7 ms·

I grew up in the Deep South, and you can really change the way people feel by being unflinchingly friendly. People who hold controversial opinions generally k

by kevmo 9y ago

I grew up in the Deep South, and you can really change the way people feel by being unflinchingly friendly. People who hold controversial opinions generally know that they do (if they aren't crazy) and expect people to recoil at first contact. When you don't recoil, it throws them and makes them think. At that point, you are entering mind-changing territory. Then you start asking them questions that allows them to do 80% of the talking. They will usually stumble on their own logical fallacies at that point, and you have thus led the horse to water, which is about all you can do. Not very many people are very good at this. Which is unfortunate. TL;DR When you get all worked up over the way people are talking, you have allowed them to seize control of the debate and have generally lost the opportunity to change that particular mind.

userbinator 9y ago
you can really change the way people feel by being unflinchingly friendly See also: Troll hugging http://pugs.blogs.com/audrey/2009/08/my-hobby-troll-hugging.html http://pugs.blogs.com/audrey/2009/08/my-hobby-troll-hugging....
- throwaway7645 9y ago
  Also being heavily advocated by Zoffix right now who is a prominent member of the Perl6 project (trying to get it renamed to Rakudo to distance it from Perl5, which makes some sense).
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Also grew up in the deep south, and my mom would always call this "killing them with kindness"
  - kevmo 9y ago
    That's what my momma said, too.
  - aeountdh34th 9y ago
    As a northerner who lived in the South I can unequivocally tell you this doesn't work. Southerners who do this come off as saccharine and insincere. It's incredibly transparent and irritating (which I always felt was the point) to people who don't agree with you. You aren't fooling anyone.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      >Southerners who do this come off as saccharine and insincere. If they're not being sincere then they're doing it wrong.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      I think the trick is that you actually have to be sincere. You almost have to feel sorry for the other person, but in a "wow you seem fucked up but I hope you can still have a good day" way. I never mastered it.
- christoph 9y ago
  This really will be political and I’m sure get me downvoted to hell & back. It’s amazing that the old political guard still haven’t got this. Look at Spain today. What do you think would work better - hitting them with rubber bullets and batons or something more loving like sending people down to make it “Hug a Spaniard” day and making the Catalan people feel closer to their fellow countrymen?
  - tyrw 9y ago
    Directionally accurate, but in the example you've chosen it's more about economics than demographics, so they'd hug and then vote to separate anyway.
    - TheOtherDave 9y ago
      Yeah, but that’s still an improvement over the current situation (at least as I understand it).
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    I'm not on their side, but they should have announced it was invalid and that the results don't matter, promoted unity and then secretly committed fraud they could expose. They could have posed as pro independence units preventing no voters from voting (recorded "secretly" on a smartphone). Then they could spin the separatists as dirty playing and corrupt. What're they going to do when Catalan goes underground and high tech with their voting?
  - reactor4 9y ago
    This method, it was called the "love-in" [1], was used by the Canadian government in 1995. It was illegal as hell as it was a blatant violation of election spending laws. Some people say it was counterproductive but the proof is in the pudding I guess. [1] https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/the-night-canada-stood-still-a-look-at-the-1995-quebec-referendum-that-nearly-divided-the-country/article19465397/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-r...
pjc50 9y ago
Isn't this very different online versus offline? I can belive it working offline on a one-to-one basis, but not online.
- adiabatty 9y ago
  I suspect the biggest difference might be between one-to-one and in-a-group. In a group, other people will move the conversation in ways that distract from one person finding out the reasons why the other person holds the views he/she does. Unrelatedly, in a group, the returns to signaling that you dislike the hated outsider are much higher, as are the costs that come with treating hated outsiders like neutral people. See also: Twitter dynamics.
- psyc 9y ago
  Personally, I've found it very effective in forums where there is anonymity (not pseudo, where people identify emotionally with their handles), and no voting.
- eksemplar 9y ago
  I've found friendliness, being open and giving people entries to you opinion to work exceedingly well online. Ill give you an example of something I've done recently on reddit during the burka-ban-debates of my country. Example 1: Our government shouldn't tell women what to wear. Example 2: I'm not a fan of burkas or of cultures that force women to wear specific clothing, however, I don't think it's fitting for our democracy to dictate what kind of clothing women are allowed to wear. In fact in doing so, I feel we are giving up basic rights, and becoming more like the cultures we are trying to fight. Example 1 got 10+ downvotes, example 2 got 50+ upvotes, despite the two examples making the same core point.
  - wvh 9y ago
    Example one is dogma. It sets one truth. It causes a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps even in people who somewhat agree. Example two is a motivated personal opinion. Most people not completely void of rationality can see that others might have different opinions and tastes. Most will still argue, but hopefully without knee-jerk drama. As someone who considers themselves a-political, I tend to be more adverse to knee-jerk statements than actual honest opinions anywhere on the spectrum, so I fully agree with openness and embracing, "all-inclusive" communication if you'd hope to get anywhere. Sadly enough dumb emotion and drama seem to beat rationality most of the time these days.
viraj_shah 9y ago
The skill you're talking about is called listening. Listening with intent. Listening with the intent to understand, not just to formulate your response. "We typically seek first to be understood. Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply. They're either speaking or preparing to speak. They're filtering everything through their own paradigms, reading their autobiography into other people's lives." - Stephen R. Covey
csallen 9y ago
I finished reading Ben Franklin's autobiography earlier this year. He was notorious for sparking (and usually winning) debates with the people around him. After getting some negative feedback from a friend regarding just how insufferable he was to be around, he adopted the Socratic method of asking questions so that people would see their own folly. Eventually, it got to the point where his acquaintances and coworkers would refuse to answer even simple questions of his, out of fear that he'd follow up with more questions that would prove them to be incompetent or illogical. He later changed his methods to something you might read about in a book like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rather than leading people to see the logical error of their ways, he moved toward displaying much more diffidence, which allowed others to save face when changing their opinions. Phrases like "certainly X" and "undoubtedly Y" became "If I'm not mistaken, X" and "I imagine that Y." That change worked out well for him throughout the course of his career in winning many rich and powerful people (along with ordinary citizens, of which he was one) to his side on various controversial issues of the day. Another benefit was that he opened himself up to helpful suggestions and feedback as well. Most people abhor argumentation, and will allow overly-confident people to persist in whatever mistaken beliefs they hold. But when you display humility, others feel safer telling you what they think of your ideas.
- emilga 9y ago
  Franklin also describes a technique whereby you don't directly tell someone they're wrong, you simply tell them that in this particular case the circumstances are different. E.g., the bad way to do it: Person A: "We should do X!" Franklin: "You are wrong. We should do Y!" E.g., the better way to do it: Person A: "We should do X!" Franklin: "You are, of course, right that X would work if P and Q were the case, but here R is the situation. Don't you then agree that Y would work better here?" This way, your "opponent" gets to preserve the feeling of being right, or at least avoids the defensiveness that follows being told you're wrong.
  - ufmace 9y ago
    Yes, the trouble is that such exchanges are often a battle of egos on both sides. Person A has an egoic need to be right, and Person B has an egoic need to prove person A wrong and themselves right. No doubt this is an effective technique, you just have to be able to release your own ego and also not directly challenge that of the other person.
JacobJans 9y ago
> When you get all worked up over the way people are talking, you have allowed them to seize control of the debate Getting people worked up is a very potent political strategy –– and it is very effective at defusing the power of the other side. You're absolutely right that it allows the other side to seize control of the debate. I really wish more people would respond to craziness with calm compassion; our political world would be VERY different.
banned1 9y ago
Daryl reminds me of Ben Shapiro. Ben has (most times) flawless logic and understanding of the issues that triggers many of those, typically left wingers, who lack the same level of depth in their beliefs. I'm buying Daryl's book.
- dang 9y ago
  Would you please stop using HN for political/ideological battle? You've been doing it a lot, and it's definitely not helpful. It's also against the site rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
radusw 9y ago
Your approach is called the Socratic method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

by kevmo 9y ago

userbinator 9y ago

you can really change the way people feel by being unflinchingly friendly See also: Troll hugging http://pugs.blogs.com/audrey/2009/08/my-hobby-troll-hugging.html http://pugs.blogs.com/audrey/2009/08/my-hobby-troll-hugging....

throwaway7645 9y ago
Also being heavily advocated by Zoffix right now who is a prominent member of the Perl6 project (trying to get it renamed to Rakudo to distance it from Perl5, which makes some sense).
craftyguy 9y ago
Also grew up in the deep south, and my mom would always call this "killing them with kindness"
- kevmo 9y ago
  That's what my momma said, too.
- aeountdh34th 9y ago
  As a northerner who lived in the South I can unequivocally tell you this doesn't work. Southerners who do this come off as saccharine and insincere. It's incredibly transparent and irritating (which I always felt was the point) to people who don't agree with you. You aren't fooling anyone.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >Southerners who do this come off as saccharine and insincere. If they're not being sincere then they're doing it wrong.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    I think the trick is that you actually have to be sincere. You almost have to feel sorry for the other person, but in a "wow you seem fucked up but I hope you can still have a good day" way. I never mastered it.
christoph 9y ago
This really will be political and I’m sure get me downvoted to hell & back. It’s amazing that the old political guard still haven’t got this. Look at Spain today. What do you think would work better - hitting them with rubber bullets and batons or something more loving like sending people down to make it “Hug a Spaniard” day and making the Catalan people feel closer to their fellow countrymen?
- tyrw 9y ago
  Directionally accurate, but in the example you've chosen it's more about economics than demographics, so they'd hug and then vote to separate anyway.
  - TheOtherDave 9y ago
    Yeah, but that’s still an improvement over the current situation (at least as I understand it).
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  I'm not on their side, but they should have announced it was invalid and that the results don't matter, promoted unity and then secretly committed fraud they could expose. They could have posed as pro independence units preventing no voters from voting (recorded "secretly" on a smartphone). Then they could spin the separatists as dirty playing and corrupt. What're they going to do when Catalan goes underground and high tech with their voting?
- reactor4 9y ago
  This method, it was called the "love-in" [1], was used by the Canadian government in 1995. It was illegal as hell as it was a blatant violation of election spending laws. Some people say it was counterproductive but the proof is in the pudding I guess. [1] https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/the-night-canada-stood-still-a-look-at-the-1995-quebec-referendum-that-nearly-divided-the-country/article19465397/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-r...

pjc50 9y ago

Isn't this very different online versus offline? I can belive it working offline on a one-to-one basis, but not online.

adiabatty 9y ago
I suspect the biggest difference might be between one-to-one and in-a-group. In a group, other people will move the conversation in ways that distract from one person finding out the reasons why the other person holds the views he/she does. Unrelatedly, in a group, the returns to signaling that you dislike the hated outsider are much higher, as are the costs that come with treating hated outsiders like neutral people. See also: Twitter dynamics.
psyc 9y ago
Personally, I've found it very effective in forums where there is anonymity (not pseudo, where people identify emotionally with their handles), and no voting.
eksemplar 9y ago
I've found friendliness, being open and giving people entries to you opinion to work exceedingly well online. Ill give you an example of something I've done recently on reddit during the burka-ban-debates of my country. Example 1: Our government shouldn't tell women what to wear. Example 2: I'm not a fan of burkas or of cultures that force women to wear specific clothing, however, I don't think it's fitting for our democracy to dictate what kind of clothing women are allowed to wear. In fact in doing so, I feel we are giving up basic rights, and becoming more like the cultures we are trying to fight. Example 1 got 10+ downvotes, example 2 got 50+ upvotes, despite the two examples making the same core point.
- wvh 9y ago
  Example one is dogma. It sets one truth. It causes a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps even in people who somewhat agree. Example two is a motivated personal opinion. Most people not completely void of rationality can see that others might have different opinions and tastes. Most will still argue, but hopefully without knee-jerk drama. As someone who considers themselves a-political, I tend to be more adverse to knee-jerk statements than actual honest opinions anywhere on the spectrum, so I fully agree with openness and embracing, "all-inclusive" communication if you'd hope to get anywhere. Sadly enough dumb emotion and drama seem to beat rationality most of the time these days.

viraj_shah 9y ago

The skill you're talking about is called listening. Listening with intent. Listening with the intent to understand, not just to formulate your response. "We typically seek first to be understood. Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply. They're either speaking or preparing to speak. They're filtering everything through their own paradigms, reading their autobiography into other people's lives." - Stephen R. Covey

csallen 9y ago

I finished reading Ben Franklin's autobiography earlier this year. He was notorious for sparking (and usually winning) debates with the people around him. After getting some negative feedback from a friend regarding just how insufferable he was to be around, he adopted the Socratic method of asking questions so that people would see their own folly. Eventually, it got to the point where his acquaintances and coworkers would refuse to answer even simple questions of his, out of fear that he'd follow up with more questions that would prove them to be incompetent or illogical. He later changed his methods to something you might read about in a book like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rather than leading people to see the logical error of their ways, he moved toward displaying much more diffidence, which allowed others to save face when changing their opinions. Phrases like "certainly X" and "undoubtedly Y" became "If I'm not mistaken, X" and "I imagine that Y." That change worked out well for him throughout the course of his career in winning many rich and powerful people (along with ordinary citizens, of which he was one) to his side on various controversial issues of the day. Another benefit was that he opened himself up to helpful suggestions and feedback as well. Most people abhor argumentation, and will allow overly-confident people to persist in whatever mistaken beliefs they hold. But when you display humility, others feel safer telling you what they think of your ideas.

emilga 9y ago
Franklin also describes a technique whereby you don't directly tell someone they're wrong, you simply tell them that in this particular case the circumstances are different. E.g., the bad way to do it: Person A: "We should do X!" Franklin: "You are wrong. We should do Y!" E.g., the better way to do it: Person A: "We should do X!" Franklin: "You are, of course, right that X would work if P and Q were the case, but here R is the situation. Don't you then agree that Y would work better here?" This way, your "opponent" gets to preserve the feeling of being right, or at least avoids the defensiveness that follows being told you're wrong.
- ufmace 9y ago
  Yes, the trouble is that such exchanges are often a battle of egos on both sides. Person A has an egoic need to be right, and Person B has an egoic need to prove person A wrong and themselves right. No doubt this is an effective technique, you just have to be able to release your own ego and also not directly challenge that of the other person.

JacobJans 9y ago

> When you get all worked up over the way people are talking, you have allowed them to seize control of the debate Getting people worked up is a very potent political strategy –– and it is very effective at defusing the power of the other side. You're absolutely right that it allows the other side to seize control of the debate. I really wish more people would respond to craziness with calm compassion; our political world would be VERY different.

banned1 9y ago

Daryl reminds me of Ben Shapiro. Ben has (most times) flawless logic and understanding of the issues that triggers many of those, typically left wingers, who lack the same level of depth in their beliefs. I'm buying Daryl's book.

dang 9y ago
Would you please stop using HN for political/ideological battle? You've been doing it a lot, and it's definitely not helpful. It's also against the site rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

radusw 9y ago

Your approach is called the Socratic method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method