3 ms·

Vehemently disagree. We derive our allegiances and enemies not from facts, but from our goals and values. It is completely reasonable that (minor) facts have r

by janto 5y ago

Vehemently disagree. We derive our allegiances and enemies not from facts, but from our goals and values. It is completely reasonable that (minor) facts have relatively little influence on our larger goals. The author is confused about this Is/Aught difference. Or attempting to manipulate the reader towards prioritizing Kindness without a single fact, scientific study or example anywhere in the article. Ironic.

mdp2021 5y ago
> attempting to manipulate the reader towards prioritizing Kindness without I think you may have misunderstood the message: I think he is warning (as some psychologists like to stress) that causing discrepancies in one's world view can be very stressful and painful, and that showing facts may not be productive and effective with some people¹ - so he is warning about awareness for politeness and effectiveness. ¹(to the arm-tossing author of the article, seemingly (indiscriminately) you, janto, and your unknown neighbour - and you would be right in protesting against him for the insinuation)
- janto 5y ago
  From the article: When we are in the moment, we can easily forget that the goal is to connect with the other side, collaborate with them, befriend them, and integrate them into our tribe. When I am in a dialog, my goal is not to "integrate them into my tribe". Yuck. It is to express myself authentically in a skillful way. Whatever connection and conversation emerges is then meaningful. Where the article is advocating kindness as a manipulation tactic to avoid stirring up their partner's defenses, while pursuing a specific perspective change... that is being slimy.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    What I am saying is, it's not just that: the article is not wholly rubbish. It is written (paradoxically) for a public that excludes some more "normal" languages. Even that "integrate into the tribe": there exist plausible interpretations, such as "creating a communication that spreads truths, creating further building blocks for further commonality and keys for further communication". It is also true that to play squash, spending hours to throw balls at a wall, will get frustrating if you wanted them balls to reach the other side. If you want to be understood by someone specific, you have to understand that - unfortunately - there exist a large number of people who will only understand a limited number of message forms. It's warning you about the inefficacy of flooding an HTTP server with SMTP messages. And sometimes, it's that Joe exactly you have to speak. At work, you will not be able to override that.
atoav 5y ago
In my experience telling someone in a kind way, that they are totally wrong is much more effective that just telling them they are wrong. If you tell someone they are wrong and tou want them to recognize it, you need their (ideally) voluntary corperation. If you condict yourself like an asshat, most people will not do you that favour out of purse spite. If the people know you as a tolerant person with a rational mind and a kind spirit, that is mostly driven by curiosity about the world, they will be much more likely to listen to you, because they won't assune you are just being mean. You still have the option to speak a harsh truth now and then and even this is more effective, than if you are a constant cynic that is known for this type of stuff. If you care more about making others better you should stop caring about being right in a triumphant way. Sometimes I'd love to tell people how wrong they are, but giving them the escape hatch of feeling like they had the ideas themselves has shown to be much more effective.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  A useful technique along the same lines as the one you mentioned is called "pacing and leading." In this technique you begin by agreeing with them as much as possible (pacing), and then lead them towards the better position. https://leversofpersuasion.medium.com/pacing-and-leading-133766efb463 https://leversofpersuasion.medium.com/pacing-and-leading-133...
  - janto 5y ago
    Also known as manipulation. You cannot get to a better combined perspective if you are not presenting yourself truthfully.
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      Every interaction has an element of persuasion in it. You can be good at persuasion or bad at persuasion, but it's always there. It becomes manipulation if you are intending harm, manipulation is negative persuasion.
      - 5y ago

by janto 5y ago

mdp2021 5y ago

> attempting to manipulate the reader towards prioritizing Kindness without I think you may have misunderstood the message: I think he is warning (as some psychologists like to stress) that causing discrepancies in one's world view can be very stressful and painful, and that showing facts may not be productive and effective with some people¹ - so he is warning about awareness for politeness and effectiveness. ¹(to the arm-tossing author of the article, seemingly (indiscriminately) you, janto, and your unknown neighbour - and you would be right in protesting against him for the insinuation)

janto 5y ago
From the article: When we are in the moment, we can easily forget that the goal is to connect with the other side, collaborate with them, befriend them, and integrate them into our tribe. When I am in a dialog, my goal is not to "integrate them into my tribe". Yuck. It is to express myself authentically in a skillful way. Whatever connection and conversation emerges is then meaningful. Where the article is advocating kindness as a manipulation tactic to avoid stirring up their partner's defenses, while pursuing a specific perspective change... that is being slimy.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  What I am saying is, it's not just that: the article is not wholly rubbish. It is written (paradoxically) for a public that excludes some more "normal" languages. Even that "integrate into the tribe": there exist plausible interpretations, such as "creating a communication that spreads truths, creating further building blocks for further commonality and keys for further communication". It is also true that to play squash, spending hours to throw balls at a wall, will get frustrating if you wanted them balls to reach the other side. If you want to be understood by someone specific, you have to understand that - unfortunately - there exist a large number of people who will only understand a limited number of message forms. It's warning you about the inefficacy of flooding an HTTP server with SMTP messages. And sometimes, it's that Joe exactly you have to speak. At work, you will not be able to override that.

atoav 5y ago

In my experience telling someone in a kind way, that they are totally wrong is much more effective that just telling them they are wrong. If you tell someone they are wrong and tou want them to recognize it, you need their (ideally) voluntary corperation. If you condict yourself like an asshat, most people will not do you that favour out of purse spite. If the people know you as a tolerant person with a rational mind and a kind spirit, that is mostly driven by curiosity about the world, they will be much more likely to listen to you, because they won't assune you are just being mean. You still have the option to speak a harsh truth now and then and even this is more effective, than if you are a constant cynic that is known for this type of stuff. If you care more about making others better you should stop caring about being right in a triumphant way. Sometimes I'd love to tell people how wrong they are, but giving them the escape hatch of feeling like they had the ideas themselves has shown to be much more effective.

Consultant32452 5y ago
A useful technique along the same lines as the one you mentioned is called "pacing and leading." In this technique you begin by agreeing with them as much as possible (pacing), and then lead them towards the better position. https://leversofpersuasion.medium.com/pacing-and-leading-133766efb463 https://leversofpersuasion.medium.com/pacing-and-leading-133...
- janto 5y ago
  Also known as manipulation. You cannot get to a better combined perspective if you are not presenting yourself truthfully.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    Every interaction has an element of persuasion in it. You can be good at persuasion or bad at persuasion, but it's always there. It becomes manipulation if you are intending harm, manipulation is negative persuasion.
    - 5y ago