2 ms·
Yeah and those open minded people might really be on to something there. I didn't particularly like the premise of the article, which seems to be that the goal
by black_puppydog 4y ago
Yeah and those open minded people might really be on to something there.
I didn't particularly like the premise of the article, which seems to be that the goal is to change the other's mind. But think about it, what could be more beneficial to me than having an argument that changes my mind? If I convince someone of my opinion (whether by "weapon" or by "gift") then they learned something (ideally...) but if I change my mind thanks to the conversation, then I just learned something, I got to make that improvement to myself.
A day where nobody changed your mind is a day of stagnation.
- slowmovintarget 4y agoRight, that starts from the assumption that one's view is correct. Bayesian reasoning has you start with priors, take in new information, change or adjust your credences, and possibly adjust your priors. Having that kind of conversation is far more productive, and potentially more charitable in assumption of sincerity on the other party's part.