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

Convincing people takes time

blog.justonepixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: Convincing people takes time

#31

Post by innocentoldguy »

yedava wrote: post #5

Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things)…

@yedava - The only issue I see with your comment (at least the first paragraph) is that the "men are more inclined to work with things and woman are more inclined to work with people" commentary that has everyone whinging this week is actually backed up by various scientific studies. Here is the abstract for one.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Th...

I'll leave it up to you to read the full report and research the topic on your own before dismissing this notion as ignorant, when it clearly isn't.

If you feel I'm wrong, please provide your own scientific/scholarly citations and we can discuss the matter intellectually.

Re: Convincing people takes time

#32

Post by leereeves »

brighteyes wrote: post #20
backpropaganda wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.

You can still keep trying to convince them, gently and reasonably. There is no other option.

How can you try to convince people gently and reasonably when they won't hear you, but will only hear a distorted version of what you say, taken out of context and edited for maximum outrage?

Re: Convincing people takes time

#33

Post by sinxoveretothex »

yedava wrote: post #23
sinxoveretothex wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Historically, the biggest social changes happened by force. Like the civil rights movement. The threat of civil disobedience forced the government to enact laws. That's one point of view. Another might argue that MLK sent a letter from a certain jail in Birmingham rather than oppose the arrest, say. Yet another might invoke Gandhi or Mandela. Is civil disobedience a form of force? Yes, I suppose it is one of the po…

One way to counter gender stereotypes is to show that they aren't welcome in an organization. I hope you would agree that this is a non-violent act. And yet, we see Google being equated with the Gulag. My use of the word 'force' is in that context.

Preventing something from being done or said does not counter a claim.

Passing a law against ICE cars does not prove electric cars superior, the same way passing a law against EVs does not prove ICEs superior.

However, if I am guessing correctly, your point of view is that gender stereotypes have no factual basis and exist only due to a cultural pressure. If that assumption is true, then there is a sense in which what you said is true: by disallowing the cultural pressure, the stereotypes and therefore their evidential basis would disappear.

Whether the assumption is true or not, I agree that an "anti-speech" organizational rule is not physical violence, which is the conventional definition I would use. I hesitate to say it is not 'violence', because people like the WHO define the word much more expansively[1].

From that, 2 things: first, I think the experimental evidence is hard to explain under the assumption above, like the fact that more progressive countries like my own Canada or Sweden have high gender occupational differences, but countries doing very poorly on equality metrics quite lower differences there[2]:

> The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%.

Second, while I have no doubt you're right that Google is being equated with the gulag quite literally by some, I think there is a sense in which one can talk about a weak commonality between both. In this case, the link being a form of 'violence' (WHO definition) against saying certain things. I can understand why this is a quite upsetting similarity if one were on the other side of it, particularly when people abuse it. I wish there was a way to sort of get reasonable to call out people "on their side" when they do that.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

[2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...

Re: Convincing people takes time

#34

Post by kakarot »

kris-s wrote: post #3

I wonder if we can sort of trick ourselves into more reasoned discussions. For example: before a debate have the participants (maybe the audience too) say something to the effect of "I am willing to change my position on this topic."

Unfortunately, that doesn't make for good television. People tune in to have their opinions validated, to root for their guy.

Re: Convincing people takes time

#35

Post by skybrian »

yedava wrote: post #25
skybrian wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly true that you don't have to convince everyone. However, winning court cases requires convincing judges, and winning elections requires convincing a majority. The civil rights movement included winning court cases, getting laws passed, and convincing politicians that they should support it. It didn't happen at a barrel of a gun. More recently, same-sex marriage happened by winning court cases and a lot…

Well, MLK did say that a riot is the language of the unheard. And he deemed the white moderate is the greatest obstacle to freedom. How does that square with your understanding of the civil rights movement? We'd like to wishfully think that social change can be achieved without any fuss. It can't. Firing someone isn't thuggery. Or the barrel end of a gun. It is just an organization walking the talk.

Maybe this is a matter of semantics? Firing someone (ending a voluntary relationship) is legal and nonviolent, so I wouldn't call that "by force" either. You probably shouldn't use "by force" unless you mean it.

Re: Convincing people takes time

#36

Post by jdietrich »

backpropaganda wrote: post #7
kristianc wrote: post #2

The OP kind of moves toward the conclusion, but doesn't really reach it. Etiquette and an open mind are necessary but not sufficient conditions to convincing someone. Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else. In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for examp…

But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.

Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window.

Never argue for any particular position; present a series of facts and ideas, then allow your audience to come to their own conclusion. Nobody likes being told what to think, but most people take great satisfaction in joining up the dots for themselves.

Some people might still call you a Nazi, but your obvious reasonableness will be a near-infallible shield; they'll look silly and you'll look dignified.

Study marketing. Major corporations have invested billions in developing powerful persuasion methods, so loot their arsenal. You can sell a political position in exactly the same way as a can of fizzy drink, with immeasurably greater success than someone using the traditional techniques of political rhetoric.

Re: Convincing people takes time

#39

Post by SoMisanthrope »

backpropaganda wrote: post #7
kristianc wrote: post #2

The OP kind of moves toward the conclusion, but doesn't really reach it. Etiquette and an open mind are necessary but not sufficient conditions to convincing someone. Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else. In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for examp…

But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.

I wish I could mod-down Backpropaganda.... Your blather provides the perfect example of what the author is trying to elucidate upon.

Re: Convincing people takes time

#40

Post by slackingoff2017 »

kris-s wrote: post #3

I wonder if we can sort of trick ourselves into more reasoned discussions. For example: before a debate have the participants (maybe the audience too) say something to the effect of "I am willing to change my position on this topic."

I've messed with people a few times when I thought it was really important for them to agree with me. You can trick people into considering a different opinion by planting evidence that supports your point of view.

A very effective way I found was to identify their role models and find one that shares my opinion. For example, I have a friend who salivates to Elon Musk and I've had great success getting him to consider alternate viewpoints by casually mentioning that my opinion aligns with his.

Another more subtle way is to read a bunch of stuff that supports your point of view using their phone or PC. Most big sites these days will show you what they think aligns with your beliefs. You can use the creepy targeting they're already doing to skew the point of view your friend sees.

Post reply on HN