That is simple. By example.
How can I influence others without manipulating them?
111–120 of 232 posts
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Strongman argument style here and I agree. If you argue with enough people you will be changed. If you keep arguing you will develop hardened identity around these positions or fold into humility. Only politicians shape their views inside a box. At that point one chose power over progress. They learned power can be leveraged far sooner than wisdom can be applied.
[deleted]
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#113[dead]
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean to some extent if you doubt the results of your experiments you’re not going to get anywhere, because you can never prove a model. At some point the simpler model is the one that wins out and some very small number of observations that go against it can be accounted by sampling error or hoaxes or whatever. Where you draw that line is up to you of course but generally the scientific community does fairly well o…
> generally the scientific community does fairly well on extremely well-supported theories. Then you step outside of the scientific community into the flamethrower of public opinion, and suddenly you have to deal with people who think it's a good idea to give their kids measles.
Yeah, well don't do that. Public opinion is not peer reviewed science.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Neither rape nor murder are inherently, definitionally wrong. There are situations in extremis where murder and rape are considered justifiable: in war, murder is often praised; and in an "everyone else is dead, humanity will go extinct" situation (e.g. the subjective belief of Lot's daughters, according to some traditions, in Genesis 19:31–36), rape might¹ be considered permissible. And both words are used to refer to things which aren't necessarily wrong (e.g. "I'm going to murder this sandwich", or the "forcefully taking" -> "winning in a competition" senses of 'rape' described on Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary).
Rather, central members of the categories of 'rape' and 'murder' are wrong for reasons, and while those reasons may differ depending on your ethical framework, pretty much all ethical systems agree on this point.
"That's immoral by definition" isn't really how words work. Some philosophers would call that a category error, others would call it meaningless, and yet others would call it equivocation.
---
¹: For the record: I think the "don't rape" deontological principle is extremely reliable, and if anyone alive finds themselves in a situation where they think they should break it, they're almost certainly wrong about the facts. The dilemma faced by Lot's daughters was a false dilemma: many other options were available, including "talk about the dilemma and thereby acquire either consent, or a good counterargument", or "double-check with the supernatural being who created the otherwise-unlikely circumstance where you have good reason to believe everyone else died in fire and/or conversion to salt, to confirm whether you are in fact the last remnants of humanity". I can't think of a situation where rape is actually justified. Trolley problems don't occur in real life.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the round earther can provide a model that matches your observations. Round earth is a better model because it matches reality more often while also accounting for a lot of the obvious flat earth arguments (mostly, that they hold true locally).
But they don't care. And more importantly, don't want to agree with you.
Then it's not persuasion in good faith.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
That one is easy because it’s directly refuted by lived experience — eg: There’s mountains outside my window, so… not flat. Do you have evidence that it’s flat? — what do you even mean by “flat” when I can see ripples in it?
They mean “flat” in the sense of “straight” (i.e. not curved), the same way a sheet of sandpaper is flat despite being rugged. There are plenty of simple ways to disprove Flat Earth theories, but you’ll never be able to convince anyone by refuting their arguments with something which clearly misunderstands what they’re trying to say.
Take the piece of sandpaper and put a twist into it and now fold it back upon itself. Now it's not flat…nor is it round. It's a secret third thing.
Anyway fun topology aside a lot of flat earth discussion is not really done with the attempt to disprove anything, unfortunately.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#118...by showing them a lot of Comic Sans - that will blur their vision and weaken their defense a lot.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, s…
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.
What if you're a duck
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
> generally the scientific community does fairly well on extremely well-supported theories. Then you step outside of the scientific community into the flamethrower of public opinion, and suddenly you have to deal with people who think it's a good idea to give their kids measles.
Yeah, well don't do that. Public opinion is not peer reviewed science.
It does however matter for, say, US vaccine policy.