3 ms·

I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone who has all the facts and still doesn't give a fuck. Only new facts will do the trick, facts which, even if not

by Jare 9y ago

I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone who has all the facts and still doesn't give a fuck. Only new facts will do the trick, facts which, even if not adding to the body of knowledge, have a high fuck giving factor. Like, a tornado destroys their house or such.

mc32 9y ago
I think, like with many things, you have to work with the early adopters, then the bulk and finally the stragglers and at that point you can deal with the hard-core holdouts (or work around them). The key is acknowledging this phenomenon and taking it into account so that policies cane be more successful.
Judgmentality 9y ago
I think the issue is making an emotional connection to the facts. I don't believe any person has the emotional bandwidth to care about every problem in the world.
jacquesm 9y ago
> Only new facts will do the trick It's not about information. > Like, a tornado destroys their house or such. That's more like it. In other words, until something is personal people have a very hard time relating to it, no matter how irrefutably true it is.
pdkl95 9y ago
TL;DR - skip straight to [1] > I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone It is possible, but first you have to open a real dialog. That isn't going to happen without first learning to speak their language, because this is "More than just Resistance to Science"[1]. > Only new facts will do the trick Arguments based on facts are useful when trying to persuade people fluent in the language of science and logic. Unfortunately I suspect only a minority of the population has sufficient understanding of data-focused language. Most people instead see language as phatic expression[2][3] first. A good example of this from the other side of the language divide that still retains mutual intelligibility are Trump's repeated - and often self-contradictory - promises that he would "build the wall". People that primarily use language to convey facts often claims his rhetoric sounds ignorant, useless, or xenophobic. Trump's intended audience, on the other hand, hears the language of emotion that promises protection. Trump isn't trying to convey facts, so self-contradiction and other ignorant claims are not important. To reach people on the other side of this divide, it is probably necessary to first learn their language of social hierarchy, emotion, etc. Skipping that step and continuing to throw facts at them is about as useful as sending them a textbook written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. [1] http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resistance-of-s/ http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression [3] While I'm discussing this as a language problem, some people may prefer George Lakoff's explanation[4] about "framing", which is a different interpretation of essentially the same ideas. [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM
- chronic7ul 9y ago
  Please do give me a fact as to why I should pay for green initiatives when someone else, like those in Europe, are more willing to pay. I reap their benefits, for free.

by Jare 9y ago

mc32 9y ago

I think, like with many things, you have to work with the early adopters, then the bulk and finally the stragglers and at that point you can deal with the hard-core holdouts (or work around them). The key is acknowledging this phenomenon and taking it into account so that policies cane be more successful.

Judgmentality 9y ago

I think the issue is making an emotional connection to the facts. I don't believe any person has the emotional bandwidth to care about every problem in the world.

jacquesm 9y ago

> Only new facts will do the trick It's not about information. > Like, a tornado destroys their house or such. That's more like it. In other words, until something is personal people have a very hard time relating to it, no matter how irrefutably true it is.

pdkl95 9y ago

TL;DR - skip straight to [1] > I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone It is possible, but first you have to open a real dialog. That isn't going to happen without first learning to speak their language, because this is "More than just Resistance to Science"[1]. > Only new facts will do the trick Arguments based on facts are useful when trying to persuade people fluent in the language of science and logic. Unfortunately I suspect only a minority of the population has sufficient understanding of data-focused language. Most people instead see language as phatic expression[2][3] first. A good example of this from the other side of the language divide that still retains mutual intelligibility are Trump's repeated - and often self-contradictory - promises that he would "build the wall". People that primarily use language to convey facts often claims his rhetoric sounds ignorant, useless, or xenophobic. Trump's intended audience, on the other hand, hears the language of emotion that promises protection. Trump isn't trying to convey facts, so self-contradiction and other ignorant claims are not important. To reach people on the other side of this divide, it is probably necessary to first learn their language of social hierarchy, emotion, etc. Skipping that step and continuing to throw facts at them is about as useful as sending them a textbook written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. [1] http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resistance-of-s/ http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression [3] While I'm discussing this as a language problem, some people may prefer George Lakoff's explanation[4] about "framing", which is a different interpretation of essentially the same ideas. [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM

chronic7ul 9y ago
Please do give me a fact as to why I should pay for green initiatives when someone else, like those in Europe, are more willing to pay. I reap their benefits, for free.