arguing to convince or persuade their viewers of something. These could be undecided viewers, or they could be viewers who have already made up their mind but may either feel strengthened about their beliefs or weakened after listening.
Similarly, if I'm debating someone online, it's often less to convince that person and more to convince anyone else who might be reading. I have heard of people in real life who have read debates I've engaged in and expressed both gratitude for my willingness to do so and that they were strengthened in their beliefs on the subject.
[+] [-] alganet|11 months ago|reply
The article is formulaic. It doesn't make it inherently bad.
The presenting of a persona interaction, followed by a recipe on how to deal with that, is one of those discussion tricks. Whoever answers must put itself in either the toddler's position or the adult position. Both positions are disfavorable (they're flat stereotypes)
The author is actually playing neither, it is acting as an "overseer" of silly toddlers and silly adults that engage in arguments all wrong.
It is a curious thing how far these things went.
Tantrums can happen for all kinds of reasons, and adults can engage in fruitless argument for all kinds of reasons too. It's a human thing. Sometimes, even in perfectly reasonable discussions, no one learns anything. That is also a human thing.
Changing one's point of view is something dramatic. To expect that in an argument is unreasonable, it's too high of a goal.
Just making the other part understand the subject is a lesser, more attainable objective. They don't need to agree. Sometimes I feel glad when I notice that the other part found the core of the discussion, even if they are in opposition to my view. It means that they understood the subject, which is something rare these days.
[+] [-] palmotea|11 months ago|reply
Honestly, this article is now very good, because he doesn't seem to realize one of the most common reasons for "folks committed to a specific agenda" to play-act an "argument" (or a "discussion" or a "conversion") is persuasion, and not any of the other childish things he outlines.
Maybe he spends to much time in immature online spaces.
[+] [-] jvilalta|11 months ago|reply
Also maybe useful for talking to middle aged toddlers.
[+] [-] aucisson_masque|11 months ago|reply
And that's something that is quite easily dismissible.
When I care enough about someone, first of all all I don't make a point to change their mind but think of having a discussion like a way to enrich both knowledge and point of views, at the end it's not the result but the journey that's interesting. How both people develop and adapt their reasoning to arguments.
Of course you got to be two willing people to make that happen, won't ever happen on Twitter for instance.
And if I'm dealing with someone who believe something completely and utterly stupid by all standards, like the earth is flat, and I need to change his mind. The best way is to plant a seed, listen to his reasoning, think of something that doesn't fit in his story but also can't be felt as aggressive. For instance, with flat earther, I would ask, looking interested what the edge of the earth look like then. If he can show me.
[+] [-] skwee357|11 months ago|reply
For starters, I will be arguing with a dozen of “social media influencers” who shaped the opinion and identity of my opponent.
And in the end, most people are not really interested in changing their opinion. They want me to change mine, or validate theirs, but would conveniently dismiss anything that does not match their world view.
[+] [-] benrutter|11 months ago|reply
1. Demonstrate that you understand their point, and concede ground where necessary (what you think is attractive about what they are saying, what it explains well, etc)
2. Explain (not tell) why it is that in spite of that, you don't hold the position they do (maybe it leads to some other conclusion, maybe there's another core principle at work)
3. Ask, with genuine curiosity, what they think about the problem you raised, how to they resolve it in their mind?
I don't think that'll necessarily make you more likely to change their mind, but you'll certainly be more likely to learn something.
And if they aren't actually interested in discussing, and are just engaging in some kind of show boating etc, it will become immediately clear because you are only leaving open the possibility of curious, open dialogue.
[+] [-] motohagiography|11 months ago|reply
questions like: would I still think this if I were happier; do I have a belief about my status that the circumstances do not reflect; do I share an ontology with this being at all; do I fear other consequences of agreeing with them?
the irony of authority is it usually means dealing with someone who doesn't have the authority to compromise, and if you don't humiliate them for this fact that hangs over everything they do, they will often at least use their discretion.
[+] [-] henlobenlo|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] AnthonBerg|11 months ago|reply
To my great surprise.