81–90 of 232 posts
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…
Only give positive feedback when they are doing the thing you want them too. Absence of positive feedback is as effective as negative feedback, with the positive effect of extracting the change you want instead of placing the change upon the person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The earth is not flat. This is indisputable fact. Yet, much ink has been spilt on arguments to the contrary. Refuting some of these arguments is quite difficult, honestly, but none of the arguments really matter because they reject all the convincing evidence as conspiracy or magic. In this way, what you suggest demands significant labor on the part of the person arguing an obvious fact against an ideologue who will…
"The earth is not flat. This is indisputable fact. " Well, the earth you walk is indisputable flat. That all of earth is round, comes not from direct observation (except for the very few people who have been in space). So I dare you to actually argue with flat earthers. It is a good way to test your basic scientific knowledge. If you poke deep, you will find, that most people learned science the way people learned re…
Debates with them are not remotely interesting; they're constantly reaching to religion, magic, and Jewish control.
Find someone grounded who also enjoys debating and it's a fun topic to cover, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not? There’s ample evidence to support the earth being round. If you have legitimate evidence to the contrary I’d be happy to listen to you.
> If you have legitimate evidence That’s a tremendously high bar. Who defines what constitutes “legitimate” evidence? Anyone can disagree on what that means and you’re back to square one. Look up “The Final Experiment” and its aftermath. Despite convincing the flat earthers who participated, the ones who observed it via livestream dug their heels in further. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Experiment_(expedit…
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. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not? There’s ample evidence to support the earth being round. If you have legitimate evidence to the contrary I’d be happy to listen to you.
The most significant evidence that the earth is flat is that you can just look out your window and it's obviously flat, but all the round-earth evidence is complicated sciencey stuff. If someone doesn't believe in complicated sciencey stuff, they just won't believe you, and they'll conclude they have evidence and you don't. At what point do you just walk away from the argument?
Edit: my favourite argument is to look at a half moon, and what angle the "shadow line" on the moon is relative to the horizon. Then ask your friends around the globe to report what angle it looks like to them. Because we are all standing on the side of a globe, we see it at different angles relative to our local horizon, which should perfectly correspond to each person's latitude etc. Fun easy experiment for an online community!
What most people mean when they ask questions like yours isn't "How do I avoid manipulation?" but "How do I live with integrity?". Answering this question is a field in its own right and isn't coupled to communication per se.
Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree. There is no influence without manipulation. A baby smiling at you is manipulation. This is nothing bad in itself.
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…
> 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…