6 ms·

Excellent article > When you hear someone say something, stop and ask yourself "Is that true?" This is one of my favorite things to do, though the list of peo

Excellent article > When you hear someone say something, stop and ask yourself "Is that true?" This is one of my favorite things to do, though the list of people who will talk to me again after I do it is very short. (Edit: To be extra clear... While this is a bitter pill - I do not like it when others do it to me - I do find it to be very effective for reinforcing good faith in close, trusting relationships. I also do appreciate when others use this question on me; the temporary frustration/discomfort is worth reminding me to center myself.) When someone is feeling outraged about something (often politics) simply ask: "but are they correct?" The answer is almost always: "I'm not sure" (myself included). When doing this to myself, this is often enough for me to shrug off the outrage and realize that I actually do not care. It really doesn't matter to me what political statements a mayor from a town in another state made. > In the most independent-minded people, the desire not to be told what to think is a positive force. This subject implies another that is closely related, and is my biggest complaint about ads. Ads try to tell you what to think, and they are sometimes successful. But more importantly, they tell you what to think _about_, and they are much more successful at this. I like being focused on the problems that I have, and ads try as hard as they can to take that focus away.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
base698 6y ago
He mentions in the next sentence: "I'm not suggesting that you impose on everyone who talks to you the burden of proving what they say" > When you hear someone say something, stop and ask yourself "Is that true?" Don't say it out loud. I'm not suggesting that you impose on everyone who talks to you the burden of proving what they say, but rather that you take upon yourself the burden of evaluating what they say.
- karlerss 6y ago
  I have found it useful to ask "why do you think this true?" instead. When there's enough time of course.
  - k_sze 6y ago
    That sound like the classic "How Do You Know?" question in Theory of Knowledge.
- hnracer 6y ago
  Although it could act as a good filter, if they lash out it's a valuable red flag
  - lowcodetv 6y ago
    Absolutely a clear signal that their belief is emotional. If you step on that toe just make it clear that you aren't questioning them at all, in fact, "you agree with them... you just wanted to know some sources to point to when those other nosey people who question our beliefs do so"... and diffuse the situation. You really just want to make the other person feel "heard" and respected for their opinion, if that's the level at which they communicate. Most people just want to feel some control over their lives, so telling them they're wrong and trying to reframe their reality might not ultimately be a positive, as long as their beliefs allow them to remain predictable and act within reason in their society. What's their motivation? If it is to knowingly start and propagate lies, then you're obviously not going to get them to change. If it's to parrot falsities to feel control or look smart (what I believe PG is referring to as "conventional-minded"), figure out ways to subtly shift that without making it clear you're undermining them, if that's your motivation. It doesn't have to be all or nothing unless you're a cult leader or protecting a loved one from a con. But then, hey, why is your reality the correct version of reality?
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      There's a side-effect here. If you're interacting in a place where straight-up calling bullshit on someone is socially unacceptable (HN, Wikipedia talk pages, many professional settings), then your first suggestion will simply take the place of calling bullshit and have the same effect.
      - lowcodetv 6y ago
        Definitely agree. It's difficult to convey that level of charm / diplomacy via text, for me at least. Body language and other props being available also play a big role in making someone switch focus, and at least feel positively about the overall interaction, even if I ultimately agree to disagree (and state that, or not). If I feel as though the online recipient of my messaging isn't receptive, there's really no need to contend in the first place. I don't have to change everyone's mind, nor is it really my place to do so ...
darkerside 6y ago
While this activity can be useful, I think it is simultaneously at the root of many of our social problems today. You cannot ask this question about literally everything. Well, you can, but you'll end up questioning things that are universally accepted (Which way is North? Is gasoline flammable?). So naturally you dial it back, and you ask questions only about things that seem wrong, or that you particularly care about. The corollary is that you are going to decide subjectively (and somewhat arbitrarily) that some things are not worth questioning. And just like that, everybody has made their own independent assumptions about the truth, and we can no longer have discussions about a common set of facts. The cure is not just questioning facts "more". The cure is actually aligning as a society about what we accept as true so that we can converse about the other things. But, that means less independent thinking, paradoxically.
- toyg 6y ago
  > that means less independent thinking, paradoxically. This is indeed the paradox of our times. An accelerated technology shift (the global computer network) has generated large amounts of people who are rationally self-reliant to a fault, since they are either the only ones in their social circles who understand the new tech or the only ones who can spend a lot of time reading stuff from the internet. This cult of "independent thinking" leads them down dark alleys for which they simply don't have the necessary preparation (conspiracies, flat earth, etc), but from which they cannot get out (because admitting your own reasoning is wrong is extremely difficult). How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...) I guess it's a balance. Society simply would not hold if we all were radical independent thinkers, since we'd be constantly questioning everything that we cannot individually and immediately determine as true. A degree of conformism is actually necessary for progress of any sort.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...) Find a way to get rationalists out of believing that these examples are an accurate representation of the beliefs of the conspiracy world in general, and you may be well on your way to a universal solution. But watch out for that first step, it's a doozy. This essay provides a lot of the necessary advice to accomplish such a thing, but I suspect one must actually possess sufficient unconventionality to exercise it, not just perceive oneself to possess it.
frogpelt 6y ago
When it's appropriate to do so, and it's information that can be verified you can say, "Where did you get your information/Where did you learn that?" which may be slightly less confrontational. If it's just an opinion, well, you might ask "how did you arrive at that conclusion?" or you might smile and say, "Oh, yeah?"
ncfausti 6y ago
I love (and identify with) the sentiment of your last paragraph. One of my favorite cities is Sao Paulo. All outdoor advertisements were banned in 2006. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

base698 6y ago

He mentions in the next sentence: "I'm not suggesting that you impose on everyone who talks to you the burden of proving what they say" > When you hear someone say something, stop and ask yourself "Is that true?" Don't say it out loud. I'm not suggesting that you impose on everyone who talks to you the burden of proving what they say, but rather that you take upon yourself the burden of evaluating what they say.

karlerss 6y ago
I have found it useful to ask "why do you think this true?" instead. When there's enough time of course.
- k_sze 6y ago
  That sound like the classic "How Do You Know?" question in Theory of Knowledge.
hnracer 6y ago
Although it could act as a good filter, if they lash out it's a valuable red flag
- lowcodetv 6y ago
  Absolutely a clear signal that their belief is emotional. If you step on that toe just make it clear that you aren't questioning them at all, in fact, "you agree with them... you just wanted to know some sources to point to when those other nosey people who question our beliefs do so"... and diffuse the situation. You really just want to make the other person feel "heard" and respected for their opinion, if that's the level at which they communicate. Most people just want to feel some control over their lives, so telling them they're wrong and trying to reframe their reality might not ultimately be a positive, as long as their beliefs allow them to remain predictable and act within reason in their society. What's their motivation? If it is to knowingly start and propagate lies, then you're obviously not going to get them to change. If it's to parrot falsities to feel control or look smart (what I believe PG is referring to as "conventional-minded"), figure out ways to subtly shift that without making it clear you're undermining them, if that's your motivation. It doesn't have to be all or nothing unless you're a cult leader or protecting a loved one from a con. But then, hey, why is your reality the correct version of reality?
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    There's a side-effect here. If you're interacting in a place where straight-up calling bullshit on someone is socially unacceptable (HN, Wikipedia talk pages, many professional settings), then your first suggestion will simply take the place of calling bullshit and have the same effect.
    - lowcodetv 6y ago
      Definitely agree. It's difficult to convey that level of charm / diplomacy via text, for me at least. Body language and other props being available also play a big role in making someone switch focus, and at least feel positively about the overall interaction, even if I ultimately agree to disagree (and state that, or not). If I feel as though the online recipient of my messaging isn't receptive, there's really no need to contend in the first place. I don't have to change everyone's mind, nor is it really my place to do so ...

darkerside 6y ago

While this activity can be useful, I think it is simultaneously at the root of many of our social problems today. You cannot ask this question about literally everything. Well, you can, but you'll end up questioning things that are universally accepted (Which way is North? Is gasoline flammable?). So naturally you dial it back, and you ask questions only about things that seem wrong, or that you particularly care about. The corollary is that you are going to decide subjectively (and somewhat arbitrarily) that some things are not worth questioning. And just like that, everybody has made their own independent assumptions about the truth, and we can no longer have discussions about a common set of facts. The cure is not just questioning facts "more". The cure is actually aligning as a society about what we accept as true so that we can converse about the other things. But, that means less independent thinking, paradoxically.

toyg 6y ago
> that means less independent thinking, paradoxically. This is indeed the paradox of our times. An accelerated technology shift (the global computer network) has generated large amounts of people who are rationally self-reliant to a fault, since they are either the only ones in their social circles who understand the new tech or the only ones who can spend a lot of time reading stuff from the internet. This cult of "independent thinking" leads them down dark alleys for which they simply don't have the necessary preparation (conspiracies, flat earth, etc), but from which they cannot get out (because admitting your own reasoning is wrong is extremely difficult). How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...) I guess it's a balance. Society simply would not hold if we all were radical independent thinkers, since we'd be constantly questioning everything that we cannot individually and immediately determine as true. A degree of conformism is actually necessary for progress of any sort.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...) Find a way to get rationalists out of believing that these examples are an accurate representation of the beliefs of the conspiracy world in general, and you may be well on your way to a universal solution. But watch out for that first step, it's a doozy. This essay provides a lot of the necessary advice to accomplish such a thing, but I suspect one must actually possess sufficient unconventionality to exercise it, not just perceive oneself to possess it.

frogpelt 6y ago

When it's appropriate to do so, and it's information that can be verified you can say, "Where did you get your information/Where did you learn that?" which may be slightly less confrontational. If it's just an opinion, well, you might ask "how did you arrive at that conclusion?" or you might smile and say, "Oh, yeah?"

ncfausti 6y ago

I love (and identify with) the sentiment of your last paragraph. One of my favorite cities is Sao Paulo. All outdoor advertisements were banned in 2006. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...