4 ms·

The Science of Reasoning with Unreasonable People

32 points by tchalla 6y ago

ianai 6y ago
They must cut it off after two paragraphs for non subscribers. But there’s no prompt to sign up to read the rest either. Could be my client?
- erikpukinskis 6y ago
  I had the same experience on iPhone. Was able to grab the essay via archive.is. Edit: I just read it, it was excellent. Not an opinion as much as an anecdote, but references some existing science. It’s too bad NYT is using this one for their paywall. Could have a positive impact.
- nabla9 6y ago
  ... [Personal narrative and anecdotal story cut out] ... .... motivational interviewing. https://motivationalinterviewing.org/ https://motivationalinterviewing.org/ The central premise: Instead of trying to force other people to change, you’re better off helping them find their own intrinsic motivation to change. You do that by interviewing them — asking open-ended questions and listening carefully — and holding up a mirror so they can see their own thoughts more clearly. If they express a desire to change, you guide them toward a plan. ... [evidence how it works ] stop smoking, abusing drugs and alcohol, and gambling; to improve their diets and exercise; to overcome eating disorders; and to lose weight. The approach has also motivated students to get a good night’s sleep; voters to reconsider their prejudices; and divorcing parents to reach settlements. ... [backlash, it didn't work] ... .... The pioneers of motivational interviewing, William Miller and Stephen Rollnick, have long warned against using the technique to manipulate people. It requires a genuine desire to understand people's motivations and help them reach their goals. ... Psychologists find that when we listen carefully and call attention to the nuances in people’s own thinking, they become less extreme and more open in their views. ... Social scientists have found that asking people how their preferred political policies might work in practice, rather than asking why they favor those approaches, was more effective in opening their minds. ... became open to a new mode of conversation, with no points to score and no debate to win. The only victory I declared was against my own prosecutor tendencies. I had prevailed over my inner logic bully. .... I no longer believe it’s my place to change anyone’s mind. All I can do is try to understand their thinking and ask if they’re open to some rethinking. The rest is up to them.
  - jl2718 6y ago
    I think often people use outwardly irrational arguments to to defend against a very rational concern. We like to think that we are smarter because we argue rational points and espouse consistent beliefs, but actually this person is simply not concerned with being transparent. Usually even the most insane belief and behavior serves a need somehow.
- gabrielsroka 6y ago
  It seems to work if your turn off JavaScript.
jimmyvalmer 6y ago
tldr: B-school psychologist tries to disabuse anti-vaxxer friend, not through reason, but having friend explain *how* pandemic can be overcome without vaccines. Friend flails at this task, and b-school psych-boy pats himself on the back even though friend doesn't change his beliefs. editorial: Most people agree psych is bunkum, but b-school psych is a particularly insidious strain of (verbose) artifice building.
- tchalla 6y ago
  > B-school psychologist Here's a link to the author's Wiki page [0]. I leave it to the readers to make decision on the author's "B-school" credentials. The NYT opinion piece also cites a lot of psychology research like [1, 2]. The readers may decide if this is "bunkum". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Grant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Grant [1] https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2018-03974-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2018-03974-001 [2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-06398-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-06398-001
  - mncharity 6y ago
    Here's his google scholar page[1]. [1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YkSKaRMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YkSKaRMAAAAJ&hl=en...
  - jl2718 6y ago
    So, one year I read just about every popular book in the ‘business’ genre. You really get a different perspective on these gurus from that.
bluepoint 6y ago
The author’s main proposal is to let people struggle through the inconsistencies of their own reasoning by asking them to explain instead of preaching them and attacking them. It looks similar to the Socratic method in which Socrates plays along with whoever he is debating, agrees on some of the assumptions that they make, plants a few more things that are also irrefutable and progressively leads them into crashing against a contradiction which he then points out. Or is it different? I would like to know. More about the Socratic midwifery method: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

32 points by tchalla 6y ago

They must cut it off after two paragraphs for non subscribers. But there’s no prompt to sign up to read the rest either. Could be my client?

erikpukinskis 6y ago
I had the same experience on iPhone. Was able to grab the essay via archive.is. Edit: I just read it, it was excellent. Not an opinion as much as an anecdote, but references some existing science. It’s too bad NYT is using this one for their paywall. Could have a positive impact.
nabla9 6y ago
... [Personal narrative and anecdotal story cut out] ... .... motivational interviewing. https://motivationalinterviewing.org/ https://motivationalinterviewing.org/ The central premise: Instead of trying to force other people to change, you’re better off helping them find their own intrinsic motivation to change. You do that by interviewing them — asking open-ended questions and listening carefully — and holding up a mirror so they can see their own thoughts more clearly. If they express a desire to change, you guide them toward a plan. ... [evidence how it works ] stop smoking, abusing drugs and alcohol, and gambling; to improve their diets and exercise; to overcome eating disorders; and to lose weight. The approach has also motivated students to get a good night’s sleep; voters to reconsider their prejudices; and divorcing parents to reach settlements. ... [backlash, it didn't work] ... .... The pioneers of motivational interviewing, William Miller and Stephen Rollnick, have long warned against using the technique to manipulate people. It requires a genuine desire to understand people's motivations and help them reach their goals. ... Psychologists find that when we listen carefully and call attention to the nuances in people’s own thinking, they become less extreme and more open in their views. ... Social scientists have found that asking people how their preferred political policies might work in practice, rather than asking why they favor those approaches, was more effective in opening their minds. ... became open to a new mode of conversation, with no points to score and no debate to win. The only victory I declared was against my own prosecutor tendencies. I had prevailed over my inner logic bully. .... I no longer believe it’s my place to change anyone’s mind. All I can do is try to understand their thinking and ask if they’re open to some rethinking. The rest is up to them.
- jl2718 6y ago
  I think often people use outwardly irrational arguments to to defend against a very rational concern. We like to think that we are smarter because we argue rational points and espouse consistent beliefs, but actually this person is simply not concerned with being transparent. Usually even the most insane belief and behavior serves a need somehow.
gabrielsroka 6y ago
It seems to work if your turn off JavaScript.

jimmyvalmer 6y ago

tldr: B-school psychologist tries to disabuse anti-vaxxer friend, not through reason, but having friend explain *how* pandemic can be overcome without vaccines. Friend flails at this task, and b-school psych-boy pats himself on the back even though friend doesn't change his beliefs. editorial: Most people agree psych is bunkum, but b-school psych is a particularly insidious strain of (verbose) artifice building.

tchalla 6y ago
> B-school psychologist Here's a link to the author's Wiki page [0]. I leave it to the readers to make decision on the author's "B-school" credentials. The NYT opinion piece also cites a lot of psychology research like [1, 2]. The readers may decide if this is "bunkum". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Grant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Grant [1] https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2018-03974-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2018-03974-001 [2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-06398-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-06398-001
- mncharity 6y ago
  Here's his google scholar page[1]. [1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YkSKaRMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YkSKaRMAAAAJ&hl=en...
- jl2718 6y ago
  So, one year I read just about every popular book in the ‘business’ genre. You really get a different perspective on these gurus from that.

bluepoint 6y ago

The author’s main proposal is to let people struggle through the inconsistencies of their own reasoning by asking them to explain instead of preaching them and attacking them. It looks similar to the Socratic method in which Socrates plays along with whoever he is debating, agrees on some of the assumptions that they make, plants a few more things that are also irrefutable and progressively leads them into crashing against a contradiction which he then points out. Or is it different? I would like to know. More about the Socratic midwifery method: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method