Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How can I influence others without manipulating them?

andiroberts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 232 posts

Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?

#171

Post by wizzwizz4 »

jhanschoo wrote: post #131
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are mistaken. > in war, murder is often praised; The killing of an enemy combatant, for example, is usually lawful, praised and not considered murder. Generally speaking, the killing of a civilian is sometimes a war crime and considered a murder. You also have a lot to say on the nuanced ethics of killing and on sexual violence, but these deal with the underlying concepts themselves and the words don't matter; in…

I have nothing to say on the "nuanced ethics": as far as I'm concerned, rape is bad and murder is bad. Sufficiently-advanced pedantry always circles back to that. There's no nuance to be had.

If you asked any (non-bloodthirsty) soldier, officer or general whether they'd press a button to magically achieve their military objectives without bloodshed, they'd certainly take that option. Killing enemy combatants is praised as good because it is (considered) a necessary evil, but "necessary evil" is awful for morale. If you take people outside that situation, they tend to hold the view that "killing is wrong", or "killing non-wrongdoers is wrong" at worst.

You've (re)defined the word "murder" to exclude "lawful killings of enemy combatants", but whether we use your or my definition, that doesn't change the morality of the actions. You also observed that philosophers do that kind of (re)definition all the time. That's the point I was trying to make.

Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?

#172

Post by lukan »

krageon wrote: post #160
lukan wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means I debated very often with weird people and the proof that I did, is that I don't feel the need to make the poster above believe, that I actually did that. (Otherwise I would have shared links where you can find me debating the topic at length with various people) Because indeed, most flat earthers are immune to reason as they are in the realm of irrationality. So at some point someone needs to accept that an…

Whether or not you believe the earth is flat is a yes or no question, but you responded with a paragraph that wasn't a real answer. This reads as defensive, which leads a reasonable person to believe that you are in fact a flat earther.

I was defensive about the accusation of never having engaged with a real flat earther, despite saying so. And this part of the debate actually reminds me of engaging with them, so I rather stop that.

Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?

#173

Post by nathan_compton »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #148
sethammons wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

My feeling is that we should simply not believe in stuff where we will never have data.

Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?

#174

Post by simonask »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #146
simonask wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about this particular topic is that humanity has known this fact for millennia, not because we flew or went to space, but because we sailed. Any human who has watched ships come in to a harbor would be able to trivially tell you: We see the masts before the ship. Where I grew up you can stand by the shore on a clear day and see the tree tops on the neighboring island, but not the beach. Sailing there, the b…

> Any human who has watched ships come in to a harbor would be able to trivially tell you: We see the masts before the ship. Of which, until recently, there were very few. Civilizations developed not just on the coasts, but along the rivers, and until ~industrial revolution, the bulk of people at any given time didn't really have a chance to see the sea. > The only way anybody can come up with "Flat Earth" is by livi…

It varies somewhat by continent, but living very far from the ocean is what’s new. Humans have historically had by far the densest population near shores - river deltas, archipelagos, and so on.

The notion that “seeing the ocean” was a very special thing to most people in history is unlikely. To a Hungarian peasant or a Mongol shepherd, sure, but there were far more people along the Mediterranean coast, the Pearl River delta, and so on.

The reason is very simple: Ocean = free food.

Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?

#175

Post by yndoendo »

timcobb wrote: post #170
twodave wrote: post #17

Earlier 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. 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…

> 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...

_I will never vote for a politician that committed an act of rape or pedophilia._

Is that part of my character Integrity or Obstinance?

Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?

#176

Post by Nevermark »

twodave wrote: post #163
Nevermark wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the freedom to prioritize what is worth going down a rabbit hole for, in their life.

I’m not actually so sure that we disagree as much as I originally said. A better way for me to phrase it would have been: there is nothing wrong with certain unswayable convictions. But others can be very problematic. That said, the point I want to make more is that both of these exist whether we like it or not. So rather than saying there’s no place for those strong convictions I disagree with, it is better to under…

Even if everyone was flexible, there would be unresolved differences.

So I 100% agree with general (reciprocated) respect.

Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?

#177

Post by virgilp »

potato3732842 wrote: post #129
vdqtp3 wrote: post #58

Earlier 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.

Why is rape wrong though? "hurr durr rape bad" is just repeating whatever you've been indoctrinated to believe. There's a more fundamental reason rape is bad (and this same fundamental reason underpins the reason we find a lot of other things bad).

It does fall back to "core values" though - kinda' like with math & axioms. The "why" chain of questions will inevitably lead to something like "because there's inherent value in human life", and this is the point where it breaks down because there's no logical reason to say that. You can probably postulate the contrary and end up with a completely different set of morals that may still be internally coherent but would be very alien to you. Just how you can say "in a plane, through a given point not on a given line, there is no line parallel to the given line" and end up with a weird, non-Euclidean but coherent geometry.

Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?

#178

Post by bentt »

croes wrote: post #81
bentt wrote: post #6

I've always found that it's about defining win/win situations. Also, you should make real human connection in the process. If you don't like the person, that's a real issue. It may not be that the person is unlikeable, it may be that you aren't finding a perspective that aligns right. But yeah, aligning incentives and making friends. Even if they don't go the way you want, you both still had a positive experience and…

Sometimes there is no win/win.

Give me an example.

Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?

#179

Post by jbs789 »

tbirdny wrote: post #164
Sammi wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a lot of whitewashing of Charlie Kirk on social media at the moment that this quote reminds me of. The guy made a killing from speaking hate and then he got killed by hate himself. Like the guy that's always in the jurassic park movies, that doesn't think letting the t-rex out will be much of a problem, and then he get's killed by the t-rex and everyone else needs to deal with the t-rex of hate and far wingism…

I didn't know Charlie Krik before. After watching these videos, I don't believe he was such a hateful person: Amir Odom: https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI Bill Maher: https://youtu.be/OblCcO7-Alg Jordan Peterson: https://youtu.be/dP0TagcNvCg

He clearly feels he is superior to everyone else, including the interviewers. He feigns humility but interrupts repeatedly.

Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?

#180

Post by igobivm »

strogonoff wrote: post #167
TeMPOraL wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In a world where there is no way of knowing whether my blue is the same as your blue, can there be a way to be objectively right about the colour of the sky?

your perception of blue might be different than mine, but as a society we have agreed that specific wavelengths of light are blue. those wavelengths are absolutely measurable.
Post reply on HN