Humans are rationalizing creatures, much more than rational ones. Our first gut reaction is trying to make sense of why we think what we think and why we behave how we behave, rather than trying to figure out if it does actually make sense. If this natural tendency could be changed, the world would be far less of a shithole.
This is why, rather than slapping people in the face with a mountain of research, I try to ask them questions that lead them to the conclusion I want them to reach. Oh we discuss along the way, but you get a lot less of the black and white thinking bold statements that someone entrenched in their beliefs tends to make
The research backs up your statement. Especially if you yourself are genuinely interested in the conversation, and also willing to update your own thinking, along with helping get everyone in the conversation to start understanding the real answers.
In case you haven't listened to it, the You Are Not So Smart podcast covers the topic of how to get people to change on a pretty regular basis. It's a great podcast that talks a lot about conspiracies, misinformation, and how to combat them.
My favorite part of this podcast is that if you listen to it from the start (nearly 300 episodes at this point), you can hear him slowly become very jaded and pessimistic, but then as the podcast goes on, he starts turning around his opinion and gets exited and optimistic about all the progress that is made. It's a really great podcast and makes me excited for the future.
I don't think so? The Socratic method wasn't necessarily a strategy intended to carefully persuade someone by bypassing psychological blockers. If anything, Socrates' counterparts were often antagonized and angered by his questions because he exposed contradictions.
I think the ethos behind it was that Socrates presumed he knew nothing, other people seemed like they knew things, so he asked them what they knew, since others were so bold as to make knowledge claims.
We're also to some extent innately combative creatures. People will say "Oh, I showed people the facts and they still didn't change their mind. They're just idiots stuck in their ways." Okay, cool. When you tried to present these facts, did you do it in such a way as to treat them courteously or as an equal, or did you do it in such a way that you got to feel like you were dunking on them rhetorically? Because it's not as simple as presenting someone with facts. It's doing so in a way that doesn't make it feel like you're trying to establish some kind of superiority over them. Because then they're not presenting facts to you, they're just attacking you and your position. And these are very different things, conceptually and emotionally.
That is - IMO - what critical thinking is meant to be .... thinking about alternative explanations and evaluating their viability or probability.
Unfortunately a lot of people use the term "critical thinking" as just another way to rationalize why they are against something, without actually weighing the options.
same here, even when someone hasn't changed my mind 100% I'll often acknowledge if any of their arguments made me want to delve deeper into a topic and think more about my opinion on it
Absurdist humor has a long history of being political. Shitposting is how disenfranchised young generations process and cope with societal alienation.
The underlying Chad Farquaad is funny because it is a commentary on beauty standards. And regular Farquaad is funny because of Shrek's satirical and political nature (ESPECIALLY Farquaad and his kingdom which both overtly represent Disney Corporation and capitalism).
These underlying, inherently politically-laden factors, are core to the shitpost's comedic value.
politics is reality and you just want fantasy... but if you keep reading fantasy, you'll eventually notice something horrible about it. Spoiler alert: its politics
Damn, ok, relax... It's like you guys are on cocaine or something and I accidentally brought up politics. I meant that Lemmy is too political to be dumb about memes. That's it... Chill.
If there's one I've learned after being on the internet for 17 years, it's this; you can throw an entire mountain of evidence at a conspiracy theorist and they STILL won't believe you.
On the internet your identity is a collection of the opinions that you wrote under that name. So if you changing your opinion on anything you're changing your identity.
All the more difficult if you use your own name as your identity and you have acquired followers because of the opinions you've expressed.
Pretty sure this meme originates from an actual, specific Twitter exchange. Which became so legendary that people just repeated it secondhand, and now the secondhand repetition of it is getting screenshotted and posted.
It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it. - Edmund Way Teale
Damn, everyone could have been right if the OG just relented. He changed his mind to agree people don't change their minds? Chess grandmaster move right there... What a missed opportunity.
In 1 minute, you can find 5 papers to back up a claim .. 30 minutes with GPT and you can write your own fucking paper. …
Of course, there are often a further 5 papers out there arguing opposite, because that’s how research works. But nobody seems interested in that. Someone just names “two papers !” And you are sold. Just. like. that. The argument is over for you.
I have to ask, Are you 12 ? Or brand new to the internet or something ?
That why it's important for it to not just be a "paper" but an actual source. Then you can check who wrote it, who published it, and what the specific study was. As in, read the published study they cited and you'll see what the parameters were and how they got to the conclusion purported. It's not just "I found that somebody on the internet somewhere said x, here's a link to the Twitter post." Be skeptical and call out shitty sources, but ignoring the entire concept of backing up a claim with evidence is pretty silly. In the current era of plaguing disinformation and misinformation, it's important to be well-versed in thinking critically about what we are told.
If you think you can just have chat gpt write you a paper that you can use as a source, then you don't understand what a source is. Drawing a false equivalency either indicates that you don't know how to differentiate between valid sources and invalid sources or that you're intentionally attempting to fracture public faith in the entire concept of fact-checking in order to further the spread of disinformation for objectively questionable motives. I don't have a tin foil hat on right now, so I'll just assume that you're uninformed and could benefit from reading a book on the subject or taking a class on it.
It's easier to dismiss all evidence and just believe whatever feels right, but the common people will have what little money and power they have sucked away from them if lies are permitted to influence who to give their money and power to. There is a real benefit to controlling narrative and swaying public opinion, so the people being equipped to identify weaponized disinformation is a valuable defense for basic democratic function and individual prosperity.
That's why I feel the need to respond to what you're saying. At best, you're accidentally sowing distrust in an essential skill set in the modern information age; at worst, you're intentionally attacking the working class at the behest of the ruling/owning class. Again, no tin foil hat, so I think you just didn't understand what the logical conclusion of what you were saying was.
I guess you aren't interested in having an actual conversation here, but that doesn't make it okay to just insult a stranger just because you can't keep up. I encourage you to consider the possibility that you're wrong about some things and that other people might know more than you about those things, and maybe you should accept their attempts to help you to understand more about the world you live in. Otherwise, you're gonna be very lonely when your peers have all outgrown you and moved on.
You claimed that they see a single source and are just satisfied based on the existence of any paper. That is not an accurate or justified interpretation of their statement.
Studies suggesting something don't definitively prove it, sure, because, as you say, contrary evidence can exist. But no one claimed that - they just said studies "back it up". This is true. Studies can indeed "back up" claims.
I hope you know better than to try homeschooling your child. You don't seem to have the patience, understanding, or wisdom necessary to teach a child anything positive or valuable past about 5th grade. You don't know what you're talking about and when people try to help you understand, you insist that you were right all along and resort to insults. You should really take an introspective look at yourself to try to figure out what it is about your life that's making you so bitter and frustrated and toxic at such a young age.
Humans are rationalizing creatures, much more than rational ones. Our first gut reaction is trying to make sense of why we think what we think and why we behave how we behave, rather than trying to figure out if it does actually make sense. If this natural tendency could be changed, the world would be far less of a shithole.
This is why, rather than slapping people in the face with a mountain of research, I try to ask them questions that lead them to the conclusion I want them to reach. Oh we discuss along the way, but you get a lot less of the black and white thinking bold statements that someone entrenched in their beliefs tends to make
The research backs up your statement. Especially if you yourself are genuinely interested in the conversation, and also willing to update your own thinking, along with helping get everyone in the conversation to start understanding the real answers.
In case you haven't listened to it, the You Are Not So Smart podcast covers the topic of how to get people to change on a pretty regular basis. It's a great podcast that talks a lot about conspiracies, misinformation, and how to combat them.
https://youarenotsosmart.com/podcast/
My favorite part of this podcast is that if you listen to it from the start (nearly 300 episodes at this point), you can hear him slowly become very jaded and pessimistic, but then as the podcast goes on, he starts turning around his opinion and gets exited and optimistic about all the progress that is made. It's a really great podcast and makes me excited for the future.
Thanks for the recommendation!
This is just the Socratic method. It's like...the oldest formal rhetorical strategy.
Shhhh don’t burst his bubble.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it
-Descartes or some shit
A stitch in time saves nine.
-Pliny the elder
(Psst it's not actually the socratic method)
I don't think so? The Socratic method wasn't necessarily a strategy intended to carefully persuade someone by bypassing psychological blockers. If anything, Socrates' counterparts were often antagonized and angered by his questions because he exposed contradictions.
I think the ethos behind it was that Socrates presumed he knew nothing, other people seemed like they knew things, so he asked them what they knew, since others were so bold as to make knowledge claims.
Ahh, after all this time, the Socratic Method still reigns
We're also to some extent innately combative creatures. People will say "Oh, I showed people the facts and they still didn't change their mind. They're just idiots stuck in their ways." Okay, cool. When you tried to present these facts, did you do it in such a way as to treat them courteously or as an equal, or did you do it in such a way that you got to feel like you were dunking on them rhetorically? Because it's not as simple as presenting someone with facts. It's doing so in a way that doesn't make it feel like you're trying to establish some kind of superiority over them. Because then they're not presenting facts to you, they're just attacking you and your position. And these are very different things, conceptually and emotionally.
No , we’re not.
Yes, we are.
Just putting this here for giggles, I don't disagree with you lol
Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
Oh, just the five minute one.
Just the five minutes. Thank you. Anyway, I did.
Can't tell if this is a joke. You're being combative in your comment.
That is - IMO - what critical thinking is meant to be .... thinking about alternative explanations and evaluating their viability or probability.
Unfortunately a lot of people use the term "critical thinking" as just another way to rationalize why they are against something, without actually weighing the options.
I do that and i'm the weird one.
I try real hard to not only change my mind but vocally (typographically) acknowledge when I was wrong because it's so goddamnit rare and infuriating.
Same here. I work in tech and you’d be amazed how many people are so much less on guard around me because of this.
same here, even when someone hasn't changed my mind 100% I'll often acknowledge if any of their arguments made me want to delve deeper into a topic and think more about my opinion on it
This is like a 21st century Monty Python skit.
These comments are quite devoid of meme energy
Lemmy is too political
A shit post about Chad farquad saying "E" after being asked what's the second vowel is political?
Absurdist humor has a long history of being political. Shitposting is how disenfranchised young generations process and cope with societal alienation.
The underlying Chad Farquaad is funny because it is a commentary on beauty standards. And regular Farquaad is funny because of Shrek's satirical and political nature (ESPECIALLY Farquaad and his kingdom which both overtly represent Disney Corporation and capitalism).
These underlying, inherently politically-laden factors, are core to the shitpost's comedic value.
there's no escape, bitch
politics is reality and you just want fantasy... but if you keep reading fantasy, you'll eventually notice something horrible about it. Spoiler alert: its politics
Damn, ok, relax... It's like you guys are on cocaine or something and I accidentally brought up politics. I meant that Lemmy is too political to be dumb about memes. That's it... Chill.
If there's one I've learned after being on the internet for 17 years, it's this; you can throw an entire mountain of evidence at a conspiracy theorist and they STILL won't believe you.
On the internet your identity is a collection of the opinions that you wrote under that name. So if you changing your opinion on anything you're changing your identity.
All the more difficult if you use your own name as your identity and you have acquired followers because of the opinions you've expressed.
Pretty sure this meme originates from an actual, specific Twitter exchange. Which became so legendary that people just repeated it secondhand, and now the secondhand repetition of it is getting screenshotted and posted.
To me or sounds like Monty Python: 'You don't have to follow me, your all individuals, you have mine of your own!'
(Crowd): YES, WE'RE ALL INDIVDUALS, WE HAVE MINDS OF OUR OWN!
(One person in the crowd): No, wait, I'm not!
Where are the links to the studies?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237638761_Belief_Perseverance_and_Self-Defeating_Behavior
Yeah well I still think it works
Back in the shower where OP thought of this neat little argument.
I think that studies show that while facts can help, most significant changes of mind happen when a person is emotionally invested in the change.
It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it. - Edmund Way Teale
Damn, everyone could have been right if the OG just relented. He changed his mind to agree people don't change their minds? Chess grandmaster move right there... What a missed opportunity.
This is like a meta level recursion.
Sounds like you were dealing with a troll
Hahah. If the commentor just went "you're right, I just changed my mind". That itself would make the OP some pause 😂
I mean, you can change people's minds on the internet, they just have to be willing to change; and that part can't be controlled by you.
An oft-repeated phrase between my friends an I in high school was when a dumb redneck kid told a friend of mine in class, "my opinions is facts."
Yes it does! And I won't let you tell me otherwise!!!
The internet is an ouroboros.
this is what taking a philosophy class as a Marxist feels like lol
Right?
Where are the links to the studies?
Where are the links to the studies?
Where are the links to the studies?
You can look them up yourself. I've seen the studies, but it's not my responsibility to get them for you; we're not your teacher
“I liNKeD tWo sTUdies”. Is the funniest things that happens on the internet.
"I backed up my stance with studies instead of general feels"
"lmao what a dumbass"
-people like this
It takes 20 seconds to find a paper. On anything.
In 1 minute, you can find 5 papers to back up a claim .. 30 minutes with GPT and you can write your own fucking paper. …
Of course, there are often a further 5 papers out there arguing opposite, because that’s how research works. But nobody seems interested in that. Someone just names “two papers !” And you are sold. Just. like. that. The argument is over for you.
I have to ask, Are you 12 ? Or brand new to the internet or something ?
That why it's important for it to not just be a "paper" but an actual source. Then you can check who wrote it, who published it, and what the specific study was. As in, read the published study they cited and you'll see what the parameters were and how they got to the conclusion purported. It's not just "I found that somebody on the internet somewhere said x, here's a link to the Twitter post." Be skeptical and call out shitty sources, but ignoring the entire concept of backing up a claim with evidence is pretty silly. In the current era of plaguing disinformation and misinformation, it's important to be well-versed in thinking critically about what we are told.
Mate, how are you trying to find a difference between citing a paper and citing a source ? The paper IS the source. The paper IS the study.
I genuinely don’t know what you’re trying to do here.
The entire point is that is trivial to quote papers, or sources, if you prefer.
Ergo, someone hooting about citing two sources (without mentioning them, by the way) is only a zinger if you are naive to social media arguments.
I really don’t know what’s so hard about it.
If you think you can just have chat gpt write you a paper that you can use as a source, then you don't understand what a source is. Drawing a false equivalency either indicates that you don't know how to differentiate between valid sources and invalid sources or that you're intentionally attempting to fracture public faith in the entire concept of fact-checking in order to further the spread of disinformation for objectively questionable motives. I don't have a tin foil hat on right now, so I'll just assume that you're uninformed and could benefit from reading a book on the subject or taking a class on it.
It's easier to dismiss all evidence and just believe whatever feels right, but the common people will have what little money and power they have sucked away from them if lies are permitted to influence who to give their money and power to. There is a real benefit to controlling narrative and swaying public opinion, so the people being equipped to identify weaponized disinformation is a valuable defense for basic democratic function and individual prosperity.
That's why I feel the need to respond to what you're saying. At best, you're accidentally sowing distrust in an essential skill set in the modern information age; at worst, you're intentionally attacking the working class at the behest of the ruling/owning class. Again, no tin foil hat, so I think you just didn't understand what the logical conclusion of what you were saying was.
I guess you aren't interested in having an actual conversation here, but that doesn't make it okay to just insult a stranger just because you can't keep up. I encourage you to consider the possibility that you're wrong about some things and that other people might know more than you about those things, and maybe you should accept their attempts to help you to understand more about the world you live in. Otherwise, you're gonna be very lonely when your peers have all outgrown you and moved on.
Nice strawman
You don’tt even know what a straw man is
And you don't know what a source is.
I just assumed everyone knew what “paper” meant, in the context of quoting studies.
Apparently they, and you, do not.
Quit being smug and cryptic, out with your point.
You claimed that they see a single source and are just satisfied based on the existence of any paper. That is not an accurate or justified interpretation of their statement.
Studies suggesting something don't definitively prove it, sure, because, as you say, contrary evidence can exist. But no one claimed that - they just said studies "back it up". This is true. Studies can indeed "back up" claims.
I hope you know better than to try homeschooling your child. You don't seem to have the patience, understanding, or wisdom necessary to teach a child anything positive or valuable past about 5th grade. You don't know what you're talking about and when people try to help you understand, you insist that you were right all along and resort to insults. You should really take an introspective look at yourself to try to figure out what it is about your life that's making you so bitter and frustrated and toxic at such a young age.
Try harder, dear.
Caee to expand on this brave opinion of yours?
wuht.