11–20 of 127 posts
See: vaccine deniers/vaccine scheduling skeptics, climate change deniers, evolution deniers, etc.
"As any debate club veteran knows, if you can’t make your opponent’s point for them, you don’t truly grasp the issue."
I find it hilarious that western society has gradually devolved itself to such an extent with fear-fear mongering, hate-hate speech, and an absurd amount of righteous indignation that people are literally terrified to have opinions outside the groupthink; and you not only have to invent a game to feel human again, but that game is apparently novel enough to reach the front page of HN. This is literally an analysis of how to have a disagreement without reacting like a fourth grader.
Let me add that I have found the active listening skill of just saying back to the other person what they said is very useful here. I have run workshops where people did this and it is remarkable what a difference it makes. I also like Marshall Rosenberg's book Nonviolent Communication.
I think part of the problem is that people don't realize there is a more productive way of going about things, and in addition there certainly are many parties today that profit from having people screaming at each other.
I like that he mentions the Ideological Turing Test, though not by name ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test ) "As any debate club veteran knows, if you can’t make your opponent’s point for them, you don’t truly grasp the issue."
The "Other side" is scared, not dumb. Molly Ivins used to point this out. For the white lower middle class, life has been a slow downhill slide since the mid-1970s. Those are the people who support Trump and the Tea Party. Unfortunately, exploiting that fear is politically effective. This is a problem with a long history. There are records of it back as far as Cicero. It's not their fault that they don't know what to…
A good example would be anti-vaccination movement. If you talk to them and try to actually listen, it becomes clear that it's not about science at all. It's about the background assumption that (corrupt people in) governments and corporation seek to make money and don't mind hurting ordinary people in the process. Mainstream science is obviously in cahoots with the corporations and/or the government.
Obviously, throwing papers at anti-vaxx crowd doesn't work. Science is already complicated enough that most people can't really grasp the details of things they hadn't spend years on studying. People on both sides - a lot of pro-vaccination people trying to explain science to antivaxxers are actually fooling themselves by thinking they understand what they're talking about. They may be saying the right words, but often for totally wrong reasons.
What's most scary in this is that the "Other side" is totally justified in their lack of trust. I mean - between media exposing corrupt politicians and doctors every day, companies trying to scam you on everything, and several fields of science turning out to be mostly made of bullshit - I sometimes wonder why do I trust the mainstream opinion. I like to tell myself it's because of the general knowledge and broad understanding of scientific principles I acquired over the years that let me sanity-check claims. But honestly, a big part of it may be simply because I grew up to trust authorities, and my trust hasn't been destroyed completely yet.
My two cents is that a place to start is to try to make a single news source that both sides can read, to help us try to get on the same page. The news source would have to not generate viewers by inciting them to anger. Maybe some thing like a newspaper but with peer reviewed articles by people from both sides?
You seem to be describing what is commonly known as a "conversation". I find it hilarious that western society has gradually devolved itself to such an extent with fear-fear mongering, hate-hate speech, and an absurd amount of righteous indignation that people are literally terrified to have opinions outside the groupthink; and you not only have to invent a game to feel human again, but that game is apparently novel…
I like that he mentions the Ideological Turing Test, though not by name ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test ) "As any debate club veteran knows, if you can’t make your opponent’s point for them, you don’t truly grasp the issue."
This aphorism may be true for debate club opponents, where both sides actually care for proper structure and honest reasoning.
But outside of that group, many people prefer to cling to disproven and even logically inconsistent views, just to avoid ceding even a little.