3 ms·

> It seems many people hold a negative view without having good arguments, almost religiously. I tried discussing the benefits of cycling with a friend. "Bikes

by m0nty 15y ago

> It seems many people hold a negative view without having good arguments, almost religiously. I tried discussing the benefits of cycling with a friend. "Bikes actually use as much energy to produce as cars, since they're made of high-tech materials which use a lot of energy in manufacture." "Whenever I'm stuck in traffic, it's usually down to a cyclist somewhere." "Having several cars is very environmentally friendly, since you can select the one most suited to your requirements at the time." And he gets very pissy if I mention I've just completed a 20 mile ride or whatever, seems to think I'm bragging (which I am, sometimes ;) and it makes him a bit insecure. So yes, emotion trumps reason for some people.

pjscott 15y ago
Those objections have one thing in common: they are all flimsy after-the-fact rationalizations constructed to protect an irrational conclusion that your friend has already decided to believe, i.e. that cars are better than bikes in every way, and to hell with bikes. They're not his real objection to bikes. A good conversational tactic for that kind of situation is to try to get him to agree in advance to what evidence would sway him. If you prove to him that cars are less energy-intensive to produce than cars, or that having several cars is less environmentally friendly than having one decent all-purpose car, will he agree to accept that, and actually change his mind? The purpose of getting pre-commitment here is to avoid the inevitable back-pedaling (no pun intended) and shifting of the goal-posts that would otherwise happen once you rebut his claims.
- m0nty 15y ago
  This guy has always been one to pull facts out of his arse. As a mutual friend put it, "He seems to have found a way of skipping the evidence-gathering stage of enquiry and leaping straight to the conclusions." It's total BS but the chances of changing his mind are zero. Incidentally, he's not a complete idiot and I've known him for a long time; we've been friends since school. But he does have a massive blind-spot about this kind of thing because, basically, he's in love with his car.

by m0nty 15y ago

pjscott 15y ago

Those objections have one thing in common: they are all flimsy after-the-fact rationalizations constructed to protect an irrational conclusion that your friend has already decided to believe, i.e. that cars are better than bikes in every way, and to hell with bikes. They're not his real objection to bikes. A good conversational tactic for that kind of situation is to try to get him to agree in advance to what evidence would sway him. If you prove to him that cars are less energy-intensive to produce than cars, or that having several cars is less environmentally friendly than having one decent all-purpose car, will he agree to accept that, and actually change his mind? The purpose of getting pre-commitment here is to avoid the inevitable back-pedaling (no pun intended) and shifting of the goal-posts that would otherwise happen once you rebut his claims.

m0nty 15y ago
This guy has always been one to pull facts out of his arse. As a mutual friend put it, "He seems to have found a way of skipping the evidence-gathering stage of enquiry and leaping straight to the conclusions." It's total BS but the chances of changing his mind are zero. Incidentally, he's not a complete idiot and I've known him for a long time; we've been friends since school. But he does have a massive blind-spot about this kind of thing because, basically, he's in love with his car.