4 ms·

I'm the most cynical interpretation possible: You need to listen to them in order to be able to refute them. So if you want to change their minds you need to l

I'm the most cynical interpretation possible: You need to listen to them in order to be able to refute them. So if you want to change their minds you need to listen to understand what their belief is founded on so you know what you need to convince them of. But in a more open way of seeing it: It's important to understand where their beliefs are coming from to understand why they believe what they do. Maybe their belief is based on a fear of government and government influence on their lives. So maybe there is merit in talking about where that fear comes from. The flat Earth portion of their beliefs is not valid. But their reasoning for it might include some interesting points to discuss that can help everyone be able to work together better.

SkyBelow 7y ago
>You need to listen to them in order to be able to refute them. So if you want to change their minds you need to listen to understand what their belief is founded on so you know what you need to convince them of. I agree, but I don't think you will get this just by listening to them. My own cynical interpretation is that people are often driven by more selfish desires which are the reasons they are attracted to certain positions, which they then find more palatable justifications for. The person arguing for free college and paying off existing college debt has many arguments, but the one that actually matters is that they are paying $1,000 a month on a student loan and highly prefer any solution that leaves them with that money back. Even a solution that increases taxes, as long as the taxes aren't more than $1,000, is preferable to their current state. The person arguing for a reduces/removed minimum wage, while having a lot of argument as to the negative impacts of minimum wage, personally thinks that prices will go up if minimum wage goes up and is against it because of the loss of purchasing power. (Consider that this outcome actually happening or not is irrelevant, only the belief it will happen matters when judging why a person takes the stance they want.) When I've argued for lowering the drinking age to 18, people will often assume I'm someone under 21 who wants the ability to legally drink. When I've argued for lowering the voting age below 18, people often assume I have political leanings that will be bolstered by under 18 voters. Both cases are false, but personally I cannot fault the people from assuming such based on how often it appears those assumptions are true.
- benj111 7y ago
  Theres nothing wrong with those assumptions, people often have personal experience of these things, which is why they're fighting to change things. It would be wrong to discount peoples opinion because they have direct experience of something though.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > Both cases are false, but personally I cannot fault the people from assuming such based on how often it appears those assumptions are true The problem is that regardless of I'd those assumptions are true, those assumptions can stop you from listening to and understanding the actual arguments and beliefs. Additionally, if left unchallenged, those assumptions can stop at a superficial understanding of the issues that face the person holding the position. If you assume that the person arguing for the forgiveness of student loans simply wants to save money, you might miss that the real impact is the way that mandatory student loan payments prevent that person from quitting their job and following their dreams or boot strapping a business. That information is critical to find solutions or compromises.

SkyBelow 7y ago

>You need to listen to them in order to be able to refute them. So if you want to change their minds you need to listen to understand what their belief is founded on so you know what you need to convince them of. I agree, but I don't think you will get this just by listening to them. My own cynical interpretation is that people are often driven by more selfish desires which are the reasons they are attracted to certain positions, which they then find more palatable justifications for. The person arguing for free college and paying off existing college debt has many arguments, but the one that actually matters is that they are paying $1,000 a month on a student loan and highly prefer any solution that leaves them with that money back. Even a solution that increases taxes, as long as the taxes aren't more than $1,000, is preferable to their current state. The person arguing for a reduces/removed minimum wage, while having a lot of argument as to the negative impacts of minimum wage, personally thinks that prices will go up if minimum wage goes up and is against it because of the loss of purchasing power. (Consider that this outcome actually happening or not is irrelevant, only the belief it will happen matters when judging why a person takes the stance they want.) When I've argued for lowering the drinking age to 18, people will often assume I'm someone under 21 who wants the ability to legally drink. When I've argued for lowering the voting age below 18, people often assume I have political leanings that will be bolstered by under 18 voters. Both cases are false, but personally I cannot fault the people from assuming such based on how often it appears those assumptions are true.

benj111 7y ago
Theres nothing wrong with those assumptions, people often have personal experience of these things, which is why they're fighting to change things. It would be wrong to discount peoples opinion because they have direct experience of something though.
shkkmo 7y ago
> Both cases are false, but personally I cannot fault the people from assuming such based on how often it appears those assumptions are true The problem is that regardless of I'd those assumptions are true, those assumptions can stop you from listening to and understanding the actual arguments and beliefs. Additionally, if left unchallenged, those assumptions can stop at a superficial understanding of the issues that face the person holding the position. If you assume that the person arguing for the forgiveness of student loans simply wants to save money, you might miss that the real impact is the way that mandatory student loan payments prevent that person from quitting their job and following their dreams or boot strapping a business. That information is critical to find solutions or compromises.