7 ms·

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

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 ...
    - galaxyLogic 6y ago
      > straight-up calling bullshit on someone is socially unacceptable I think it's not about social acceptance. It is unacceptable because if you call them bullshit without giving good reasons why you think so it is not advancing the discussion in any good way. You are not contributing anything except your personal opinion. If you do have good reasons to explain why you think they are wrong you don't need to call them names because you can just provide the correct reasoning instead.
      - lowcodetv 6y ago
        Exactly. It's definitely cognitively dissonant to say to someone, "You're wrong, let me see your facts... but I don't have facts about why you're wrong." I think something to reiterate is that it never goes well when you tell the other person that you disagree with them. A person is not just one idea, they're made from thousands... You're merely disagreeing with one idea, and that should be made clear when you're speaking with them. Regarding the parent comment's terminology of "calling bs", that's a bit of a harsh way to put it, or approach it, if you're trying to reconcile a difference of opinion over a single idea, and not fundamentally pointing at another person and saying, "You are your one bad idea and I don't like either."

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 ...
  - galaxyLogic 6y ago
    > straight-up calling bullshit on someone is socially unacceptable I think it's not about social acceptance. It is unacceptable because if you call them bullshit without giving good reasons why you think so it is not advancing the discussion in any good way. You are not contributing anything except your personal opinion. If you do have good reasons to explain why you think they are wrong you don't need to call them names because you can just provide the correct reasoning instead.
    - lowcodetv 6y ago
      Exactly. It's definitely cognitively dissonant to say to someone, "You're wrong, let me see your facts... but I don't have facts about why you're wrong." I think something to reiterate is that it never goes well when you tell the other person that you disagree with them. A person is not just one idea, they're made from thousands... You're merely disagreeing with one idea, and that should be made clear when you're speaking with them. Regarding the parent comment's terminology of "calling bs", that's a bit of a harsh way to put it, or approach it, if you're trying to reconcile a difference of opinion over a single idea, and not fundamentally pointing at another person and saying, "You are your one bad idea and I don't like either."