5 ms·

I think the argument doesn’t suffer if you replace “prejudice” with “strongly held beliefs”. The human mind doesn’t have a secret truth-o-meter, so from the ins

I think the argument doesn’t suffer if you replace “prejudice” with “strongly held beliefs”. The human mind doesn’t have a secret truth-o-meter, so from the inside, prejudice and strongly held beliefs are indistinguishable. The fact that some people hold a belief strongly is itself proof that that belief can be held, and therefore that people can be convinced to hold it. Basically, a technique that works to convince people away from prejudice over and above what presenting them with truth does should be applicable to any belief.

pdonis 6y ago
> I think the argument doesn’t suffer if you replace “prejudice” with “strongly held beliefs”. Yes, it does, because the post I originally responded to said "persuading people out of" these beliefs. How is that justified if the beliefs are not known to be wrong? "Prejudice" implies that the beliefs are known to be wrong, so it's justified to try to persuade people out of them. "Strongly held beliefs" does not carry the same implication.
- afthonos 6y ago
  > How is that justified if the beliefs are not known to be wrong? My bad, I thought you were arguing that "prejudice" is something that can be argued-out-of, whereas a "genuine difference in priority" cannot. If you're arguing persuading people is unethical, then…I disagree incredibly vehemently. Like, that's what a peaceful society is built on; I'm not sure what other method of change you imagine would take its place?
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > If you're arguing persuading people is unethical It depends on what you mean by "persuade". Trying to convince people to change their minds about something, and understanding that a lot of times you'll fail and accepting that, is one thing. Trying to force them to change their minds, or at least to act as though their strongly held beliefs were simply wrong and yours were right, for example by using the power of the law, is another. > that's what a peaceful society is built on A peaceful society is built on trying to convince other people, but accepting that a lot of times you'll fail, and accepting that when you fail, the law should not take either side. In other words, the force of law should only be used if there is a very strong consensus on a policy, to the point where the only people who don't agree with it are obvious outliers. It should not be used if there is just a 51% majority that favors a policy.
    - afthonos 6y ago
      Given that we agree on just about everything, I think we're going to end up arguing about whether "convince" and "persuade" are synonyms. :-) I agree that minorities have rights, and that you therefore don't force something down everyone's throat because 51% of the population thinks it's right.
BurningFrog 6y ago
> The fact that some people hold a belief strongly is itself proof that that belief can be held, and therefore that people can be convinced to hold it. The fact that I'm tall is proof that people can be tall. But not that you can become tall. In general people have the opinions they need to have to feel good about themselves. That's hard to change.
- afthonos 6y ago
  Alright, fair point about the analogy. Still, we generally believe (perhaps incorrectly…) that people can change their minds, so I'll stick by it. Regarding feeling good: yeah, that's a problem, and that makes it harder, no argument from me. The point I thought GGP was making (likely incorrectly; see my response to their response) was that you can't persuade people out of "genuine differences in priorities", which I think is untrue.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    I'll also agree that my height analogy is overly restrictive. People can and do change their minds, though it's rarely a rational process. The book that gave me much of my cynicism on this topic: https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyday/dp/0190495995#ace-g8881249860 https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyda...

pdonis 6y ago

> I think the argument doesn’t suffer if you replace “prejudice” with “strongly held beliefs”. Yes, it does, because the post I originally responded to said "persuading people out of" these beliefs. How is that justified if the beliefs are not known to be wrong? "Prejudice" implies that the beliefs are known to be wrong, so it's justified to try to persuade people out of them. "Strongly held beliefs" does not carry the same implication.

afthonos 6y ago
> How is that justified if the beliefs are not known to be wrong? My bad, I thought you were arguing that "prejudice" is something that can be argued-out-of, whereas a "genuine difference in priority" cannot. If you're arguing persuading people is unethical, then…I disagree incredibly vehemently. Like, that's what a peaceful society is built on; I'm not sure what other method of change you imagine would take its place?
- pdonis 6y ago
  > If you're arguing persuading people is unethical It depends on what you mean by "persuade". Trying to convince people to change their minds about something, and understanding that a lot of times you'll fail and accepting that, is one thing. Trying to force them to change their minds, or at least to act as though their strongly held beliefs were simply wrong and yours were right, for example by using the power of the law, is another. > that's what a peaceful society is built on A peaceful society is built on trying to convince other people, but accepting that a lot of times you'll fail, and accepting that when you fail, the law should not take either side. In other words, the force of law should only be used if there is a very strong consensus on a policy, to the point where the only people who don't agree with it are obvious outliers. It should not be used if there is just a 51% majority that favors a policy.
  - afthonos 6y ago
    Given that we agree on just about everything, I think we're going to end up arguing about whether "convince" and "persuade" are synonyms. :-) I agree that minorities have rights, and that you therefore don't force something down everyone's throat because 51% of the population thinks it's right.

BurningFrog 6y ago

> The fact that some people hold a belief strongly is itself proof that that belief can be held, and therefore that people can be convinced to hold it. The fact that I'm tall is proof that people can be tall. But not that you can become tall. In general people have the opinions they need to have to feel good about themselves. That's hard to change.

afthonos 6y ago
Alright, fair point about the analogy. Still, we generally believe (perhaps incorrectly…) that people can change their minds, so I'll stick by it. Regarding feeling good: yeah, that's a problem, and that makes it harder, no argument from me. The point I thought GGP was making (likely incorrectly; see my response to their response) was that you can't persuade people out of "genuine differences in priorities", which I think is untrue.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  I'll also agree that my height analogy is overly restrictive. People can and do change their minds, though it's rarely a rational process. The book that gave me much of my cynicism on this topic: https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyday/dp/0190495995#ace-g8881249860 https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyda...