8 ms·

I can't get people I am close with to even consider engaging in conversations about firmly held beliefs they have if I even remotely present myself as possibly

I can't get people I am close with to even consider engaging in conversations about firmly held beliefs they have if I even remotely present myself as possibly holding a different opinion.

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Understand that this is the norm. And understand that when you present differing opinions without being asked, you’re acting selfishly — you’re not doing it because you care about them, you’re doing it for yourself. Ultimately it depends what you want out of your personal relationships. I’ve found people who are willing to talk. But I haven’t found people who genuinely change their mind about deeply held beliefs without a lot of patient — emphasis on patient — conversations over a long period of time. And sometimes I’m the one who changes their mind. So I don’t think you’re going to be satisfied if you feel you must be able to change your group’s minds about social issues. A group is its own form of entity. If you don’t identify with your group, find another one. They exist. But if you don’t identify with your associates, that’s a hard problem which won’t go away. It helps to accept that you care about them more than what they believe, and leave it at that.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  That's not what I am saying at all. I mean for the sake of conversation and discussion, asking to even explain a belief, for understanding. Sometimes even the question is seemed as a threat. I didn't say I want to change anyone's mind. Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. I see what you are saying, but you jumped the gun a little bit.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    It's not really anything new: Most people generally don't want to entertain ideas highly contrary to their own. Enshrined in the the old adage that you should never discuss religion or politics in some circumstances. Thanksgiving dinners have been getting ruined for decades by it. The rate of that happening has very likely increased though.
  - sillysaurusx 6y ago
    Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. Are you sure? I don’t know. It helped me to view it as “yes, this is selfish. They’re more important to me than the topic.” The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Another way to phrase it: why care so much what they think? If they don’t explain themselves, then they probably don’t care whether you agree. To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.)
    - zelphirkalt 6y ago
      What is your definition of selfishness then? Looking at the things you wrote: > They’re more important to me than the topic. Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person? > The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Perhaps. But the interpretation is still not immediately "selfishness" for me. You are not there to please them and make them feel good. But how does that immediately become "selfish"? > To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.) Yes, that is a good introspective question, that one maybe should ask oneself. However, if anything that could somehow be interpreted as "wanting something for oneself" is considered selfish, then we can shut down all our media right now and stop talking to everyone else. You can always claim "You did this or that conversation only to feel good about yourself! So Selfish!" So I am asking: What is your definition of selfishness?
      - thebean11 6y ago
        > Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person? You care about the topic, they don't want to talk about it for whatever reason. You are trying to get them to do something they don't like, because _you_ like it.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    Based on what you've said, I get the same impression. If you want to connect with somebody, don't talk. Listen. Even if you "know" you're right. As stubborn as you think those people are, they have a good case for arguing that you are just as stubborn if not more so.
    - marvin 6y ago
      Most people you'd disagree with generally have a point, if you get past the quick-release talking points. If one tries to have a genuine conversation, it might be surprising to many how much common ground can be found.
    - dimitrios1 6y ago
      Do you hang out with people who just talk all day without a prompt? How do you listen if you don't first ask?
      - darkerside 6y ago
        I'm sorry, but I truly don't understand your point here. Do you mind explaining it for me?
      - darkerside 6y ago
        I think I get your question now. Honestly, there is an art to it, and you can't always just come out and ask. It exposes that you care more about the information than you do about the person. Maybe bring it up gently the next time it comes up in context. Or, when it's just the two of you, ask if you can bring up a potentially sensitive question with no judgement involved, just to learn.
- op03 6y ago
  Good job. And correct.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  You are assuming a great deal.
aeternum 6y ago
I'd suggest approaching the conversation from the POV that you yourself have not fully made up your mind about an issue and would like input. By genuinely adopting this viewpoint, not only will you likely have a more productive discussion, but you may reconsider some of your own priors.
shortandsweet 6y ago
Same. I want to start a club of people like us. At a library with a coffee shop and bar included. Bunch of us philosophical peeps chillin and talking shit but nobody gets mad. I would love such a paradise.
- narrator 6y ago
  It's called 4chan.
  - shortandsweet 6y ago
    I don't get how 4chan related to the conversation. My main desire is to find people that are truth seekers. Question what we know and investigate. I don't find that curiousity in most people. How that is related to 4chan is lost on me.
    - malwrar 6y ago
      I think the poster means the anonymous, no upvote aspect. Seriously, I’ve been on quite a few different styles of message board and discussion quality is noticeably better when you can’t get any other queues about how “right” an post is except for its content. Depending on the subject, some of the not-pol/b boards can actually be quite nice.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I think he is thinking smaller. Maybe 10 people at most.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Consider looking if there's a LessWrong meetup nearby? The wiki has a list. edit: Probably better after Covid.

I can't get people I am close with to even consider engaging in conversations about firmly held beliefs they have if I even remotely present myself as possibly holding a different opinion.

sillysaurusx 6y ago

Understand that this is the norm. And understand that when you present differing opinions without being asked, you’re acting selfishly — you’re not doing it because you care about them, you’re doing it for yourself. Ultimately it depends what you want out of your personal relationships. I’ve found people who are willing to talk. But I haven’t found people who genuinely change their mind about deeply held beliefs without a lot of patient — emphasis on patient — conversations over a long period of time. And sometimes I’m the one who changes their mind. So I don’t think you’re going to be satisfied if you feel you must be able to change your group’s minds about social issues. A group is its own form of entity. If you don’t identify with your group, find another one. They exist. But if you don’t identify with your associates, that’s a hard problem which won’t go away. It helps to accept that you care about them more than what they believe, and leave it at that.

dimitrios1 6y ago
That's not what I am saying at all. I mean for the sake of conversation and discussion, asking to even explain a belief, for understanding. Sometimes even the question is seemed as a threat. I didn't say I want to change anyone's mind. Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. I see what you are saying, but you jumped the gun a little bit.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  It's not really anything new: Most people generally don't want to entertain ideas highly contrary to their own. Enshrined in the the old adage that you should never discuss religion or politics in some circumstances. Thanksgiving dinners have been getting ruined for decades by it. The rate of that happening has very likely increased though.
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. Are you sure? I don’t know. It helped me to view it as “yes, this is selfish. They’re more important to me than the topic.” The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Another way to phrase it: why care so much what they think? If they don’t explain themselves, then they probably don’t care whether you agree. To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.)
  - zelphirkalt 6y ago
    What is your definition of selfishness then? Looking at the things you wrote: > They’re more important to me than the topic. Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person? > The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Perhaps. But the interpretation is still not immediately "selfishness" for me. You are not there to please them and make them feel good. But how does that immediately become "selfish"? > To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.) Yes, that is a good introspective question, that one maybe should ask oneself. However, if anything that could somehow be interpreted as "wanting something for oneself" is considered selfish, then we can shut down all our media right now and stop talking to everyone else. You can always claim "You did this or that conversation only to feel good about yourself! So Selfish!" So I am asking: What is your definition of selfishness?
    - thebean11 6y ago
      > Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person? You care about the topic, they don't want to talk about it for whatever reason. You are trying to get them to do something they don't like, because _you_ like it.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Based on what you've said, I get the same impression. If you want to connect with somebody, don't talk. Listen. Even if you "know" you're right. As stubborn as you think those people are, they have a good case for arguing that you are just as stubborn if not more so.
  - marvin 6y ago
    Most people you'd disagree with generally have a point, if you get past the quick-release talking points. If one tries to have a genuine conversation, it might be surprising to many how much common ground can be found.
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    Do you hang out with people who just talk all day without a prompt? How do you listen if you don't first ask?
    - darkerside 6y ago
      I'm sorry, but I truly don't understand your point here. Do you mind explaining it for me?
    - darkerside 6y ago
      I think I get your question now. Honestly, there is an art to it, and you can't always just come out and ask. It exposes that you care more about the information than you do about the person. Maybe bring it up gently the next time it comes up in context. Or, when it's just the two of you, ask if you can bring up a potentially sensitive question with no judgement involved, just to learn.
op03 6y ago
Good job. And correct.
jessaustin 6y ago
You are assuming a great deal.

aeternum 6y ago

I'd suggest approaching the conversation from the POV that you yourself have not fully made up your mind about an issue and would like input. By genuinely adopting this viewpoint, not only will you likely have a more productive discussion, but you may reconsider some of your own priors.

shortandsweet 6y ago

Same. I want to start a club of people like us. At a library with a coffee shop and bar included. Bunch of us philosophical peeps chillin and talking shit but nobody gets mad. I would love such a paradise.

narrator 6y ago
It's called 4chan.
- shortandsweet 6y ago
  I don't get how 4chan related to the conversation. My main desire is to find people that are truth seekers. Question what we know and investigate. I don't find that curiousity in most people. How that is related to 4chan is lost on me.
  - malwrar 6y ago
    I think the poster means the anonymous, no upvote aspect. Seriously, I’ve been on quite a few different styles of message board and discussion quality is noticeably better when you can’t get any other queues about how “right” an post is except for its content. Depending on the subject, some of the not-pol/b boards can actually be quite nice.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I think he is thinking smaller. Maybe 10 people at most.
FeepingCreature 6y ago
Consider looking if there's a LessWrong meetup nearby? The wiki has a list. edit: Probably better after Covid.