11 ms·

Persuasion that happens in good faith is a two-way street. You explain your position, but also truly listen to theirs. If you are prepared to change your own po

Persuasion that happens in good faith is a two-way street. You explain your position, but also truly listen to theirs. If you are prepared to change your own position based on what they say, then you can hope that they might change theirs based on what you say. If it is truly two way in this sense, including your best efforts to extract from the other party their strongest, potentially unexpected, arguments for their position and give them your due consideration, it shouldn't feel like manipulation.

twodave 1y ago
This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. It’s important to understand where these lines fall within yourself and those you are speaking with. Some arguments aren’t worth having in an effort to persuade, but rather they should be discussions aimed at understanding, being vulnerable and finding ways to respect and live at peace among people we have fundamental differences with. Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists.
- Nevermark 1y ago
  > there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed Well, yes there is. In fact, that is the central problem of unresolvable divisions. People implicitly making themselves "the decider" by imagining their principles are so great as to preclude any need for revision. (Faith in the primacy of one's beliefs, is inherently the same as faith in one's own primacy to choose beliefs.) There is nothing wrong with having strong core principles, because your best understanding supports them strongly. But as soon as you discount the possibility of them being wrong, even partially wrong, not the whole picture, framed within a non-tautological assumption, or not supercedable by other wiser principles, ..., you become the enemy of your own progress. Nobody's knowledge, wisdom, or principles are complete, or have consistent primacy over all others. Ultimately, principles, ethics and morality are a kind of economics. Decisions are tradeoffs between options. How does one make choices, so that the result is the outcome with the greatest value, and doesn't create other problems that exceed what is solved. That is a decidability problem, which will never have a complete or completely consistent answer. The landscape for the question "What is best?" and "What is true?" is chaotic, fractal, non-Euclidean and infinitely complex. --- One of the biggest reasons to strong man the arguments of others, is the better at strong manning you become, the more likely you find something worth changing your own views over. Regardless of how explicit, implicit, or non-existent that was in their original argument. Leveraging others disagreement, to identify misunderstandings and gaps in one's own knowledge, is the most important reason to talk to someone we disagree with. Persuading them should be second, but is also more likely if we are clearly pushing ourselves to improve first. There are very few cases where someone who disagrees with us doesn't see something wrong with our side. Or at a minimum, is not convinced because we are not as clear of a communicator as we think we are. Or not as good a listener as to what their question is, as we think. Even when we are "mostly right" and they are "mostly wrong", others rarely can't teach us something more about what we already know in one of those dimensions. --- Finally, don't try to persuade people in real time. Discuss, then move on. Discuss again if they want to. People don't decide anything big in the moment. They need time to understand an argument. Time to consider both its strengths and weaknesses. And time to consider ramifications we haven't even imagined. And the freedom to prioritize what is worth going down a rabbit hole for, in their life. --- I have been preparing to persuade a lot of people of something highly contrarian for a long time. This topic lights all the fires in me!
  - chucksmash 1y ago
    That's all well and good, but when you have to put your trust in someone and person A believes "it's wrong to cheat people" and person B has a whole framework for thinking about the problem on a case by case basis, you just go with A, right?
    - shae 1y ago
      I put my trust in someone on a case by case basis, unless they're going to cheat someone. Then I don't trust them.
    - komali2 1y ago
      I feel like people who make such blanket value statements like "I don't cheat people" or "I don't lie" aren't being honest with themselves, or are putting too much faith in the stability of the society they live in. The easiest retort is Anne Frank. You're hiding her in your attic and a Nazi asks if you're hiding enemies of the state. There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat! Someone might answer, "well, fine. I don't cheat or lie unless I'm in extraordinary circumstances." That's fine, they've let go of dogmatism then, now the interesting conversation starts of where the line is, what constitutes extraordinary circumstances. That's a very interesting conversation I believe.
      - naasking 1y ago
        > There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat! I don't think this is the win you think it is. Kantians and se deontologists will absolutely say that no, you cannot lie and cheat even in that scenario. You have a moral duty to not lie but also a moral duty to resist tyranny. You cannot sacrifice one to achieve the other, you must choose only options that fulfill both duties.
        komali2 1y ago
        Have you ever met in real life a person who wouldn't lie to the axe murderer, because of their Kantian values? If a Kantian can be put into a situation where their morals would require them to say the word that gives up Anne Frank, we can safely say it's a bad moral system.
- motorest 1y ago
  > This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. No, it is not the definition of integrity. If you opt to double-down on positions you held in spite of being presented to evidence that contradicts or refutes your prior beliefs, the behavior you are displaying is opposite of integrity, specially the part about honesty and commitment to do what's right.
  - dijit 1y ago
    having integrity: “murder is bad, even if it’s someone i disagree with (tho isn’t murdering)” lack of integrity: “EU bad, even if you give me evidence to say that it’s the UK’s own politicians that have screwed us for decades.. not the EU necessarily”
  - vdqtp3 1y ago
    Rape is wrong. It doesn't matter what your evidence or positions or logic are, you will not sway me on that point. I suspect that sort of thing is what GP meant.
    - brabel 1y ago
      But that clearly falls within the parent comment’s definition. Just because you are prepared to change your opinion on something based on evidence to the contrary, it doesn’t mean such evidence exists or may even be possible! I am of the opinion that the Earth is not flat. And I know that no evidence you can present would ever change that because it’s patently obvious that’s the case given the evidence I already have! But I am still theoretically open to a debate. That’s the scientific method.
    - antonvs 1y ago
      Much like saying "murder is wrong", the wrongness is a part of the definition of the word. There's no need for evidence or logic, beyond understanding what a definition is.
      - 1y ago
- user_7832 1y ago
  > However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity... ...Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists. And do you suggest a crusader or jihadist or keep this point of view as well? They too might think they are in the right and should keep their (religious etc) integrity, surely? Everyone/most people always assume they are always in the right; if this was objectively true, there would never be a single debate or argument in the world.
  - vintermann 1y ago
    A saying I like, apparently first made by Quine: "I always think I'm right, but I don't think I'm always right." In other words, for every belief I have, I think it's right. Clearly, otherwise I would have abandoned it already. But I don't think that the set of all my beliefs is 100% free of errors or inconsistencies.
  - twodave 1y ago
    The point is I don’t have to agree with their views. Why would I want them to keep views I disagree with? This isn’t about what I’d want them to do, but rather accepting that people believe things that sound crazy to me, and it’s still up to me to find a way to live with and love them.
- teekert 1y ago
  "However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed" That's called being dogmatic. Sure, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but, in the face of extraordinary evidence you'd be a fool to stay unswayed and adhere to your proven false core principles.
  - twodave 1y ago
    I would venture to say that not all dogma is misplaced, despite the negative feelings that word tends to ignite. I tend to use that word more in situations where it’s clear someone hasn’t reasoned out why they believe what they believe. When I use the word “principles” I think it different than someone who just follows rules they were told to follow.
- sethammons 1y ago
  Does the alcoholic dad who wont stop drinking have integrity? His core principles say he shouldn't back down; he's not a quitter after all. Silly example, but I find arguments fall apart most at the edges. I challenge you to develop a better definition of integrity. For me, integrity means I will change my mind when presented with convincing data.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    The problem there though is that data completely breaks down for anything historical, philosophical, cultural, religious, miraculous, or otherwise requiring “faith.” Anything that is not a repeatable event under a microscope has no “data” and never will.
    - sethammons 1y ago
      I am not a "data or it didn't happen" person. I am sure I have magical beliefs that don't play out in reality. I'm not convinced by the argument that this falls apart for your categories. Logic and reasoning still exists. Philosophy can be argued and principals agreed upon. Historical things leave traces. And I am appalled by blind faith. At some point, our society and ways of doing things boils down to trust or faith. I trust that people thinking about things, trying to validate those things, and who employ a way to change their minds will move towards "more correct" understandings. People knew not to hang around people with the plague before germ theory.
      - TeMPOraL 1y ago
        I used to look at things this way too, but I now see this picture as incomplete, missing a crucial detail. There exist another dimension to our reality, beyond the inanimate, objective one we normally study through physics and life sciences. That dimension is the social dimension. It has its own rules, and for everyone at almost all times, it's more directly relevant to survival and happiness than actual physics. An example I also posted in another comment: you can be objectively right about the color of the sky, but that won't save you from becoming dinner to wild animals after your people cast you out for believing differently. We've evolved to navigate this social dimension as much as physical one, because we're social creatures and other people have forever been a part of our environment. Recognizing that, and recognizing that this social reality is more relevant than physical one, is IMO the key to understanding why people behave they do - why they believe obvious bullshit, and refuse to align their beliefs with the truth of physical reality, despite ample and indisputable evidence. It's the key to understand why seemingly smart people say and believe dumb things, especially after they start a career in sales or politics. It's all because, for almost everyone and in almost every case, being seen as in good standing in one's social circles is much more directly relevant to everyday experience and long and happy life, than getting some facts right. Having that understanding, it becomes more apparent than just about the only way to convince people to change their mind, is to make things relevant to them personally in either dimension, and at a larger scale, to bring those two dimension more in alignment.
- throw3141592 1y ago
  [dead]
- timcobb 1y ago
  > However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. I see what you're saying but I think this is called obstinance...
  - yndoendo 1y ago
    _I will never vote for a politician that committed an act of rape or pedophilia._ Is that part of my character Integrity or Obstinance?
    - jjk166 1y ago
      Most likely neither, as you are presumably not voting for a politician who has committed rape or pedophilia because it is a legitimate, logical argument for not supporting them. Likewise I am rather firmly opposed to being thrown into a woodchipper, not because of some inflexible commitment to an ideology or ethical principle but because I have two braincells to rub together.
    - timcobb 1y ago
      Have you ever felt a strong desire to vote for a politician who has committed sex crimes?
- jjk166 1y ago
  If your principles don't stand up to scrutiny, you shouldn't hold them. Some of the greatest evils ever committed were done by people certain they were acting according to upstanding principles. There is a middle ground between forcing all people to adopt your viewpoints and accepting all viewpoints as equally valid. Oftentimes you can agree to disagree, but there are certainly times you can't.
  - twodave 1y ago
    Yeah, I think we agree here.
voxl 1y ago
The earth is not flat. This is indisputable fact. Yet, much ink has been spilt on arguments to the contrary. Refuting some of these arguments is quite difficult, honestly, but none of the arguments really matter because they reject all the convincing evidence as conspiracy or magic. In this way, what you suggest demands significant labor on the part of the person arguing an obvious fact against an ideologue who will proclaim an open desire to change their belief but whose world view is entrenched in magic making it fundamentally impossible to actually change it. Long story short I don't buy it and think what you said is full of shit.
- dijit 1y ago
  You’re being downvoted by idealists. I was an idealist, so I understand the position. Ideally, you explain your position and they explain theirs and it’s an open dialogue. Truthfully, you could be wrong about any number of things you have resolute conviction about- even things you believe are well evidenced. The cynic in me is aware that actually us as individuals have finite time and mental energy to keep debating things which are base, and our lives are improved by just accepting some base assumptions and engaging our energy at higher levels instead of litigating the basics.
  - b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
    We don't even really have time or energy to debate the higher levels with other people. Maybe if it's a friend or family or someone you're close with. But arguing with strangers, at least imo, is a total waste of time most of the time. Just nod and smile :)
  - vanviegen 1y ago
    > You’re being downvoted by idealists. No, I think they are being downvoted because they dismiss a thoughtful comment that makes a good attempt at providing an actual answer to the question at hand as "full of shit".
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      I'd downvote that comment even if I agreed with it for the last sentence alone.
Aurornis 1y ago
Even if you’re not going to change your position, such as when the other party doesn’t believe basic facts or incontrovertible evidence, you have to be willing to listen to their position to understand why they hold that position. When you have a debate with someone who is only waiting for their turn to talk and visibly doesn’t care to parse what you’re saying, you are not motivated to hear them out. It has to be a discussion, not a lecture combined with light condescension and dismissal.

twodave 1y ago

This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. It’s important to understand where these lines fall within yourself and those you are speaking with. Some arguments aren’t worth having in an effort to persuade, but rather they should be discussions aimed at understanding, being vulnerable and finding ways to respect and live at peace among people we have fundamental differences with. Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists.

Nevermark 1y ago
> there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed Well, yes there is. In fact, that is the central problem of unresolvable divisions. People implicitly making themselves "the decider" by imagining their principles are so great as to preclude any need for revision. (Faith in the primacy of one's beliefs, is inherently the same as faith in one's own primacy to choose beliefs.) There is nothing wrong with having strong core principles, because your best understanding supports them strongly. But as soon as you discount the possibility of them being wrong, even partially wrong, not the whole picture, framed within a non-tautological assumption, or not supercedable by other wiser principles, ..., you become the enemy of your own progress. Nobody's knowledge, wisdom, or principles are complete, or have consistent primacy over all others. Ultimately, principles, ethics and morality are a kind of economics. Decisions are tradeoffs between options. How does one make choices, so that the result is the outcome with the greatest value, and doesn't create other problems that exceed what is solved. That is a decidability problem, which will never have a complete or completely consistent answer. The landscape for the question "What is best?" and "What is true?" is chaotic, fractal, non-Euclidean and infinitely complex. --- One of the biggest reasons to strong man the arguments of others, is the better at strong manning you become, the more likely you find something worth changing your own views over. Regardless of how explicit, implicit, or non-existent that was in their original argument. Leveraging others disagreement, to identify misunderstandings and gaps in one's own knowledge, is the most important reason to talk to someone we disagree with. Persuading them should be second, but is also more likely if we are clearly pushing ourselves to improve first. There are very few cases where someone who disagrees with us doesn't see something wrong with our side. Or at a minimum, is not convinced because we are not as clear of a communicator as we think we are. Or not as good a listener as to what their question is, as we think. Even when we are "mostly right" and they are "mostly wrong", others rarely can't teach us something more about what we already know in one of those dimensions. --- Finally, don't try to persuade people in real time. Discuss, then move on. Discuss again if they want to. People don't decide anything big in the moment. They need time to understand an argument. Time to consider both its strengths and weaknesses. And time to consider ramifications we haven't even imagined. And the freedom to prioritize what is worth going down a rabbit hole for, in their life. --- I have been preparing to persuade a lot of people of something highly contrarian for a long time. This topic lights all the fires in me!
- chucksmash 1y ago
  That's all well and good, but when you have to put your trust in someone and person A believes "it's wrong to cheat people" and person B has a whole framework for thinking about the problem on a case by case basis, you just go with A, right?
  - shae 1y ago
    I put my trust in someone on a case by case basis, unless they're going to cheat someone. Then I don't trust them.
  - komali2 1y ago
    I feel like people who make such blanket value statements like "I don't cheat people" or "I don't lie" aren't being honest with themselves, or are putting too much faith in the stability of the society they live in. The easiest retort is Anne Frank. You're hiding her in your attic and a Nazi asks if you're hiding enemies of the state. There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat! Someone might answer, "well, fine. I don't cheat or lie unless I'm in extraordinary circumstances." That's fine, they've let go of dogmatism then, now the interesting conversation starts of where the line is, what constitutes extraordinary circumstances. That's a very interesting conversation I believe.
    - naasking 1y ago
      > There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat! I don't think this is the win you think it is. Kantians and se deontologists will absolutely say that no, you cannot lie and cheat even in that scenario. You have a moral duty to not lie but also a moral duty to resist tyranny. You cannot sacrifice one to achieve the other, you must choose only options that fulfill both duties.
      - komali2 1y ago
        Have you ever met in real life a person who wouldn't lie to the axe murderer, because of their Kantian values? If a Kantian can be put into a situation where their morals would require them to say the word that gives up Anne Frank, we can safely say it's a bad moral system.
motorest 1y ago
> This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. No, it is not the definition of integrity. If you opt to double-down on positions you held in spite of being presented to evidence that contradicts or refutes your prior beliefs, the behavior you are displaying is opposite of integrity, specially the part about honesty and commitment to do what's right.
- dijit 1y ago
  having integrity: “murder is bad, even if it’s someone i disagree with (tho isn’t murdering)” lack of integrity: “EU bad, even if you give me evidence to say that it’s the UK’s own politicians that have screwed us for decades.. not the EU necessarily”
- vdqtp3 1y ago
  Rape is wrong. It doesn't matter what your evidence or positions or logic are, you will not sway me on that point. I suspect that sort of thing is what GP meant.
  - brabel 1y ago
    But that clearly falls within the parent comment’s definition. Just because you are prepared to change your opinion on something based on evidence to the contrary, it doesn’t mean such evidence exists or may even be possible! I am of the opinion that the Earth is not flat. And I know that no evidence you can present would ever change that because it’s patently obvious that’s the case given the evidence I already have! But I am still theoretically open to a debate. That’s the scientific method.
  - antonvs 1y ago
    Much like saying "murder is wrong", the wrongness is a part of the definition of the word. There's no need for evidence or logic, beyond understanding what a definition is.
    - 1y ago
user_7832 1y ago
> However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity... ...Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists. And do you suggest a crusader or jihadist or keep this point of view as well? They too might think they are in the right and should keep their (religious etc) integrity, surely? Everyone/most people always assume they are always in the right; if this was objectively true, there would never be a single debate or argument in the world.
- vintermann 1y ago
  A saying I like, apparently first made by Quine: "I always think I'm right, but I don't think I'm always right." In other words, for every belief I have, I think it's right. Clearly, otherwise I would have abandoned it already. But I don't think that the set of all my beliefs is 100% free of errors or inconsistencies.
- twodave 1y ago
  The point is I don’t have to agree with their views. Why would I want them to keep views I disagree with? This isn’t about what I’d want them to do, but rather accepting that people believe things that sound crazy to me, and it’s still up to me to find a way to live with and love them.
teekert 1y ago
"However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed" That's called being dogmatic. Sure, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but, in the face of extraordinary evidence you'd be a fool to stay unswayed and adhere to your proven false core principles.
- twodave 1y ago
  I would venture to say that not all dogma is misplaced, despite the negative feelings that word tends to ignite. I tend to use that word more in situations where it’s clear someone hasn’t reasoned out why they believe what they believe. When I use the word “principles” I think it different than someone who just follows rules they were told to follow.
sethammons 1y ago
Does the alcoholic dad who wont stop drinking have integrity? His core principles say he shouldn't back down; he's not a quitter after all. Silly example, but I find arguments fall apart most at the edges. I challenge you to develop a better definition of integrity. For me, integrity means I will change my mind when presented with convincing data.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  The problem there though is that data completely breaks down for anything historical, philosophical, cultural, religious, miraculous, or otherwise requiring “faith.” Anything that is not a repeatable event under a microscope has no “data” and never will.
  - sethammons 1y ago
    I am not a "data or it didn't happen" person. I am sure I have magical beliefs that don't play out in reality. I'm not convinced by the argument that this falls apart for your categories. Logic and reasoning still exists. Philosophy can be argued and principals agreed upon. Historical things leave traces. And I am appalled by blind faith. At some point, our society and ways of doing things boils down to trust or faith. I trust that people thinking about things, trying to validate those things, and who employ a way to change their minds will move towards "more correct" understandings. People knew not to hang around people with the plague before germ theory.
    - TeMPOraL 1y ago
      I used to look at things this way too, but I now see this picture as incomplete, missing a crucial detail. There exist another dimension to our reality, beyond the inanimate, objective one we normally study through physics and life sciences. That dimension is the social dimension. It has its own rules, and for everyone at almost all times, it's more directly relevant to survival and happiness than actual physics. An example I also posted in another comment: you can be objectively right about the color of the sky, but that won't save you from becoming dinner to wild animals after your people cast you out for believing differently. We've evolved to navigate this social dimension as much as physical one, because we're social creatures and other people have forever been a part of our environment. Recognizing that, and recognizing that this social reality is more relevant than physical one, is IMO the key to understanding why people behave they do - why they believe obvious bullshit, and refuse to align their beliefs with the truth of physical reality, despite ample and indisputable evidence. It's the key to understand why seemingly smart people say and believe dumb things, especially after they start a career in sales or politics. It's all because, for almost everyone and in almost every case, being seen as in good standing in one's social circles is much more directly relevant to everyday experience and long and happy life, than getting some facts right. Having that understanding, it becomes more apparent than just about the only way to convince people to change their mind, is to make things relevant to them personally in either dimension, and at a larger scale, to bring those two dimension more in alignment.
throw3141592 1y ago
[dead]
timcobb 1y ago
> However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. I see what you're saying but I think this is called obstinance...
- yndoendo 1y ago
  _I will never vote for a politician that committed an act of rape or pedophilia._ Is that part of my character Integrity or Obstinance?
  - jjk166 1y ago
    Most likely neither, as you are presumably not voting for a politician who has committed rape or pedophilia because it is a legitimate, logical argument for not supporting them. Likewise I am rather firmly opposed to being thrown into a woodchipper, not because of some inflexible commitment to an ideology or ethical principle but because I have two braincells to rub together.
  - timcobb 1y ago
    Have you ever felt a strong desire to vote for a politician who has committed sex crimes?
jjk166 1y ago
If your principles don't stand up to scrutiny, you shouldn't hold them. Some of the greatest evils ever committed were done by people certain they were acting according to upstanding principles. There is a middle ground between forcing all people to adopt your viewpoints and accepting all viewpoints as equally valid. Oftentimes you can agree to disagree, but there are certainly times you can't.
- twodave 1y ago
  Yeah, I think we agree here.

voxl 1y ago

The earth is not flat. This is indisputable fact. Yet, much ink has been spilt on arguments to the contrary. Refuting some of these arguments is quite difficult, honestly, but none of the arguments really matter because they reject all the convincing evidence as conspiracy or magic. In this way, what you suggest demands significant labor on the part of the person arguing an obvious fact against an ideologue who will proclaim an open desire to change their belief but whose world view is entrenched in magic making it fundamentally impossible to actually change it. Long story short I don't buy it and think what you said is full of shit.

dijit 1y ago
You’re being downvoted by idealists. I was an idealist, so I understand the position. Ideally, you explain your position and they explain theirs and it’s an open dialogue. Truthfully, you could be wrong about any number of things you have resolute conviction about- even things you believe are well evidenced. The cynic in me is aware that actually us as individuals have finite time and mental energy to keep debating things which are base, and our lives are improved by just accepting some base assumptions and engaging our energy at higher levels instead of litigating the basics.
- b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
  We don't even really have time or energy to debate the higher levels with other people. Maybe if it's a friend or family or someone you're close with. But arguing with strangers, at least imo, is a total waste of time most of the time. Just nod and smile :)
- vanviegen 1y ago
  > You’re being downvoted by idealists. No, I think they are being downvoted because they dismiss a thoughtful comment that makes a good attempt at providing an actual answer to the question at hand as "full of shit".
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    I'd downvote that comment even if I agreed with it for the last sentence alone.

Aurornis 1y ago

Even if you’re not going to change your position, such as when the other party doesn’t believe basic facts or incontrovertible evidence, you have to be willing to listen to their position to understand why they hold that position. When you have a debate with someone who is only waiting for their turn to talk and visibly doesn’t care to parse what you’re saying, you are not motivated to hear them out. It has to be a discussion, not a lecture combined with light condescension and dismissal.