What you say: "I know you think X is true, but X is actually not true."
What they hear: "The person who told you that X is true lied to you. They're a lying liar who is filling your head with lies."
What they reply: "No way, X is definitely true, how dare you!"
The challenge: What techniques can be employed to get around this response?
Direct evidence?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 03:39:11 PM
Direct evidence?
Well yeah. :lulz: That's usually good for getting them to believe you, unless they're really gonna dig their heels in.
But the problem I find interesting is the one where people will conflate "Your source was incorrect" with "Your source tried to deceive you." The second one triggers a much more defensive response, making it harder to get worthwhile discussion done.
It's more common in kids, but I guess it's sort of the same mechanism behind hearsay and rumors. If you trust the source as a person, you're more likely to trust the information they give you even if they aren't an authoritative source. The reaction isn't always as blatant as what I described in the OP.
Truth be told, if I get too much pushback about source material, I'll just let it go. I don't have the time to deal with monkey behavior like that.
"I think your source may be mistaken, because this is what I found when I looked for information:"
"Your friend probably got it from a bad source, the internet is awful for that nowadays. Have you heard of source amnesia?"
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 05:17:05 PM
Truth be told, if I get too much pushback about source material, I'll just let it go. I don't have the time to deal with monkey behavior like that.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 05:43:00 PM
"I think your source may be mistaken, because this is what I found when I looked for information:"
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 04, 2013, 09:28:51 PM
"Your friend probably got it from a bad source, the internet is awful for that nowadays. Have you heard of source amnesia?"
All of these are probably valid responses.
I'll admit I didn't give this premise a huge degree of thought when it popped into my head this morning. :lol: It may not be quite as deep a subject as my barely-caffeinated brain thought it was at the time.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 04, 2013, 09:33:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 05:17:05 PM
Truth be told, if I get too much pushback about source material, I'll just let it go. I don't have the time to deal with monkey behavior like that.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 05:43:00 PM
"I think your source may be mistaken, because this is what I found when I looked for information:"
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 04, 2013, 09:28:51 PM
"Your friend probably got it from a bad source, the internet is awful for that nowadays. Have you heard of source amnesia?"
All of these are probably valid responses.
I'll admit I didn't give this premise a huge degree of thought when it popped into my head this morning. :lol: It may not be quite as deep a subject as my barely-caffeinated brain thought it was at the time.
In more general terms: disengage (LNMO), counterpoint (Nigel), and redirection (mine). They're super important tools when talking with people, and I think it's totally worth doing thought exercises about how to use them in specific scenarios. It's really easy to get deer in the headlights if you don't practice this shit.
*ahem*
SHUT UP
That is all the response you need.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 04, 2013, 03:38:17 PM
What you say: "I know you think X is true, but X is actually not true."
What they hear: "The person who told you that X is true lied to you. They're a lying liar who is filling your head with lies."
What they reply: "No way, X is definitely true, how dare you!"
The challenge: What techniques can be employed to get around this response?
Another technique is assuming their emotion is about the subject. Best used when the subject is less important to them than their anger seems to imply.
"Seriously? you identify so strongly with this brand of cereal that a disagreement about it's caloric intent is a personal insult to you? I think you need to rethink your priorities."
One method of teaching something to someone is to let them them persist in their folly until they encounter their error firsthand. Agree with them, take them by the hand and have them skip beside you down the path of their own flawed logic, and smile as that path leads them into the scary forest of error and doubt, and then point out how dark everything is all the sudden, how pointy and menacing the trees look, and whether or not those are eyes watching us from the bushes, all the while smiling. take them further down the path than they've ever thought to go. Then laugh maniacally as they quit the path to go sprinting towards reason.
In practice it's a bit like resorting to reductio ad absurdum, only you don't take it to a ridiculous extreme, jsut to the point where the flaws in their case become unavoidably obvious.
not-the-exact-one-i-wanted-yet-still-relevant link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ)
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 04, 2013, 09:28:51 PM
"Your friend probably got it from a bad source, the internet is awful for that nowadays. Have you heard of source amnesia?"
Wow yes. I've been reviewing interviews recently; actually re-experiencing conversations months later is so weird and I keep going 'wow, that's who I heard that from?'
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 09, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
One method of teaching something to someone is to let them them persist in their folly until they encounter their error firsthand. Agree with them, take them by the hand and have them skip beside you down the path of their own flawed logic, and smile as that path leads them into the scary forest of error and doubt, and then point out how dark everything is all the sudden, how pointy and menacing the trees look, and whether or not those are eyes watching us from the bushes, all the while smiling. take them further down the path than they've ever thought to go. Then laugh maniacally as they quit the path to go sprinting towards reason.
In practice it's a bit like resorting to reductio ad absurdum, only you don't take it to a ridiculous extreme, jsut to the point where the flaws in their case become unavoidably obvious.
not-the-exact-one-i-wanted-yet-still-relevant link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ)
the socratic approach! :) I did that with my highschool students when i was tutoring, works for maths-related subjects but i never got it to work on anything else. maybe i have issues with applying logic to reality.
"A man glued to the ceiling is going to tell you the couch is closer to the sky, but let's look at things from the floor for a moment..."
Then, get them unbelievably drunk.
Once drunk and the room is spinning, ask them to put their foot on the floor for a minute. After a time, make them put their foot on the ceiling (may require low ceilings or clever monkeys) for a minute. Ask them which one makes the room stop spinning.
If they throw up on themselves with their leg in the air, they'll never mention it again. There are interesting ways of looking at things aplenty, but only the real one makes the room stop spinning.
Quote from: PopeSlag on November 12, 2013, 01:10:02 AM
"A man glued to the ceiling is going to tell you the couch is closer to the sky, but let's look at things from the floor for a moment..."
Then, get them unbelievably drunk.
Once drunk and the room is spinning, ask them to put their foot on the floor for a minute. After a time, make them put their foot on the ceiling (may require low ceilings or clever monkeys) for a minute. Ask them which one makes the room stop spinning.
If they throw up on themselves with their leg in the air, they'll never mention it again. There are interesting ways of looking at things aplenty, but only the real one makes the room stop spinning.
I think I like this.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 12, 2013, 01:40:14 AM
Quote from: PopeSlag on November 12, 2013, 01:10:02 AM
"A man glued to the ceiling is going to tell you the couch is closer to the sky, but let's look at things from the floor for a moment..."
Then, get them unbelievably drunk.
Once drunk and the room is spinning, ask them to put their foot on the floor for a minute. After a time, make them put their foot on the ceiling (may require low ceilings or clever monkeys) for a minute. Ask them which one makes the room stop spinning.
If they throw up on themselves with their leg in the air, they'll never mention it again. There are interesting ways of looking at things aplenty, but only the real one makes the room stop spinning.
I think I like this.
It fucked my head up. I looked at it, and saw "word salad/phony zen shit", then I read it, and it was awesome.
My expectations were not met.
I feel like my America™ has in some strange way been violated.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 04, 2013, 03:38:17 PM
What you say: "I know you think X is true, but X is actually not true."
What they hear: "The person who told you that X is true lied to you. They're a lying liar who is filling your head with lies."
What they reply: "No way, X is definitely true, how dare you!"
The challenge: What techniques can be employed to get around this response?
I know you think X is true. But there is some information (P, D, Q, B, A, C, H) which appears to disagree with the truth of X I'm not saying that X IS NOT true. I'm just saying that if X is true then you must also account for PDQ BACH and no one has ever been able to account for them.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 12, 2013, 10:25:57 AM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 04, 2013, 03:38:17 PM
What you say: "I know you think X is true, but X is actually not true."
What they hear: "The person who told you that X is true lied to you. They're a lying liar who is filling your head with lies."
What they reply: "No way, X is definitely true, how dare you!"
The challenge: What techniques can be employed to get around this response?
I know you think X is true. But there is some information (P, D, Q, B, A, C, H) which appears to disagree with the truth of X I'm not saying that X IS NOT true. I'm just saying that if X is true then you must also account for PDQ BACH and no one has ever been able to account for them.
AH HAET YEW.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 12, 2013, 03:43:11 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 12, 2013, 10:25:57 AM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 04, 2013, 03:38:17 PM
What you say: "I know you think X is true, but X is actually not true."
What they hear: "The person who told you that X is true lied to you. They're a lying liar who is filling your head with lies."
What they reply: "No way, X is definitely true, how dare you!"
The challenge: What techniques can be employed to get around this response?
I know you think X is true. But there is some information (P, D, Q, B, A, C, H) which appears to disagree with the truth of X I'm not saying that X IS NOT true. I'm just saying that if X is true then you must also account for PDQ BACH and no one has ever been able to account for them.
AH HAET YEW.
My response to thatwould be: That is OK, your hate does not make you less wrong.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 09, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
One method of teaching something to someone is to let them them persist in their folly until they encounter their error firsthand. Agree with them, take them by the hand and have them skip beside you down the path of their own flawed logic, and smile as that path leads them into the scary forest of error and doubt, and then point out how dark everything is all the sudden, how pointy and menacing the trees look, and whether or not those are eyes watching us from the bushes, all the while smiling. take them further down the path than they've ever thought to go. Then laugh maniacally as they quit the path to go sprinting towards reason.
In practice it's a bit like resorting to reductio ad absurdum, only you don't take it to a ridiculous extreme, jsut to the point where the flaws in their case become unavoidably obvious.
not-the-exact-one-i-wanted-yet-still-relevant link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ)
This has proven the most effective method for me so far
Quote from: GrannySmith on October 11, 2013, 07:48:50 AM
the socratic approach! :) I did that with my highschool students when i was tutoring, works for maths-related subjects but i never got it to work on anything else. maybe i have issues with applying logic to reality.
you just gotta push a little further, if you can't get their apparently flawed hypothesis to breaking point then maybe it is your own assumptions you should be questioning
Quote from: Wisa1 on December 25, 2013, 02:34:04 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 09, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
One method of teaching something to someone is to let them them persist in their folly until they encounter their error firsthand. Agree with them, take them by the hand and have them skip beside you down the path of their own flawed logic, and smile as that path leads them into the scary forest of error and doubt, and then point out how dark everything is all the sudden, how pointy and menacing the trees look, and whether or not those are eyes watching us from the bushes, all the while smiling. take them further down the path than they've ever thought to go. Then laugh maniacally as they quit the path to go sprinting towards reason.
In practice it's a bit like resorting to reductio ad absurdum, only you don't take it to a ridiculous extreme, jsut to the point where the flaws in their case become unavoidably obvious.
not-the-exact-one-i-wanted-yet-still-relevant link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ)
This has proven the most effective method for me so far
Quote from: GrannySmith on October 11, 2013, 07:48:50 AM
the socratic approach! :) I did that with my highschool students when i was tutoring, works for maths-related subjects but i never got it to work on anything else. maybe i have issues with applying logic to reality.
you just gotta push a little further, if you can't get their apparently flawed hypothesis to breaking point then maybe it is your own assumptions you should be questioning
WISA1 IS HERE TO TELL EVERYONE THEY'RE DOIN' IT WRONG. SO EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 25, 2013, 02:40:57 AM
Quote from: Wisa1 on December 25, 2013, 02:34:04 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 09, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
One method of teaching something to someone is to let them them persist in their folly until they encounter their error firsthand. Agree with them, take them by the hand and have them skip beside you down the path of their own flawed logic, and smile as that path leads them into the scary forest of error and doubt, and then point out how dark everything is all the sudden, how pointy and menacing the trees look, and whether or not those are eyes watching us from the bushes, all the while smiling. take them further down the path than they've ever thought to go. Then laugh maniacally as they quit the path to go sprinting towards reason.
In practice it's a bit like resorting to reductio ad absurdum, only you don't take it to a ridiculous extreme, jsut to the point where the flaws in their case become unavoidably obvious.
not-the-exact-one-i-wanted-yet-still-relevant link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ)
This has proven the most effective method for me so far
Quote from: GrannySmith on October 11, 2013, 07:48:50 AM
the socratic approach! :) I did that with my highschool students when i was tutoring, works for maths-related subjects but i never got it to work on anything else. maybe i have issues with applying logic to reality.
you just gotta push a little further, if you can't get their apparently flawed hypothesis to breaking point then maybe it is your own assumptions you should be questioning
WISA1 IS HERE TO TELL EVERYONE THEY'RE DOIN' IT WRONG. SO EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION.
actually don't I'm just another drunk asshole who thinks he's right
Quote from: Wisa1 on December 25, 2013, 02:53:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 25, 2013, 02:40:57 AM
Quote from: Wisa1 on December 25, 2013, 02:34:04 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 09, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
One method of teaching something to someone is to let them them persist in their folly until they encounter their error firsthand. Agree with them, take them by the hand and have them skip beside you down the path of their own flawed logic, and smile as that path leads them into the scary forest of error and doubt, and then point out how dark everything is all the sudden, how pointy and menacing the trees look, and whether or not those are eyes watching us from the bushes, all the while smiling. take them further down the path than they've ever thought to go. Then laugh maniacally as they quit the path to go sprinting towards reason.
In practice it's a bit like resorting to reductio ad absurdum, only you don't take it to a ridiculous extreme, jsut to the point where the flaws in their case become unavoidably obvious.
not-the-exact-one-i-wanted-yet-still-relevant link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ)
This has proven the most effective method for me so far
Quote from: GrannySmith on October 11, 2013, 07:48:50 AM
the socratic approach! :) I did that with my highschool students when i was tutoring, works for maths-related subjects but i never got it to work on anything else. maybe i have issues with applying logic to reality.
you just gotta push a little further, if you can't get their apparently flawed hypothesis to breaking point then maybe it is your own assumptions you should be questioning
WISA1 IS HERE TO TELL EVERYONE THEY'RE DOIN' IT WRONG. SO EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION.
actually don't I'm just another drunk asshole who thinks he's right
Change your avatar right fucking now, or you're out on your ass. You have 5 minutes from the date/time stamp of this post.
Snatchman's gone?
Good.
I never try to get people to change their opinion about anything ever.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 25, 2013, 02:55:18 AM
Quote from: Wisa1 on December 25, 2013, 02:53:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 25, 2013, 02:40:57 AM
Quote from: Wisa1 on December 25, 2013, 02:34:04 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 09, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
One method of teaching something to someone is to let them them persist in their folly until they encounter their error firsthand. Agree with them, take them by the hand and have them skip beside you down the path of their own flawed logic, and smile as that path leads them into the scary forest of error and doubt, and then point out how dark everything is all the sudden, how pointy and menacing the trees look, and whether or not those are eyes watching us from the bushes, all the while smiling. take them further down the path than they've ever thought to go. Then laugh maniacally as they quit the path to go sprinting towards reason.
In practice it's a bit like resorting to reductio ad absurdum, only you don't take it to a ridiculous extreme, jsut to the point where the flaws in their case become unavoidably obvious.
not-the-exact-one-i-wanted-yet-still-relevant link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ)
This has proven the most effective method for me so far
Quote from: GrannySmith on October 11, 2013, 07:48:50 AM
the socratic approach! :) I did that with my highschool students when i was tutoring, works for maths-related subjects but i never got it to work on anything else. maybe i have issues with applying logic to reality.
you just gotta push a little further, if you can't get their apparently flawed hypothesis to breaking point then maybe it is your own assumptions you should be questioning
WISA1 IS HERE TO TELL EVERYONE THEY'RE DOIN' IT WRONG. SO EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION.
actually don't I'm just another drunk asshole who thinks he's right
Change your avatar right fucking now, or you're out on your ass. You have 5 minutes from the date/time stamp of this post.
What did he have up?
Al Gore's senior pic?
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on December 25, 2013, 08:01:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 25, 2013, 02:55:18 AM
Quote from: Wisa1 on December 25, 2013, 02:53:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 25, 2013, 02:40:57 AM
Quote from: Wisa1 on December 25, 2013, 02:34:04 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 09, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
One method of teaching something to someone is to let them them persist in their folly until they encounter their error firsthand. Agree with them, take them by the hand and have them skip beside you down the path of their own flawed logic, and smile as that path leads them into the scary forest of error and doubt, and then point out how dark everything is all the sudden, how pointy and menacing the trees look, and whether or not those are eyes watching us from the bushes, all the while smiling. take them further down the path than they've ever thought to go. Then laugh maniacally as they quit the path to go sprinting towards reason.
In practice it's a bit like resorting to reductio ad absurdum, only you don't take it to a ridiculous extreme, jsut to the point where the flaws in their case become unavoidably obvious.
not-the-exact-one-i-wanted-yet-still-relevant link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ)
This has proven the most effective method for me so far
Quote from: GrannySmith on October 11, 2013, 07:48:50 AM
the socratic approach! :) I did that with my highschool students when i was tutoring, works for maths-related subjects but i never got it to work on anything else. maybe i have issues with applying logic to reality.
you just gotta push a little further, if you can't get their apparently flawed hypothesis to breaking point then maybe it is your own assumptions you should be questioning
WISA1 IS HERE TO TELL EVERYONE THEY'RE DOIN' IT WRONG. SO EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION.
actually don't I'm just another drunk asshole who thinks he's right
Change your avatar right fucking now, or you're out on your ass. You have 5 minutes from the date/time stamp of this post.
What did he have up?
Blatant pussy shot. Like off of Redtube.
We only have 6 rules, FFS. How hard is it?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 25, 2013, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on December 25, 2013, 08:01:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 25, 2013, 02:55:18 AM
Quote from: Wisa1 on December 25, 2013, 02:53:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 25, 2013, 02:40:57 AM
Quote from: Wisa1 on December 25, 2013, 02:34:04 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 09, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
One method of teaching something to someone is to let them them persist in their folly until they encounter their error firsthand. Agree with them, take them by the hand and have them skip beside you down the path of their own flawed logic, and smile as that path leads them into the scary forest of error and doubt, and then point out how dark everything is all the sudden, how pointy and menacing the trees look, and whether or not those are eyes watching us from the bushes, all the while smiling. take them further down the path than they've ever thought to go. Then laugh maniacally as they quit the path to go sprinting towards reason.
In practice it's a bit like resorting to reductio ad absurdum, only you don't take it to a ridiculous extreme, jsut to the point where the flaws in their case become unavoidably obvious.
not-the-exact-one-i-wanted-yet-still-relevant link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ)
This has proven the most effective method for me so far
Quote from: GrannySmith on October 11, 2013, 07:48:50 AM
the socratic approach! :) I did that with my highschool students when i was tutoring, works for maths-related subjects but i never got it to work on anything else. maybe i have issues with applying logic to reality.
you just gotta push a little further, if you can't get their apparently flawed hypothesis to breaking point then maybe it is your own assumptions you should be questioning
WISA1 IS HERE TO TELL EVERYONE THEY'RE DOIN' IT WRONG. SO EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION.
actually don't I'm just another drunk asshole who thinks he's right
Change your avatar right fucking now, or you're out on your ass. You have 5 minutes from the date/time stamp of this post.
What did he have up?
Blatant pussy shot. Like off of Redtube.
We only have 6 rules, FFS. How hard is it?
Had to have been angling to get banned, that wouldn't fly anywhere. Maybe he thought he'd just get suspended or something.
Or was just drunk and an idiot.
I didn't like him, so it's no real loss, but it kind of sucks because at least he was posting.
And having people around to hate makes for a lively board.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 04, 2013, 03:47:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 03:39:11 PM
Direct evidence?
Well yeah. :lulz: That's usually good for getting them to believe you, unless they're really gonna dig their heels in.
But the problem I find interesting is the one where people will conflate "Your source was incorrect" with "Your source tried to deceive you." The second one triggers a much more defensive response, making it harder to get worthwhile discussion done.
It's more common in kids, but I guess it's sort of the same mechanism behind hearsay and rumors. If you trust the source as a person, you're more likely to trust the information they give you even if they aren't an authoritative source. The reaction isn't always as blatant as what I described in the OP.
Not sure if you had a specific example in mind, but I think this sort of thing happens a lot where someone has poisoned the well.
Example: The CDC recommends the following vaccination schedule.
Response: Don't believe Big Pharma's lies! Psychic Lilliana down at the Blue Orchid Holistic Care Clinic offers an herbal tincture that does the same thing as all the vaccinations and doesn't cause autism. The CDC is conspiring with Big Pharma to keep you from this information. She went on Dr. Oz to expose the government's efforts to discredit her.
In an example like that, it may be effective to counter with a somewhat discordian-informed plausibility argument.
Is it more plausible that thousands of scientists, beaureaucrats, politicians, and business executives could all get together and be efficient and organized enough to pull off such a grand deception, or that one person is trying to sell you snake oil?
The reason why it's so easy to poison the well with conspiratorial accusations is that it's very easy for people to look at the power imbalance between a monolith like Big Pharma and a much smaller player like Psychic Lilliana (who is probably already the head of a multi-million dollar company by the time she appears on Dr. Oz). But if people stop focusing for a minute on the difference in fire-power between a battleship and a speed boat, and instead look at the difference in their maneuverability, it suggests a very different likelihood.