> Consensus reality based on division of labor and a web of trust in our authorities, combined with peer review and criticism, is the only way for society to fu

> Consensus reality based on division of labor and a web of trust in our authorities, combined with peer review and criticism, is the only way for society to function. Is this also an objective fact? Pascal's wager is similar to the climate change risk/reward function. And yet atheists still exist. If the risk magnitude is tied to the assumptions of a belief system, these arguments do not convince non-believers, just reaffirm what is already believed. It's easy to talk dispassionately about "lower GDP growth" and "some people who have been harmed" when these are things that happen to other people. When they happen close to you, it is hard maintain trust in institutions that actively harms you. It's not just Trumpists. For example, vaccine support is low among urban black communities who typically have poor experiences with the medical system. Have these people have been gaslit too? Or are their voices valid? If you want to start a conversation that can actually change someone's mind, you have to start with empathy for other positions. You cannot simply dismiss other beliefs as lies spread by the devil and/or Kochs. If, however, you are starting out from the position of "my way is the only way," then there is no dialogue possible, only repression of heterodoxy. It may be catharthic to tell someone all the ways in which they are wrong, but it doesn't win friends. It is historically not a winning strategy.