3 ms·

All of the above reasons are why I stopped engaging with the aforementioned "natural fallacy" folks long ago. It's painful, and seems to get nowhere regardless

All of the above reasons are why I stopped engaging with the aforementioned "natural fallacy" folks long ago. It's painful, and seems to get nowhere regardless of how many facts are throw at them.

grzm 10y ago
"seems to get nowhere regardless of how many facts are throw at them." If you're engaging someone who doesn't agree with you on an issue, purely throwing facts at them is very unlikely to convince them of your point, and is going to end up frustrating both sides. Human psychology just doesn't work that way. We're not purely rational, evidence-based beings. How much time have you taken to understand their positions and the reasons they hold them? Are they just irrational? Ignorant? Obstinate? Willfully uneducated? If you think this is the case, how can you convince them anyway? After all, they're irrational, ignorant, obstinate, and willfully uneducated :) If you can understand (that's not necessarily the same as agree with) where they're coming from, that goes a long way towards understanding how you can reach some kind of shared understanding and agreement where none existed before. That might seem like it's a slower process, and takes too much time. But if it actually works, and the other method (throwing facts) doesn't, it's actually accomplished something. There's a lot of contentious issues right now that are very important for us to reconcile. Working on skills like this, figuring out how to come to agreements and compromises, working solutions, is vital.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  I am absolutely awful at this but you're completely right. I've never had facts change anyone's mind but at the same time I've been told I'm a "robot" regarding emotions so I have changed my mind in the past but I don't think that makes me better. In fact it seems I may be deficient in emotions compared to many that I interact with. So I _try_ to figure out where they're coming from and relate to it. But I can never do it. I've never figured out a way to argue with someone in a productive way. In fact if you know of any good reads on the topic I'd love to check them out. I've been told I'm not empathetic enough though I try to be and I'm not entirely sure how to fix it.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Thanks for taking the time to respond. I have a really hard time with this, too. I've seen the problems it's caused me personally and in the US with its crippling polarization. There have been some discussions around HN recently: - Crocker's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288 - Principle of Charity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600 - Rapaport's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692 I also found Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind"[0] really worthwhile. I mean to read it again in the next week or so. What I find particularly impressive with his work is that he found that his research actually changed his own thinking. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt And you know, re-reading your response "I've never had facts change anyone's mind", I think even if you don't change someone's mind at the time, finding some common ground, something you agree on is a worthwhile accomplishment. Sometimes it seems the gulf between us is so large. Recognizing that it might not be is reassuring. I hope you find these useful!
    - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
      Thanks! I'll definitely look through these.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

All of the above reasons are why I stopped engaging with the aforementioned "natural fallacy" folks long ago. It's painful, and seems to get nowhere regardless of how many facts are throw at them.

grzm 10y ago

"seems to get nowhere regardless of how many facts are throw at them." If you're engaging someone who doesn't agree with you on an issue, purely throwing facts at them is very unlikely to convince them of your point, and is going to end up frustrating both sides. Human psychology just doesn't work that way. We're not purely rational, evidence-based beings. How much time have you taken to understand their positions and the reasons they hold them? Are they just irrational? Ignorant? Obstinate? Willfully uneducated? If you think this is the case, how can you convince them anyway? After all, they're irrational, ignorant, obstinate, and willfully uneducated :) If you can understand (that's not necessarily the same as agree with) where they're coming from, that goes a long way towards understanding how you can reach some kind of shared understanding and agreement where none existed before. That might seem like it's a slower process, and takes too much time. But if it actually works, and the other method (throwing facts) doesn't, it's actually accomplished something. There's a lot of contentious issues right now that are very important for us to reconcile. Working on skills like this, figuring out how to come to agreements and compromises, working solutions, is vital.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
I am absolutely awful at this but you're completely right. I've never had facts change anyone's mind but at the same time I've been told I'm a "robot" regarding emotions so I have changed my mind in the past but I don't think that makes me better. In fact it seems I may be deficient in emotions compared to many that I interact with. So I _try_ to figure out where they're coming from and relate to it. But I can never do it. I've never figured out a way to argue with someone in a productive way. In fact if you know of any good reads on the topic I'd love to check them out. I've been told I'm not empathetic enough though I try to be and I'm not entirely sure how to fix it.
- grzm 10y ago
  Thanks for taking the time to respond. I have a really hard time with this, too. I've seen the problems it's caused me personally and in the US with its crippling polarization. There have been some discussions around HN recently: - Crocker's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288 - Principle of Charity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600 - Rapaport's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692 I also found Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind"[0] really worthwhile. I mean to read it again in the next week or so. What I find particularly impressive with his work is that he found that his research actually changed his own thinking. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt And you know, re-reading your response "I've never had facts change anyone's mind", I think even if you don't change someone's mind at the time, finding some common ground, something you agree on is a worthwhile accomplishment. Sometimes it seems the gulf between us is so large. Recognizing that it might not be is reassuring. I hope you find these useful!
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    Thanks! I'll definitely look through these.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]