7 ms·

Convincing people takes time

53 points by neumino 9y ago

kristianc 9y ago
The OP kind of moves toward the conclusion, but doesn't really reach it. Etiquette and an open mind are necessary but not sufficient conditions to convincing someone. Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else. In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for example (a pretty conservative country, most would agree), campaigners tried for years to talk about 'social justice' but there was a portion of the population (largely older people) who were just not convinced. What that population needed to hear was a) a message from someone that was like them, and b) an argument couched in terms of the impact that the marriage vote would have on their grandchildren. That was far more effective and the country ended up voting for equal marriage. The result of the referendum was also much more legitimate - it wasn't a case of one social class / group pushing through a desired outcome. It genuinely came from the whole country, even though different groups voted for different reasons. Likewise, if someone believes that all affirmative action schemes are inherently wrong-headed, no amount of argument that "the outcome of affirmative action can be good in the long run" is going to sway them. Second guessing their motives and saying "you're just trying to protect your own interest" is a good way of ensuring they never listen to you again. It takes guts to admit that not only is your argument potentially not convincing to someone, but that you also may be the wrong person to be making it. In this vein, you can, as a result, also spend a long time with someone and still end up talking past them if you're not careful.
- backpropaganda 9y ago
  But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.
  - brighteyes 9y ago
    You can still keep trying to convince them, gently and reasonably. There is no other option.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      How can you try to convince people gently and reasonably when they won't hear you, but will only hear a distorted version of what you say, taken out of context and edited for maximum outrage?
      - irickt 9y ago
        Interpret that behavior as damage and route around it.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    On this topic: These people do not decide. They have seen the effects first-hand. Perhaps seeing it from the other point of view, what point is there arguing with someone whose inherent philosophy is a denial of the rights of others? An example of this is the one that you used. The "alt-right": people who follow the words of leaders who have clearly and openly called for the extermination and sterilization of PoCs (Richard Spencer, for example), people who openly use Nazi imagery, and who are backed by the American Nazi Party. [Evidence for these claims are in the bottom section]. In such a case, with the sides, quite literally, being: I wish to live and have a productive and happy life I wish for people like you, including you, to no longer exist What kind of meaningful debate do you expect between such groups? The core principles are, by their very nature, severely opposed to each other. [Citations for the equivalence of the Nazis and the Alt-right]: Firstly, Richard Spencer, the person who started the alt-right: ""Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. "" https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alterna... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424 https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424 See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-dona... https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-primer-about-the-new-white-supremacy https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/alt-ri... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/26/neo-nazi-misfits-join-unite-right https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/26/neo-nazi-misf... There are more, but I'm pretty sure that you can source the rest for yourself.
- alexashka 9y ago
  I think that's a conclusion you have in your mind only :) The author's merely pointing out the obvious - being emotional about complex issues is a childish and counter-productive thing to do. Well, maybe that's not so obvious, but you know.
kris-s 9y ago
I wonder if we can sort of trick ourselves into more reasoned discussions. For example: before a debate have the participants (maybe the audience too) say something to the effect of "I am willing to change my position on this topic."
- robterrell 9y ago
  I really found your comment interesting, but I'm not sure enough people go into debates in good faith, willing to change their position.
- skybrian 9y ago
  There's a reddit for that: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/ https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/
- innocentoldguy 9y ago
  I'd be content for people to say, "I will not resort to logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks."
- kakarot 9y ago
  Unfortunately, that doesn't make for good television. People tune in to have their opinions validated, to root for their guy.
- slackingoff2017 9y ago
  I've messed with people a few times when I thought it was really important for them to agree with me. You can trick people into considering a different opinion by planting evidence that supports your point of view. A very effective way I found was to identify their role models and find one that shares my opinion. For example, I have a friend who salivates to Elon Musk and I've had great success getting him to consider alternate viewpoints by casually mentioning that my opinion aligns with his. Another more subtle way is to read a bunch of stuff that supports your point of view using their phone or PC. Most big sites these days will show you what they think aligns with your beliefs. You can use the creepy targeting they're already doing to skew the point of view your friend sees.
slackingoff2017 9y ago
What I've learned after a lot of pain is that you can't convince anyone of anything. I've poured years of my life into shitty organizations to try to "fix" them and gotten nowhere. The people that disagree with you will find ways to slowly peel back all your achievements. In a badly run organization the problem isn't the outdated machines and processes or the shitty products. Those are symptoms of shitty people and management. If you want to fix an organization the surest way is to fire everyone in management. If you can't do that the best thing you can do for yourself is leave immediately.
- cjcenizal 9y ago
  You sound disillusioned, and I can empathize. Based on similar experiences, I've come to the understand that we're not trying to change individuals, we're trying to change culture. And cultures have inertia. All we can do to change a culture is to simply exist within it. It's not reasonable to have any expectations because we're just single points of influence among hundreds -- too many factors beyond our control. But by lowering expectations perhaps we can find satisfaction in making a small impact on one or two individuals around us. Celebrate the small wins.
  - slackingoff2017 9y ago
    Definitely jaded. I have been in charge of a couple smaller organizations and worked with some smart people for years to turn them around. In the most memorable case there were simply too many of the "old guard" left when I departed victorious and within a year they had it running just as badly as before. My biggest mistake was not getting rid of all the people that made it bad in the first place. I promoted and shifted them into places where they couldn't screw anything up but they stepped out of the caves the day I left town. Even years of increasing membership, better benefits, virtually every metric increasing steadily was not enough to convince these people that the changes happening were positive. They wanted to do things "their way". When I came back a year later I saw our shiny new equipment collecting dust in the corner. A few of the old guard were in the middle of a demonstration on how to pretend that it's still the 17th century. The smart new managers I brought in were gone. Watching that place boomerang so fast struck a chord in me. The only time I'll agree to run anything now is when I have total control of what happens beneath me. Build little slices of heaven surrounded by towers of corporate bullshit. My long term goal is to build my own company but meager attempts so far haven't worked out. I couldn't change people's opinions even with years of bulletproof evidence that they were wrong. Maybe a few of them individually, but a very small percentage of the group. They simply went along with things until they had an opportunity to change then back to how they liked them. I now 100% understand why management is gutted when a company changes hands.
yedava 9y ago
Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things). Historically, the biggest social changes happened by force. Like the civil rights movement. The threat of civil disobedience forced the government to enact laws. Sometimes you have to drag people, kicking and screaming, into social change. Waiting until you persuade everyone is futile.
- Aron 9y ago
  As information, I had given up on your comment persuading me of anything before the first comma. It's really that easy.
  - alexholehouse 9y ago
    Then, with all due respect (and perhaps I misunderstood), perhaps you should consider a greater degree of open mindedness? If the fact that you disagrees with the first clause in an argument is enough for you to conclude the rest of the discussion is unable to make you change your opinion, I'd argue that is a much more significant barrier to open dialogue.
    - abecedarius 9y ago
      "With all due respect" so often precedes a mark of disrespect that it's already a small example of the kind of rhetoric that gets people's backs up before you even get to your point. I don't think it's generally deliberate, but it's a pretty good sign of talking at someone instead of genuinely trying to get closer to a common understanding. If I notice those words about to come out, I try to step back and remind myself we're both human -- prone to being wrong about practically everything. My career is all about being wrong dozens of times a day sometimes, about really obvious stuff once it's pointed out by the helpful little computer. Do I really know the bigger picture so well I can just lay down the law to this disagreeable fellow human? I don't even expect either of our beliefs to change much here, but conversations do add up to something over the decades. And some people are much better at this than others. I know, your side of the culture war compared to them, oh Lord. I don't know if Dunning-Kruger applies to open-mindedness -- are there studies?
Mz 9y ago
Convincing people takes time -- and actions speak louder than words. If you think being "polite" is not working, it is probably because people are merely talking and not doing. If you are doing and polite, it seems to actually make inroads. /2cents
ebola1717 9y ago
The issue is scalability though. That's why it's preferable to consolidate your base of people who understand the issues, push for logical policy changes that protect people's rights, and hope that over a generation or two, people realize that those rights are important and valid. That's how the US Civil Rights Movement and most anti-colonial movements worked. Things aren't perfect now, but imagine how long it would have taken to go door to door and convince every person that poll taxes were racist. Given the state of voter id laws, I don't think we'd have gotten to equitable voting by today if we tried courteously convincing people.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
generic_user 9y ago
The bigger problem now is that some of the platforms themselves have chosen to take sides on contentious debates and engage in unfair treatment of the other side. This has the effect of emboldening the most radical players on both sides and drowning out moderate voices and any chance of dialog. On the side they choose to support the radical voices adopt a zero tolerance policy for the other side and seek to eliminate any decent. The opposing side has proof that the platforms has a bias against them and will try to subvert the debate so thoughtful opinions do not bother under those circumstances. You can not change anyone's opinion by refusing them a platform to express themselves. Or allowing engagement but employing a double standard where one side gets to be abusive but the other gets punished for the same behaviour. If we look at the recent case of James Damore he was fired for his views. How many people at Google who support him are going to change there minds on the issue just because The management decided to take a side and silence any opposing views?
SoMisanthrope 9y ago
It would be healthy for HN moderators to ingest this article. Even well mannered and well intended messages that do not necessarily agree with progressive dogma, are consistently down-modded. That's a shame.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
sgs1370 9y ago
Most people don't change their minds about more than just a few things after some early age - barring some life-changing even. I think it's rare that any number of [books, movies, conversations], or amount of time exposed to same, causes change.

53 points by neumino 9y ago

The OP kind of moves toward the conclusion, but doesn't really reach it. Etiquette and an open mind are necessary but not sufficient conditions to convincing someone. Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else. In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for example (a pretty conservative country, most would agree), campaigners tried for years to talk about 'social justice' but there was a portion of the population (largely older people) who were just not convinced. What that population needed to hear was a) a message from someone that was like them, and b) an argument couched in terms of the impact that the marriage vote would have on their grandchildren. That was far more effective and the country ended up voting for equal marriage. The result of the referendum was also much more legitimate - it wasn't a case of one social class / group pushing through a desired outcome. It genuinely came from the whole country, even though different groups voted for different reasons. Likewise, if someone believes that all affirmative action schemes are inherently wrong-headed, no amount of argument that "the outcome of affirmative action can be good in the long run" is going to sway them. Second guessing their motives and saying "you're just trying to protect your own interest" is a good way of ensuring they never listen to you again. It takes guts to admit that not only is your argument potentially not convincing to someone, but that you also may be the wrong person to be making it. In this vein, you can, as a result, also spend a long time with someone and still end up talking past them if you're not careful.

backpropaganda 9y ago
But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.
- brighteyes 9y ago
  You can still keep trying to convince them, gently and reasonably. There is no other option.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    How can you try to convince people gently and reasonably when they won't hear you, but will only hear a distorted version of what you say, taken out of context and edited for maximum outrage?
    - irickt 9y ago
      Interpret that behavior as damage and route around it.
- fao_ 9y ago
  On this topic: These people do not decide. They have seen the effects first-hand. Perhaps seeing it from the other point of view, what point is there arguing with someone whose inherent philosophy is a denial of the rights of others? An example of this is the one that you used. The "alt-right": people who follow the words of leaders who have clearly and openly called for the extermination and sterilization of PoCs (Richard Spencer, for example), people who openly use Nazi imagery, and who are backed by the American Nazi Party. [Evidence for these claims are in the bottom section]. In such a case, with the sides, quite literally, being: I wish to live and have a productive and happy life I wish for people like you, including you, to no longer exist What kind of meaningful debate do you expect between such groups? The core principles are, by their very nature, severely opposed to each other. [Citations for the equivalence of the Nazis and the Alt-right]: Firstly, Richard Spencer, the person who started the alt-right: ""Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. "" https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alterna... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424 https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424 See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-dona... https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-primer-about-the-new-white-supremacy https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/alt-ri... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/26/neo-nazi-misfits-join-unite-right https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/26/neo-nazi-misf... There are more, but I'm pretty sure that you can source the rest for yourself.
alexashka 9y ago
I think that's a conclusion you have in your mind only :) The author's merely pointing out the obvious - being emotional about complex issues is a childish and counter-productive thing to do. Well, maybe that's not so obvious, but you know.

kris-s 9y ago

I wonder if we can sort of trick ourselves into more reasoned discussions. For example: before a debate have the participants (maybe the audience too) say something to the effect of "I am willing to change my position on this topic."

robterrell 9y ago
I really found your comment interesting, but I'm not sure enough people go into debates in good faith, willing to change their position.
skybrian 9y ago
There's a reddit for that: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/ https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/
innocentoldguy 9y ago
I'd be content for people to say, "I will not resort to logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks."
kakarot 9y ago
Unfortunately, that doesn't make for good television. People tune in to have their opinions validated, to root for their guy.
slackingoff2017 9y ago
I've messed with people a few times when I thought it was really important for them to agree with me. You can trick people into considering a different opinion by planting evidence that supports your point of view. A very effective way I found was to identify their role models and find one that shares my opinion. For example, I have a friend who salivates to Elon Musk and I've had great success getting him to consider alternate viewpoints by casually mentioning that my opinion aligns with his. Another more subtle way is to read a bunch of stuff that supports your point of view using their phone or PC. Most big sites these days will show you what they think aligns with your beliefs. You can use the creepy targeting they're already doing to skew the point of view your friend sees.

slackingoff2017 9y ago

What I've learned after a lot of pain is that you can't convince anyone of anything. I've poured years of my life into shitty organizations to try to "fix" them and gotten nowhere. The people that disagree with you will find ways to slowly peel back all your achievements. In a badly run organization the problem isn't the outdated machines and processes or the shitty products. Those are symptoms of shitty people and management. If you want to fix an organization the surest way is to fire everyone in management. If you can't do that the best thing you can do for yourself is leave immediately.

cjcenizal 9y ago
You sound disillusioned, and I can empathize. Based on similar experiences, I've come to the understand that we're not trying to change individuals, we're trying to change culture. And cultures have inertia. All we can do to change a culture is to simply exist within it. It's not reasonable to have any expectations because we're just single points of influence among hundreds -- too many factors beyond our control. But by lowering expectations perhaps we can find satisfaction in making a small impact on one or two individuals around us. Celebrate the small wins.
- slackingoff2017 9y ago
  Definitely jaded. I have been in charge of a couple smaller organizations and worked with some smart people for years to turn them around. In the most memorable case there were simply too many of the "old guard" left when I departed victorious and within a year they had it running just as badly as before. My biggest mistake was not getting rid of all the people that made it bad in the first place. I promoted and shifted them into places where they couldn't screw anything up but they stepped out of the caves the day I left town. Even years of increasing membership, better benefits, virtually every metric increasing steadily was not enough to convince these people that the changes happening were positive. They wanted to do things "their way". When I came back a year later I saw our shiny new equipment collecting dust in the corner. A few of the old guard were in the middle of a demonstration on how to pretend that it's still the 17th century. The smart new managers I brought in were gone. Watching that place boomerang so fast struck a chord in me. The only time I'll agree to run anything now is when I have total control of what happens beneath me. Build little slices of heaven surrounded by towers of corporate bullshit. My long term goal is to build my own company but meager attempts so far haven't worked out. I couldn't change people's opinions even with years of bulletproof evidence that they were wrong. Maybe a few of them individually, but a very small percentage of the group. They simply went along with things until they had an opportunity to change then back to how they liked them. I now 100% understand why management is gutted when a company changes hands.

yedava 9y ago

Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things). Historically, the biggest social changes happened by force. Like the civil rights movement. The threat of civil disobedience forced the government to enact laws. Sometimes you have to drag people, kicking and screaming, into social change. Waiting until you persuade everyone is futile.

Aron 9y ago
As information, I had given up on your comment persuading me of anything before the first comma. It's really that easy.
- alexholehouse 9y ago
  Then, with all due respect (and perhaps I misunderstood), perhaps you should consider a greater degree of open mindedness? If the fact that you disagrees with the first clause in an argument is enough for you to conclude the rest of the discussion is unable to make you change your opinion, I'd argue that is a much more significant barrier to open dialogue.
  - abecedarius 9y ago
    "With all due respect" so often precedes a mark of disrespect that it's already a small example of the kind of rhetoric that gets people's backs up before you even get to your point. I don't think it's generally deliberate, but it's a pretty good sign of talking at someone instead of genuinely trying to get closer to a common understanding. If I notice those words about to come out, I try to step back and remind myself we're both human -- prone to being wrong about practically everything. My career is all about being wrong dozens of times a day sometimes, about really obvious stuff once it's pointed out by the helpful little computer. Do I really know the bigger picture so well I can just lay down the law to this disagreeable fellow human? I don't even expect either of our beliefs to change much here, but conversations do add up to something over the decades. And some people are much better at this than others. I know, your side of the culture war compared to them, oh Lord. I don't know if Dunning-Kruger applies to open-mindedness -- are there studies?

Mz 9y ago

Convincing people takes time -- and actions speak louder than words. If you think being "polite" is not working, it is probably because people are merely talking and not doing. If you are doing and polite, it seems to actually make inroads. /2cents

ebola1717 9y ago

The issue is scalability though. That's why it's preferable to consolidate your base of people who understand the issues, push for logical policy changes that protect people's rights, and hope that over a generation or two, people realize that those rights are important and valid. That's how the US Civil Rights Movement and most anti-colonial movements worked. Things aren't perfect now, but imagine how long it would have taken to go door to door and convince every person that poll taxes were racist. Given the state of voter id laws, I don't think we'd have gotten to equitable voting by today if we tried courteously convincing people.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

generic_user 9y ago

The bigger problem now is that some of the platforms themselves have chosen to take sides on contentious debates and engage in unfair treatment of the other side. This has the effect of emboldening the most radical players on both sides and drowning out moderate voices and any chance of dialog. On the side they choose to support the radical voices adopt a zero tolerance policy for the other side and seek to eliminate any decent. The opposing side has proof that the platforms has a bias against them and will try to subvert the debate so thoughtful opinions do not bother under those circumstances. You can not change anyone's opinion by refusing them a platform to express themselves. Or allowing engagement but employing a double standard where one side gets to be abusive but the other gets punished for the same behaviour. If we look at the recent case of James Damore he was fired for his views. How many people at Google who support him are going to change there minds on the issue just because The management decided to take a side and silence any opposing views?

SoMisanthrope 9y ago

It would be healthy for HN moderators to ingest this article. Even well mannered and well intended messages that do not necessarily agree with progressive dogma, are consistently down-modded. That's a shame.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

sgs1370 9y ago

Most people don't change their minds about more than just a few things after some early age - barring some life-changing even. I think it's rare that any number of [books, movies, conversations], or amount of time exposed to same, causes change.