3 ms·

Has that kind of metaphor ever helped in a real case/conversation you know of? The metaphor illustrates how what you're saying might be true and helps understa

Has that kind of metaphor ever helped in a real case/conversation you know of? The metaphor illustrates how what you're saying might be true and helps understand what you mean. Somebody who disagrees usually understands what you mean by "it's getting warmer". They just don't believe it. At least that's my experience. Convincing someone in such matters is completely impossible unless there is a prior personal relationship of trust and respect. Even then it's very hard.

mym1990 3y ago
Trying to convince someone opposite of something they really really believe in has a very low probability of success, you will just ground them more into their belief. There are different pathways, but they take empathy and patience, some traits a lot of people lack when communicating with counter parties.
- Retric 3y ago
  You can convince people, but you can’t do it with a simple online post. Proselytism covers a wide range of tactics that convince people to change deeply held beliefs independent of how accurate what you’re trying to convince them is. Science has a major advantage here because you can provide actual evidence, but you don’t need to limit yourself to using evidence alone. At the extreme end deprogramming the is often referred to in terms of ‘cult deprogramming’ but it’s more widely applicable and more effective than it has any right to be. Clearly unacceptable in this context, but worth understanding from a psychological perspective.
  - mym1990 3y ago
    You can get centrists over to your side, or people with loosely held beliefs. You aren't getting 99% of the extremists. Proselytization likely works most effectively on the above groups, and while it might be a big win to convert 1 X believer to a Y believer, you could probably just convert 10 non-believers into Y much more effectively. Deprogramming sounds exactly the opposite of 'empathy and patience'.
    - Retric 3y ago
      I bring this stuff up to promote empathy and patience. Yelling at the uneducated may be enjoyable but it’s not effective. On the other hand understanding why people come to these conclusions can help you minimize the number of people coming to wildly incorrect conclusions. Because the issue isn’t just climate change alone, we also need to deal with antibiotic resistance, corruption, infectious diseases, and all the other complex problems faced by modern societies.
      - mym1990 3y ago
        Agreed! Depending on your definition of 'modern society', I would say that pretty much all of those complex problems have been around for as long as humans have found a way to organize.
otikik 3y ago
The reason this sometimes work is not because it objectively should. It's because it helps the other person relate. It's way more difficult to convince someone of something if they already see you as "their ideological opposite". It's a chasm too wide to cross for most of us humans. The "gaining weight" conversation is something that they understand, probably have experienced themselves, or have seen their spouse try. It's not something that can be perceived as coming from the "scientist caste" (this is a real term I have heard used). You are less of an opponent and more of a next-door-guy trying to explain something. It's a bridge that you lay over the chasm. They still need to walk over it, though. I'm sure there's some sports argument that can be laid out in a similar fashion.

mym1990 3y ago

Trying to convince someone opposite of something they really really believe in has a very low probability of success, you will just ground them more into their belief. There are different pathways, but they take empathy and patience, some traits a lot of people lack when communicating with counter parties.

Retric 3y ago
You can convince people, but you can’t do it with a simple online post. Proselytism covers a wide range of tactics that convince people to change deeply held beliefs independent of how accurate what you’re trying to convince them is. Science has a major advantage here because you can provide actual evidence, but you don’t need to limit yourself to using evidence alone. At the extreme end deprogramming the is often referred to in terms of ‘cult deprogramming’ but it’s more widely applicable and more effective than it has any right to be. Clearly unacceptable in this context, but worth understanding from a psychological perspective.
- mym1990 3y ago
  You can get centrists over to your side, or people with loosely held beliefs. You aren't getting 99% of the extremists. Proselytization likely works most effectively on the above groups, and while it might be a big win to convert 1 X believer to a Y believer, you could probably just convert 10 non-believers into Y much more effectively. Deprogramming sounds exactly the opposite of 'empathy and patience'.
  - Retric 3y ago
    I bring this stuff up to promote empathy and patience. Yelling at the uneducated may be enjoyable but it’s not effective. On the other hand understanding why people come to these conclusions can help you minimize the number of people coming to wildly incorrect conclusions. Because the issue isn’t just climate change alone, we also need to deal with antibiotic resistance, corruption, infectious diseases, and all the other complex problems faced by modern societies.
    - mym1990 3y ago
      Agreed! Depending on your definition of 'modern society', I would say that pretty much all of those complex problems have been around for as long as humans have found a way to organize.

otikik 3y ago

The reason this sometimes work is not because it objectively should. It's because it helps the other person relate. It's way more difficult to convince someone of something if they already see you as "their ideological opposite". It's a chasm too wide to cross for most of us humans. The "gaining weight" conversation is something that they understand, probably have experienced themselves, or have seen their spouse try. It's not something that can be perceived as coming from the "scientist caste" (this is a real term I have heard used). You are less of an opponent and more of a next-door-guy trying to explain something. It's a bridge that you lay over the chasm. They still need to walk over it, though. I'm sure there's some sports argument that can be laid out in a similar fashion.