4 ms·

Steven Sloman at Brown University argues there is good evidence showing when people are asked to explain something in depth, their mind can be changed. Basicall

Steven Sloman at Brown University argues there is good evidence showing when people are asked to explain something in depth, their mind can be changed. Basically, it hinges on the idea of "the illusion of explanatory depth". People don't actually understand concepts as well as they think they do. If they come to that realization on their own (with your help, of course) they may wobble on their convictions, at which point you can point them toward better, more empirically driven conclusions. So, in the case of your neighbor, ask them to explain their anti-climate change beliefs in depth, in a non-confrontational way. "Oh that's interesting, how does that work?". Kind of a 5-why approach. Hopefully as they dig in they realize, "Hey, I don't actually understand this very well." At which point, you point them to strong counterfactuals to their beliefs.

irrational 5y ago
> At which point, you point them to strong counterfactuals to their beliefs. This is the hard part. I don’t have these resources at my fingertips for every issue. When I’m talking to my neighbor Karen I can’t just say, there are articles to back up what I’m saying about climate change, COVID denial, anti vaccines, flat earth, getting microchipped, dangers of wireless energy, homeopathy, lizard people, etc.
- eropple 5y ago
  Right--and part of the epistemic closure that they're in is that they have been repeatedly and consistently exposed to memes that enable that kind of whataboutism. Often they're so detached from any sort of objective reality that they will bring even a prepared and knowledgeable speaker to a halt because the only response is "what are you even talking about?". This is the crux of the ideological problem we're facing: one "side" might be wrong and one "side" makes shit up and the equivalence has been drawn into the mushy middle's brains that pulling people out of the muck requires probably more time and effort than any one person can manage.

irrational 5y ago

> At which point, you point them to strong counterfactuals to their beliefs. This is the hard part. I don’t have these resources at my fingertips for every issue. When I’m talking to my neighbor Karen I can’t just say, there are articles to back up what I’m saying about climate change, COVID denial, anti vaccines, flat earth, getting microchipped, dangers of wireless energy, homeopathy, lizard people, etc.

eropple 5y ago
Right--and part of the epistemic closure that they're in is that they have been repeatedly and consistently exposed to memes that enable that kind of whataboutism. Often they're so detached from any sort of objective reality that they will bring even a prepared and knowledgeable speaker to a halt because the only response is "what are you even talking about?". This is the crux of the ideological problem we're facing: one "side" might be wrong and one "side" makes shit up and the equivalence has been drawn into the mushy middle's brains that pulling people out of the muck requires probably more time and effort than any one person can manage.