3 ms·

Certainly you jest... If we apply this kind of belief to corporations/government/etc. we get the things that most folks at HN spend their non-tech comments com

by pempem 4y ago

Certainly you jest... If we apply this kind of belief to corporations/government/etc. we get the things that most folks at HN spend their non-tech comments complaining about. Entrenched power, inability to pursue effectiveness because "this is how its always been done" and a lot of fluff. You are not ruining people's lives by sharing reasoning to change someone's values. You are not destroying their lives because simply talking to someone is not forcing them to accept and implement something. Their community is not flexible enough to incorporate differing beliefs and thus not long destined for this world. Take for example, Christianity. It comes in more flavors than ice cream, and infighting occurs but is rare in the face of conversations that pit Muslims or 'heathen religions' against Christianity. flexibility Or take Hindu social society which is literally the oldest surviving widespread religion + social group that continuously assimilates different beliefs from different pagan religions bending so far that Hindus now celebrate Valentines and Xmas Day without invalidating a single belief. The party "destroying lives" is not the party that posits a new way of thinking.

JamesianP 4y ago
It's a question of moral responsibility. If you cause someone to make a major change in their life, surely you'd agree that you bear at least part of the responsibility for the outcome. It's the same with changing govt. Doesn't necessarily mean the only choice is doing nothing. But that you must weigh outcomes realistically, not idealistically.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  I have to disagree with this point in this context. "Changing someone's mind" is a collaborative act. If you change someone's mind about something important, they are more responsible for the change than you are, because they have more power than you over the change. You don't own the beliefs of others. Share information when you have it. Maximize peoples' opportunities to hold informed beliefs.
  - tacitusarc 4y ago
    It’s sounds like you simply misread the comment you replied to, and the two of you agree.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      No. Parent was saying you have to weigh the consequences of changing someone's mind. That's the part I disagree with, unless of course they're children. You shouldn't censor your ideas for fear of harming adults, in the name of "realism" or otherwise.
      - tacitusarc 4y ago
        They said the instigator bears some responsibility, you replied the majority of the responsibility lies with the one whose mind was changed. These views do not seem in opposition to me. Surely one must weigh the consequences of changing another’s mind. If there are extreme detrimental effects, perhaps it is not proper to do so.
        pempem 4y ago
        That is inherently paternalistic and sounds reminiscent of colonial attitudes. The claim is that we're protecting the listener from the impact of their own decisions on their own life. If you believe you can change an adult's mind in a normal situation (for example, we are not including someone isolated through prison, cults, etc. or of diminished mental capacity) then you're claiming the ability to change their mind to their detriment and their inability to see the impact of that change. In this situation, you have done something to them like the Pied Piper, leading them away from community...except that the pied piper was only able to lead children.
        tacitusarc 4y ago
        I imagine the line is different for different people, but it could very well impact more than just their life. Say, for example, you have a colleague who is convinced his wife is faithful, but by coincidence you saw her at a bar with a gentleman and quite clearly it was romantic in nature. Do you mention it? When he doesn't believe you, do you try to convince him? What if he is short tempered and known to have a violent side? To be clear, I am not advocating any particular course of action here, just acknowledging there are situations where it is tricky.
- sujinge9 4y ago
  Changing someone's mind is not equivalent to making them take action that will have negative consequences.

by pempem 4y ago

JamesianP 4y ago

It's a question of moral responsibility. If you cause someone to make a major change in their life, surely you'd agree that you bear at least part of the responsibility for the outcome. It's the same with changing govt. Doesn't necessarily mean the only choice is doing nothing. But that you must weigh outcomes realistically, not idealistically.

BobbyJo 4y ago
I have to disagree with this point in this context. "Changing someone's mind" is a collaborative act. If you change someone's mind about something important, they are more responsible for the change than you are, because they have more power than you over the change. You don't own the beliefs of others. Share information when you have it. Maximize peoples' opportunities to hold informed beliefs.
- tacitusarc 4y ago
  It’s sounds like you simply misread the comment you replied to, and the two of you agree.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    No. Parent was saying you have to weigh the consequences of changing someone's mind. That's the part I disagree with, unless of course they're children. You shouldn't censor your ideas for fear of harming adults, in the name of "realism" or otherwise.
    - tacitusarc 4y ago
      They said the instigator bears some responsibility, you replied the majority of the responsibility lies with the one whose mind was changed. These views do not seem in opposition to me. Surely one must weigh the consequences of changing another’s mind. If there are extreme detrimental effects, perhaps it is not proper to do so.
      - pempem 4y ago
        That is inherently paternalistic and sounds reminiscent of colonial attitudes. The claim is that we're protecting the listener from the impact of their own decisions on their own life. If you believe you can change an adult's mind in a normal situation (for example, we are not including someone isolated through prison, cults, etc. or of diminished mental capacity) then you're claiming the ability to change their mind to their detriment and their inability to see the impact of that change. In this situation, you have done something to them like the Pied Piper, leading them away from community...except that the pied piper was only able to lead children.
        tacitusarc 4y ago
        I imagine the line is different for different people, but it could very well impact more than just their life. Say, for example, you have a colleague who is convinced his wife is faithful, but by coincidence you saw her at a bar with a gentleman and quite clearly it was romantic in nature. Do you mention it? When he doesn't believe you, do you try to convince him? What if he is short tempered and known to have a violent side? To be clear, I am not advocating any particular course of action here, just acknowledging there are situations where it is tricky.
sujinge9 4y ago
Changing someone's mind is not equivalent to making them take action that will have negative consequences.