6 ms·

Why does this technique change anything? You are still assuming the supposed superior position, since you imply that the stance of your discussion partner is w

Why does this technique change anything? You are still assuming the supposed superior position, since you imply that the stance of your discussion partner is wrong and needs to be changed. Dont you see how patronising this is?

Pyramus 5y ago
I think you misunderstood the technique, e.g. you can simply apply it to yourself. If there is nothing that will change one's position, it's not worth engaging because the outcome is set.
- kazinator 5y ago
  If a position is held based on rational evidence, then there is always something which can change it: a flaw being found in the evidence.
rfrey 5y ago
In any debate outside of clubs you assume you're right and the other person is wrong - otherwise you'd change your mind. What the question your parent poses can do is get to the root of the objection your conversation partner has. "What would make you change your mind" forces the conversation in the direction of uncovering the true source of the disagreement. It helps to avoid talking about "symptoms" or issues that you might find important but are not important to your partner. It helps avoid talking past each other. It helps identify what issues are important to the other person.
silicon2401 5y ago
This kind of fragility is hostile to rational discussions. There's no patronisation to asking somebody a question about their beliefs; it's literally just a question. If somebody asked me that, I would take it as an opportunity to really explore my beliefs, and think about what conditions would cause me to change my beliefs. It has nothing to do with the other person or their beliefs. We shouldn't encourage this kind of fragility and victim complex that has become so common lately.
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  In my experience, the intent of people asking me why I don’t want to vaccinate is almost never to really understand my perspective and my reasons for not doing so. Instead the goal is usually to find the first statement I make that they feel they can easily attack (ignoring all other reasons I state), and then attack that statement and conclude that I am a conspiracy theorist antivaxxer.
  - mlang23 5y ago
    I experience similar things. Frankly, I think the media has put so many weird labels on people who choose not to vaccinate that after the lockdowns, the vaxed people found a sort of sensation in talking to non-vaxed people. It felt like in a zoo. "So, you are not vaxed because you are afraid of the pain?" The actual reason for most, which is "I have decided to risk an infection to let my immune system do its job" is never really talked about because I mostly end up terminating the conversation because it has this distinct derogatory tone from the ohter side.
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      > The actual reason for most, which is "I have decided to risk an infection to let my immune system do its job" To be fair, this is what the vaccines do.
      - mlang23 5y ago
        Come on. If humanity were unable to survive without the help of artificial vaccines, we would never be here.
        CogitoCogito 5y ago
        > Come on. If humanity were unable to survive without the help of artificial vaccines, we would never be here. I never said that humanity couldn't survive without a vaccine. Clearly we can. We also can survive with rotten meat and with poor shelter and with rampant war and famine. Sure a larger portion of us would die, but humanity would certainly survive. Anyway my point was that when you're infected with a virus, your body basically builds up the ability to recognize certain proteins that the virus expresses and uses that to fight it off. It takes time to build up the ability to fight it off. The vaccine exposes you to basically the same proteins so that your body is able to identify and fight off the virus more quickly after infection. So really the vaccines are just priming your immune system so that it can better do its job.
Grimm1 5y ago
Maybe they do have the superior position, just because you happen to hold a belief doesn't make it valid. That's the point of discussion in the first place, that is to understand.
tnel77 5y ago
I don’t think it’s patronizing. You are asking someone what their concerns are with your opinion. They could answer “nothing” and that would be an acceptable answer to the question.

Pyramus 5y ago

I think you misunderstood the technique, e.g. you can simply apply it to yourself. If there is nothing that will change one's position, it's not worth engaging because the outcome is set.

kazinator 5y ago
If a position is held based on rational evidence, then there is always something which can change it: a flaw being found in the evidence.

rfrey 5y ago

In any debate outside of clubs you assume you're right and the other person is wrong - otherwise you'd change your mind. What the question your parent poses can do is get to the root of the objection your conversation partner has. "What would make you change your mind" forces the conversation in the direction of uncovering the true source of the disagreement. It helps to avoid talking about "symptoms" or issues that you might find important but are not important to your partner. It helps avoid talking past each other. It helps identify what issues are important to the other person.

silicon2401 5y ago

This kind of fragility is hostile to rational discussions. There's no patronisation to asking somebody a question about their beliefs; it's literally just a question. If somebody asked me that, I would take it as an opportunity to really explore my beliefs, and think about what conditions would cause me to change my beliefs. It has nothing to do with the other person or their beliefs. We shouldn't encourage this kind of fragility and victim complex that has become so common lately.

bananabiscuit 5y ago
In my experience, the intent of people asking me why I don’t want to vaccinate is almost never to really understand my perspective and my reasons for not doing so. Instead the goal is usually to find the first statement I make that they feel they can easily attack (ignoring all other reasons I state), and then attack that statement and conclude that I am a conspiracy theorist antivaxxer.
- mlang23 5y ago
  I experience similar things. Frankly, I think the media has put so many weird labels on people who choose not to vaccinate that after the lockdowns, the vaxed people found a sort of sensation in talking to non-vaxed people. It felt like in a zoo. "So, you are not vaxed because you are afraid of the pain?" The actual reason for most, which is "I have decided to risk an infection to let my immune system do its job" is never really talked about because I mostly end up terminating the conversation because it has this distinct derogatory tone from the ohter side.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    > The actual reason for most, which is "I have decided to risk an infection to let my immune system do its job" To be fair, this is what the vaccines do.
    - mlang23 5y ago
      Come on. If humanity were unable to survive without the help of artificial vaccines, we would never be here.
      - CogitoCogito 5y ago
        > Come on. If humanity were unable to survive without the help of artificial vaccines, we would never be here. I never said that humanity couldn't survive without a vaccine. Clearly we can. We also can survive with rotten meat and with poor shelter and with rampant war and famine. Sure a larger portion of us would die, but humanity would certainly survive. Anyway my point was that when you're infected with a virus, your body basically builds up the ability to recognize certain proteins that the virus expresses and uses that to fight it off. It takes time to build up the ability to fight it off. The vaccine exposes you to basically the same proteins so that your body is able to identify and fight off the virus more quickly after infection. So really the vaccines are just priming your immune system so that it can better do its job.

Grimm1 5y ago

Maybe they do have the superior position, just because you happen to hold a belief doesn't make it valid. That's the point of discussion in the first place, that is to understand.

tnel77 5y ago

I don’t think it’s patronizing. You are asking someone what their concerns are with your opinion. They could answer “nothing” and that would be an acceptable answer to the question.