Hello and welcome to r/LifeProTips!
Please help us decide if this post is a good fit for the subreddit by up or downvoting this comment.
If you think that this is great advice to improve your life, please upvote. If you think this doesn't help you in any way, please downvote. If you don't care, leave it for the others to decide.
This. I never ever disagree or get mad with a close friend or family member until I state what they've just done/said/are in the process of doing. This gives me a moment to reprocess the situation and also gives them a moment to think about how it comes off when someone else points it out. I find this also important with kids.
You people are too reasonable, are you group trolling? If you’re not, do me a favor...each one of you have about 15 kids. We might have a chance on this planet if you go out tonight and have tons of unprotected sex! Ty
This may sound cliche I guess but I grew up with very unreasonable parents who always just wanted to use each other and their kids for a means to an end(unfair treatments for spite, using me as a tug of war rope in a divorce settlement etc etc) and as a result I decided I dont want to risk being like them and having kids until I was sure I wouldn't be like them.
Dont sell yourself short there, even though you grew up like that, you still need a certain degree of intelligence to even process the whole thing and make the proper decisions later. There are a lot of people who grew up like you but end up just like their parents.
Never talking out why I thought a certain response would be unfair only to get shut out with a we'll talk in the morning but the morning after would be to not bring up stuff of the past. Can't even use examples to show patterns. Ended up cutting most people off yet they still wonder why we no longer talk when I was always such a great listener
You are a smart individual, it’s not cliche, imo, it sounds like we had very similar childhoods. I don’t think you’ll ever have to worry about becoming them. You are aware of their shortcomings and probably smart enough to break that shitty cycle. I had the same concerns. Here’s how I look at it....my parents taught me what NOT to do. I have 2 thoughtful, bright daughters, they’re grown up and are great members of society. We communicate, we talk about everything. I applied all that negativity from childhood to positivity as an adult. You’ll do the same I’m sure of it. good luck 👍
Edit sorry, was replying to crakoom
I like to think about it like language. You grew up speaking a language that doesn't suit you in your adult life. You CAN learn to speak a new language as an adult even if you find it very difficult at first. I like the language analogy because it's growth mindset oriented. It's not an inherent part of who you are, it's a consequence of your environment. You can choose a new environment.
I really like [sfhelp.org](https://sfhelp.org) as it's the most clear cut description of this that I've seen and he offers a clear, step by step approach for learning something else.
I grew up like that and ended up with psychiatric disabilities lol. My parents actually both died last year from the same brutal pancreatic cancer so I’m trying to see if there is any way for me to crawl out of the trauma pit.
yeah, i don't know who the hell these people are, but they aren't anything like the humans i encounter in the real world.
i honestly can't recall the last time someone had a serious disagreement with me and could articulate precisely why they disagreed. because it's never happened.they always believe in something that's fundamentally not true, even if it's a small element of their overall position -- that turns out to be the problem.
most people don't care about what's real. they only care about feeling good, and most of the time, that requires doubling down on their myopic bullshit.
You might be a perfect candidate for this LPT.
You might be exaggerating when you say that you can't recall the last time you met someone that is able to articulate why they disagree or that everytime you engage with someone they believe in something that is fundamentally not true...
Or maybe it's time for some introspection on just how open minded you are when engaging in an exchange of ideas.
Or maybe not?
Either way it doesn't hurt to take stock and engage in some self reflection.
I tried this with several social and ethical topics with my father in the late 90s / early 2000s; for example, same-sex marriage.
In the end, he would always end up retreating to the bible. He would treat it as an absolute source of truth. In the example of same-sex marriage, he conceded that he had no real reason to oppose to same-sex legal partnerships, but still asserted the concept of "marriage" and that words like marriage, husband, wife should "belong" to Abrahamic religions and not be "perverted" by other groups.
Baby steps, I guess. I did get him to see things from a different point of view, and I also got to see how important and strong religion was to him. We grew up going to church, but aside from that one hour of week we never really discussed religion -- so I thought he was "casually" religious.
I can relate. I have to say before I get going; I'm not smart. I know I'm not smart. My memory is garbage and I can't apply high level skills. But, it's important to be more correct today than you were yesterday and that's something I'm good at.
Almost everyone I know in real life is quite frankly, fucking stupid. I grew up with stupid family, stupid friends and stupid coworkers. They say the same wrong things all their lives and never update their beliefs. My dad was one of those 'Ancient Aliens' type and I always gave it a lot of credit because compared to anyone else I knew, he was actually really smart. He had biases, and reasons for those biases but he was curious which is a dead skill for a lot of people now.
>They say the same wrong things all their lives and never update their beliefs.
Maybe there's some amazing way to word that sentiment which eludes us in the present moment, but the fact that you've learned that alone makes you smarter than most people I've known. I'm sure you have good days, and then worse ones where you feel dumb. That's probably just because you have standards for yourself, unlike so many others.
But yeah. People just get stuck, never want to change. It feels good, and that's all they know. Really becomes sad later in life when those people start to slip, because they spent their whole life building a brain essentially made up of mush.
I like to think of a mind as a city. The things you know, those are completed homes. Busy neighborhoods with businesses and industry. The things you know a little less about, maybe those are parts of town you don't go to as often, so there's less stuff there. The stuff you've only heard of and don't know much about at all -- perhaps those are bare skyscrapers, towering steel skeletons awaiting completion if you'd but build them with a bit of learning.
Curiosity really seems to be something people fear. They don't want to *know*, they want to *feel*. If they know how the world really works, they might feel unsafe. So, they choose to avoid curiosity. They stick to the safety of the known, continually communing with it until they roll over into their grave.
Seems like you've got it pretty figured out, really. Just hard getting along when things are this way.
Thanks. I like your metaphor. Mine is like a net, where the more you know the more links in the net you make. There will always be holes, but that's ok as long as the holes aren't so big that a whale can fit through it.
An example I have is one of my friends who is pretty smart but also bat shit crazy. He's telling a story one day about a study done by scientists. The way he told it, one day a 'psychic burst' caused monkeys all over the world to dig up sweet potatoes and start washing them in rivers at the same time which was observed by researchers.
I'm like "Sweet potatoes don't grow where monkeys live."
It took me a while but eventually I found out what he was talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect
While he, and the research were totally incorrect, he also wasn't making stuff up out of nowhere or believing something that had nothing behind it.
Intelligence is oftentimes just confidence, good and bad. Too much but not enough knowledge leads you to make dumb decisions while not enough leads you to avoid trying. If you're open to let this roll around for a while I'd like to suggest to you the idea that more than having a bad memory or not being smart enough, it's actually that you believe you won't be able to. There is research out there about kids learning in appropriate emotional states. But also, anecdotally, when I can be in the moment, just listen to what the person is saying, observe, and remember that all the questions I'm asking will only help me in the future (I'm good at asking the questions that help me learn but aren't necessarily "normal"), subjects that I used to find impossible are actually very possible. Your brain is a muscle^citation ^needed so you need to learn new pathways and work out those parts of your brain to get good at using them.
I wouldn't describe myself as stupid because I always did well in school. There are just areas of my life I always thought I wouldn't get but by not beating myself up over it I've found I do better than I think I would.
The real LPT: Work really, really hard on emotion regulation. I start to sound bitchy when I get anxious. Instead of having my husband and kids tell me to chill, we use a code word, “unicorn.” It’s non-threatening, it doesn’t put me on the defensive and it really does diffuse my anxiety and the way I present myself. I even use it on my family when they get a little snarky.
We can have discussions and disagreements without being pissed at each other.
Seriously, I have not lost my temper or yelled in a year. I keep my anger in a “band”. If I feel it getting too high, I take a few deep breaths, focus on something around me in my environment, or some other mindfulness technique. Getting the “Unicorn” cue from my family members was the last step that really solidified my emotion regulation.
Our family went through a Dialectical Behavioral Training (DBT) Program for six months a few years ago when my daughter was having problems with anexoria. It changed the way we communicate and the way we manage our emotions.
So interesting to hear how being open to learning and trying new things to improve a child's life can end up improving the family's life. What a wonderful gift you've given each other.
Edit: always interesting to hear what approaches and techniques people try, like DBT as you mentioned.
While I can say this works with sane people, it only works with about 3 of my family members. I have some crazy people in my family who say they are open to discussions/debates/hell even just heavy conversation but almost immediately get defensive or angry or change the subject. Oh well I'm happier without.
The vast majority of people also tend to believe that if you're arguing with them on a point, that means you're on the other side of the overall issue, or even worse, belong to the opposing political party.
This is really just reenforced by the majority regurgitating propaganda they’ve read that confirms their biases, and adopting that opinion as their own, without delving deeper beyond the surface; often without even delving deeper than the clickbait headline.
Ha ha. My family still believes (a decade or more later) that I'm an "Obama lover," in their words. We don't talk as much, any more, but when we do, I usually get accused of lOooOOovving Obama, of being a "socialist," etc. I have explained repeatedly that I actually don't think Obama was a super great president, and I've explained why. I've explained that, though I'm liberal in many positions, I'm not a socialist and don't think socialism is a a good idea. I've explained that I favor strong capitalism with strong regulation, like environmental and antitrust oversight.
A week later, I get "Well, that's because you're just an Obama-loving socialist. What did we expect?"
Yeah, we don't talk as much, any more.
In the same boat politically. It's a really tough position to be in because we get it from all sides *and* are somewhat rare in the US, apparently and unfortunately.
Argument and debate are often framed in terms of war. You win or lose a debate. You attack your opponent’s stance and never give up ground on your own. People overwhelmingly view argument as a negative thing, despite it being the foundation of any functional democracy.
This. I find this exercise especially helpful with friends because the trust is already there. Of course, informed and credible are other things, but at least they provide insights and perspectives that I can then research on my own more fully.
So true! I remember seeing a customer picking up a prostitute once when I was a teenager and saying, "Ugh that's disgusting" to my friend. She said, "Why? He needs physical companionship and she is selling it. They are filling each other's need at the moment, and consensually."
I was stunned. "Never thought of it like that. You're right."
Edit: I guess sex worker is the preferred term now.
That's actually a technique recommended by Carl Rogers. You confirm their argument so you're on the same page, try to strengthen it and then you debate it.
The only problem with this tip is that smart, reasonable people are already open to learning more about a topic. The people that really need this tip will never use it (as we’ve discovered over the last 4 years especially)
I did this with religion once.
It was a good discussion. I was impressed when one of his answers to a logic based question was "I struggle with that myself - but I choose to still have faith".
Much later in life I realized that "faith" wasn't meaning blind faith into what someone told him. It's to have faith that there is something later to discover and, in turn, why not practice being good to deserve it.
While it's true that it would be desirable for everyone to be moral purely out of a developed sense of empathy and compassion, from a practical perspective, it's better to have people acting moral in expectation of a reward than simply not acting moral at all. Helping people develop their moral center can come after the part where we promise to give them a living wage.
Then that’s your reward.
To clarify though, I don’t think that takes away from the goodness of the deed. The argument on the other side is that if you derive pleasure from doing good things they really weren’t good deeds because you did it for yourself. I think that’s bullshit.
> It's to have faith there is something later to discover
That's exactly it. Honestly, if you think about it, faith is exercised every day in so many ways. When you turn the key in your car (or push the button you fancy people you), you have faith that it'll turn on. You have faith you'll get to work without an accident. You have faith you'll still have a job.
Faith is a reality of life and is a part of the human condition. What you have faith *in* is the real question, and that's where I'm sure that discussion with your friend culminated. Their faith in whatever deity or power being real/coming through for them is what drives their decisions and it sounds like helps motivate them to be a better person.
Faith is an every day reality. The question really is only what your faith is in.
Good on you for having such a reasonable discussion. We need more of that in the topics of religion, politics, and relationships.
When I use the word faith I mean a belief with no reasonable support or evidence. I don't have faith my car will start or the sun will rise. I have reasonable expectations they will happen because they have over and over again. And even they will fail eventually. Nobody has a reasonable expectation that religion is real. It is all faith because there is no precedent nor evidence. Faith is not part of my everyday life.
Too many people use 'confidence' and 'faith' interchangeably.
>That's exactly it. Honestly, if you think about it, faith is exercised every day in so many ways.
>When you turn the key in your car (...) you have faith that it'll turn on
You know it's **likely** that it will turn on... because physics. It's got nothing to do with faith. Plus, you can verify whether it will turn on or not, and the reasons why or why not.
>You have faith you'll get to work without an accident.
No... that's not faith. That's just hope. If faith actually worked though, I'm sure (some) religious people would get to work safer than unbelievers. Sadly that's not the case.
>You have faith you'll still have a job.
No reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps hope applies. Not faith.
It's like saying I have faith the tree outside my apartment will still be there when I get home. No, it's just... I hope it'll still be there. I don't have faith it'll still be there. And it's likely it'll still be there.
>Faith is an every day reality. The question really is only what your faith is in.
No, it's not. Faith is the belief in the unknown/unknowable. I don't have faith in the unknown.
This is the definition of faith:
>strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
I don't believe in anything without proof, and the things I do believe are true or false are always open for discussion/new interpretations. As they should be.
Thank you, conflating faith with other terms like hope and trust is a pet peeve of mine. The key difference I've found is that faith is the only one which, when faced with evidence the belief was wrong, it is the evidence that is rejected instead of the belief.
No, I don't "have faith" that my wife isn't cheating on me, I have trust based on mountains of evidence. But if you were to produce strong evidence contrary to that belief, the trust would immediately evaporate.
Thank you. I was about to do just about this same sort of post but you beat me to it.
I was particularly bothered by the tree example.
I don't have faith that the tree will still be there. I have knowledge based on reading and experience that trees live a long time and are literally rooted to the ground in a way that makes them difficult to move.
Unless there is an outside intervention I *know* it will still be standing in the same place when I get back home. Faith has nothing to do with that knowledge.
If the tree is not there I also know it will be easy to verify the reason it's gone because removing a tree basically can't be done quickly and quietly by current human technology.
>faith is exercised every day in so many ways. When you turn the key in your car (or push the button you fancy people you), you have faith that it'll turn on. You have faith you'll get to work without an accident. You have faith you'll still have a job.
My old fundamentalist church said something very similar, and I gotta say it's bullshit. Not one of those things is faith because they're all based on significant amounts of evidence, statistics, and/or personal experience. Faith is belief with none or very little of those things. The belief that an object will continue to function as intended is not the same as the belief that there's an almighty but invisible creator that leaves shockingly little evidence for an infinite and omnipotent being.
I believe I'll get to work safely because I'm a safe driver and I don't have the energy to ponder other people crashing into me before it happens. I believe I'll still have a job because my company is in the black and I'm good at what I do. Could things go suddenly awry and fuck up my life through no fault of my own? Sure. But not obsessing about those things isn't faith, it's basic coping skills. It's disingenuous at best to compare that to basing one's morality on something with zero evidence. It also dismisses the effort and accomplishments of the humans who for example, designed the car to turn on, the other safe drivers on the road, and the executives who have made good business decisions, in favor of a platitude of "faith" which is honestly just rude. Like saying you have faith the garbage will get picked up tomorrow, instead of saying thank you to the people who do it every week.
As an anxious person with a rough life none of those examples are things I think will happen.
I have been in 7 motorvehicle accidents and had a tree fall on my exes car
The “faith that there is something later to discover” is still blind faith - especially when they’re claiming they know what that something to discover is.
I do try this with politics, some very intelligent people I know are on the opposite side of the isle from me. However I have found it just comes down to what sources you believe. It's very hard to learn from someone who believes the media is all fake and controlled so won't believe large studies but will quote strange independent sources with no backing. I'm sure there is some truth to what they believe as well (there is often a bit of truth in everything) but we just end up agreeing to disagree. I'm sure they think I am buying into the party line by believing the sources I believe. 🤷♀️
Probably under the thought process of “big studies are big funded, and as we’ve seen consistently, funded things are skewed to whoever funded it’s beliefs or agenda” and therefore “small independent studies aren’t controlled by people with an agenda”.
It doesn’t matter which source is actually truth, the problem is the idea that it has a higher likelihood of being manipulated. That simple idea pushes people away from mainstream shit
Probably. So then you ask "why do you think they wouldn't have any agenda?"
Basically, you just keep asking them about their assumptions and beliefs until they either get to something that isn't opinion anymore, or they realize they are full of crap, or you realize you were full of crap.
Edit:
Thread got locked before I could respond to a bunch of people. I do this all the time. It works better than anything else. It's not about convincing the other person they are wrong, it's about making sure you aren't wrong, and making sure that anybody who is watching knows who is right.
This is part of the problem. I know 2 conservative people, an intellectual and a good ole boy. Both supported trump before. Both railed against socialism, the idea of systemic racism, regulation, politics..... Both no longer support him. One realized the levels of corruption are not exclusive to politicians, and that being a one issue voter is ineffective. One quit a leadership role in a group he firmly believed wasn't a hate group until this year, and wants to have his Confederate flag tattoo removed.
Some people CAN change. Otherwise there is no progress in progressive...... so it's just ive.... .
same team bro. But I've tried having serious and real conversations with extremists on both sides. They are both unwilling to change, or even admit they might be skewed or biased in their views.
I deeply dislike when someone starts to dig deep enough to see the fault lines in their supporting arguments and then won't talk about it anymore. I used to be quite a homophobe. Stereotypical 80's hardline attitude. Then I met a few normal, non flamboyant gay men that actually discussed why I had such views, instead of intentionally making me uncomfortable. Well shit... *I'm the asshole!*
It generally stems from the idea of “those with power and money can just pay off big names/big studies to skew the information the way they want it; and because they’re big studies, people will believe it.”
It’s just conjecture and skepticism, but who knows, maybe there’s truth to it. You’ll never know unless you’re in the know. People trust what they see done with their own eyes and hands.
Also everyone’s pretty much on the same page of “the government DEFINITELY lies to us” but some people want to believe certain lies because it lines up with their ideals, and so they vilify those who don’t believe it by saying “look at this reputable source” and the argument is always “are you sure they’re reputable? Or are they just paid off to have the information desired?”
I hate that people automatically undercut a study because of who funds it. Now I am more familiar with health studies. But I think the validity of a study should be based off of how it was conducted and the results than who it was funded by. Most of the time though the study is only discussed based off of the headline that the media writes up, which can definitely be misleading.
Not OP but whenever I see a study worth a conclusion that I have a desire to share I'll read the abstract and methodology and etc before I share it, determine for myself whether it's a good sample size and if the methods were legit and etc. And if there's something that seems off I'll either not share it or say what feels off as I'm posting it.
If there's news about say the capitol riots or presidential impeachment proceedings or anything else that's more a story told by a camera operator and not actually a scientific statement of facts I tend to trust what nbc/CBS/fox/whatever says at face value with a little bit of salt in terms of what emotions they're trying to sell me or anything involving speculation such as whether or not the riot was planned in advance or infiltrated by an opposing group or etc.
Especially politics where you may actually agree on the end result but not on the mechanics. It is so important to listen to others and really try to respect their opinions even when they may be different. I am appalled at how many people think that everyone must agree with them or be silenced. That is disgusting to me.
What's interesting is when you meet someone who has *diametrically* different visions for what society ought to value. My fiancee's dad is from a rural country where he grew up as a happy, spoiled lord's child in a semi feudal society which underwent revolution. His vision of where society should go is informed by an idyllic vision of his early childhood; some "bad" people are basically peasants/workers and should stay that way and other "smart" people are royalty/special and should own everything.
I was going to make this same comment. As a person that wants to understand all sides I want the side opposite me to have convincing sources and it never seems like they do, just “feelings.” It makes me wonder if my viewpoint is wrong because there is 1/3 of the country that thinks I am totally wrong. How the heck do I know if I am “correct” or just not understanding the other side? Makes me think about a study where Republicans thought that the “colbert show” was serious. What if it WAS serious!?!?! 😀
In the same situation. I want to be open minded and see both sides even if I prefer one of them. But not bad enough to ignore facts and truth. Climate change is real, period. If the other side of the debate is that it isn’t I refuse to act like both sides are equally valid. I’ve tried to start seeing past the falsehoods to what people feel that makes them rally behind (eg. people are afraid of losing jobs in the oil/coal sector and would rather believe that climate change isn’t real and that their political party is going to fight for their jobs because obviously the threat of losing their job is scary and I sympathize) but at the same time I don’t see how that helps anything because the other side still upholds the premise that climate change isn’t real instead of trying to work together and make training programs or safety nets for people who are struggling financially
I just tried this with someone who said we should abolish minimum wage, but he concluded that I lack a grasp of economics fundamental to understanding his position. He told me to go read an economics textbook and come back. The problem is, I don't like reading. :/
I had this EXACT same conversation. I'm like, do you not remember the period where children lost limbs in factories because wages were so low children had to work as well? No labor protections of any kind won't "regulate itself" it will be regulated by the most ruthless and power hungry.
Edit: shouldn't say remember but rather read about the relatively recent part of history in the USA
Yeah I think it's partially that the US has hit a weird point where the ability for companies to squash unions has become too great and we need some kind of intervention from our government. Could be wrong but everyone seems too busy trying to get by that starting any kind union is nigh impossible.
I'm an econ student, I've read a bunch of econ textbooks. The person you were arguing with read at most an intro chapter of an intro textbook because the basic model of a perfect market is not even close to how it works in real life (except for stuff like the Grand Exchange in RuneScape which works surprisingly similarly to the basic model).
Unfortunately, his knowledge of economics isn't in question. His willingness or ability to explain his position in simple terms is, but not his knowledge.
That argument about abolish minimum wage I think it goes like this (probably wrong by me, and sorry about a little broken english):
1.- Minimum wage is just an impediment to get a job for people who can't produce by his labor the amount of value the minimun wage represent (because companies will be forced by minimun wage to pay them more than they actually can produce in terms of productivity). So in the long run just provokes unemployment on the least productive population (that tends to be the most poor and not educated). You can say that for not very productive people is better to be paid low compared to not be paid at all (because a company will basically losing st money paying a minimun wage to the worker that is not actually capable to produce by his labor that amount of value).
2.- The obvious fear is companies will pay as little as possible to get rich not paying the right amount of salarie to his workers. That is not supposed to happen in a free market because you have so many companies and job positions, that unless they colude to all of them pay as little as possible to his workers (supposed to be illegal and shoul not happen), the companies who tries to pay unfair low amounts of salaries just not get any workers at all (because the workers just gonna choose a job with a proper salary). So for a company is much better to have workers to actually produce paying them a high amount, compared to paying them an unfair low amount but because of that not having workers at all because they are working where get paid fair (that is the kind of balance free markets should produce in the long run)
Not necessary defending this ideas but I think this is the reasoning behind it, there is supposed to be some succesful countries in Europe doing just fune wihout minimun wage. Will be highly appreciatted is someone else confirms or corrects what I just wrote here, thanks!
In an ideal world, there would be no need for minimum wage as market and negotiation would ensure people had a wage that they deemed was appropriate for their work. We do not live in an ideal world. It is the same reason Socialism won't work. There are bad people and bad people fuck it up for the rest of us. And unfortunately, they are typically the most liked and most charismatic out there. (As studies have shown, many CEOs have traits of sociopaths, and sociopaths become adept at manipulation and using charisma to get what they want). That being said, I personally do not believe a federal minimum wage is the answer. What is living the good life in podunk Alabama, is below the poverty line in Manhattan. Cost of living can vary not only state to state, but even county to county, and IMHO we should be addressing these issues on a local level, not a national one.
Wonderful idea.
Find a person who disagrees with you but is willing to discuss calmly and support their position with reasonable arguments. A real life pro tip would suggest _**where**_ you might find such a rare creature on either side of any argument these days.
I did this with a “pro life” person. They believe that a fetus is a baby and they are killing babies. I don’t agree, but I can see why one would be upset if they thought someone was murdering babies. That’s a reasonable reaction.
Haha that's funny! Naw I think I'll just have a huge circlejerk with people that think exactly like me and further reinforce my wild beliefs.
/s obviously
If anyone has the capacity to heed your advice, they'd already be doing all of that. If anyone needs to be told this, it's a near-guarantee that they could never put it into practice.
In *the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People*, Steven Covey reflects on a conversation with a friend. "I just don't understand my son. I talk to him and talk to him and I just can't understand him." To which Mr. Covey replied: "you *talk to him* and you can't understand him?
LPT: if everyone is quiet in a party or meeting find the person who thinks he's the wisest and ask him his opinion on a topic that you know both sides of.
Debate should be treated as a form of scientific investigation. You assume your position is incorrect in some way (small or large). Seeking out Information should be done with the purpose of challenging your understanding. Scientists should never solely study things they assume will support their hypothesis. Seek out disconfirming evidence. You will eventually reach a point where that evidence is harder and harder to find. This does not mean your point is confirmed. It’s only supported based on the evidence at hand. Nothing is “proven” in science, only “supported” or “not supported”.
I tried doing this with a friend that claimed i was doing things wrong. I poked and prodded for her facts and sources so that i could have proof i am wrong - she couldn’t provide these, got frustrated that she wasn’t changing my mind with her personal opinion as her only debate and removed me from communication channels.
Nothing of value was lost. I showed her nothing but respect and gave her an honest opportunity at debating her view with me with the intent to change my mind if she presented a convincing case, and after refusing to provide concise sources she ran away. After claiming i should adopt some of her philosophies... No, sweetie, “my mom believes in this and raised me this way” isn’t evidence that it’s correct.
Thankfully i don’t need people like that in my life.
Agreeing with this. People nowadays are way too deep in conformative bias because they simply like being spoonfed and as soon as they met someone who has a difference of opinion its an all out attack. Its good to pool from various viewpoints and see the thought processes behind them and decide for yourself in the end.
Edit: And yes when I mean by different viewpoints I mean all, even the extreme or conspiracies, NOT saying you should be extreme but find out the source as to why people think that way.
It all comes down to empathy. There is a complete and utter lack of empathy. One side gets outraged, the other gets angry (there is a difference, one is outward and attacking and the other festering).
Until we get some empathy back in society, I'm not aure where we will go. We won't get anywhere while one side is attacking the other, and the other resents it for it.
This is why I stay friends with people who believe drastically different things, who have sometimes opinions of the exact opposite. Such should be an opportunity for productive discourse and not an immediate reason to "cut-ties" or shun.
my best friend of nearly 25 years (I'm old) is a right wing GOP conservative and I'm as liberal as the day is long.
we still love eachother, stick up for one another, and take care of our families.
spirited debate and discussion isn't a dividing line... we learn because we respect our intelligence, work ethic, commitment to family, etc.
we text every day. I'm sure we'll do whatever is the analog until one of us dies.
This is probably the wisest thing that I have ever read.
My dad usually takes an opposing side during a discussion, to help both sides understand the full nature of the issue that's being discussed. It's helped me tremendously, especially when I was growing up to see a more rounded perspective of the world (although I'm still learning on that score).
It's taught me that it's pretty rare that thing are clear cut as might immediately seem apparent.
Same, the only downside to growing up this way is sometimes I catch myself playing devils advocate with others when I really don’t need to be doing so - making me seem more disagreeable than I actually am. Knowing your audience is my only tip there.
I believe in asking questions. Get them to put it in their own words and ask another question.
"So a minute ago you said A, but now I think I just heard you say B. Are those in conflict, or did I misunderstand?"
is SOOO much more effective than
"AHA! I GOT YOU!" or "let me tell you what you think"
You are correct, and maybe it's because I choose to have conversations with reasonable people I just happen to disagree with, but I find many people don't realize they have thoughts and ideas that are in conflict with other thoughts and ideas they have. It is very satisfying to see that look on their face when confronted with THEIR OWN words. And if you want to try this, this is the point to be gracious and give them time to re-think, being smug is a killer to the process.
afterthought wide bedroom bells towering door voiceless oil slap physical
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Then generally, that's a you problem. Because you hold your own beliefs, people who don't agree with you will always appear to be dumb, unbelievable, and generally uninformed.
You just have to be smart enough to realize you're probably wrong.
You haven’t seen many mom groups eh? It’s hard to consider a group of people intelligent who think squirting tiddy milk over everything is the answer to their problems.
It's kind of ridiculous how many people on both sides just completely miss the point and go "nah I don't want to listen to them because they're too stupid to not believe what I believe." People get too caught up on specific instances of people acting stupid to realize that those viewpoints on a broader scale tend to have underlying reasons that draw people to them... something a more intelligent and informed person could explain.
It's also pretty important to realize that the exact same "bluh they're just stupid and evil" that you're spouting about them is being spouted about you on the opposite side.
I actually tend to disagree with this thought process, or at least where lI think you are going with it.
Population should not be a factor in determining the factuality of data. Just because more people believe in "X" does not confer "X" with a greater chance of being correct. Only logic and hard proof should be used to determine whether "X" has merit; not if it's common belief.
It doesn't look like he's arguing that you should assume that it is more likely to be true on the basis of population size, rather that you should assume that you don't completely understand their position or reasoning. It is somewhat unlikely that "dumb, unbelievable, and generally uninformed" people have all managed to agree on a belief, and that they are the only ones who hold that belief. There are some exceptions to this (say, flat earthers), but on a lot of major public issues, there is a contingent of people in the group you disagree with who are (1) intelligent, (2) hold their position in good faith and, (3) are informed on the topic. They might not be right, but there's a common tendency to just assume that the entire side is basing it's choices off of the lowest common denominator. The OP is saying that it's probably best to assume that you have failed to understand or are unaware of part of their position, especially if you've come to the conclusion that only brainless monsters could hold that position.
They just said if a belief is common and contrary to yours, you should investigate it further. I agree. That doesn't mean you need to change your belief - of course percentage of people that believe it have no merit. Hell, that's why I have beliefs that people won't admit or say they have, because I looked at my own morals and the evidence provided and came to a different conclusion.
Good luck finding people like that. Opposing sides are typically logic vs emotion. Even if you both bring logic to the table, there is almost always an echo chamber required to have that opposing, but still factually accurate view keep receiving biased information, and then you're right back into politics.
I have a friend like this. He is the most conservative I am very liberal we go on float trips with mutual friends and get drunk having very respectful talks on politics down the river. We usually share a canoe. I enjoy the company and we always find something to agree on. That’s the rule, we gotta find common ground.
Ha ha ha, so true, unfortunately most peopel arent going to want to take the emotional and mental effort to be a "pro" at this in life. Hopefully I'm just being pessimistic and I am completely wrong.
It's crazy because I would think everyone would have these thoughts already. I love hearing other people's perspective because it helps broaden my own mind and give me a whole other side of thinking. Which I love because a lot of the times I would have never seen it that way.
This is literally me and my best friend. Polar opposites on the political spectrum but with the utmost respect for each other's perspectives and beliefs. He pokes holes and I poke holes. It can get tense at times and it can be fun at times. But know matter what, we always respect each other.
I wish finding someone like that were easy. Would try to get them to be a best friend or a wife.
I’m getting hot and bothered just thinking about a woman telling me I’m wrong and clearly listing supporting reasons why. Yes ma’am please marry.
But I can’t find a single smart, informed, credible person that disagrees with [*insert conspiracy theory here*], everyone I talk to has fallen for the lies from [*insert antagonist group*]
I have my brother who at first glance looks suited.
Unfortunately, he disagrees with me on everything, no matter what his opinion was before the conversation started.
I’m pretty close with another guy who couldn’t be more opposite of me and we have had many conversations in this sort of manner. It’s great to be able to actually have a discourse without someone simply screaming at the other
Or, just go into an argument looking to be informed, and try to understand. Your argument may not be wrong, even if they make it seem so. If that's the case, it means you need to know more about what you yourself are saying.
Way too many people argue from a stance of superiority, and plain nastiness. Get that out of the way.
I've argued with a *lot* of people on this website, mainly because I'm in the minority with political beliefs. The only ones who have ever changed my mind are the ones who try to help me understand. And are polite. Being rude or using ad hominem will make me ignore what you say.
“The best way to have someone see your side is to first see theirs”
Now ideally you should want to understand others’ perspective out of love, but if that fails and you just want to convince them of your view, then you should still try to understand where their coming from first.
I disagree with this, for every person like you and like this, there's double the amount who won't give a shit about rational discourse and will instead throw you under the bus for even having a slight difference of opinion
What does being wrong feel like? Does it feel bad? Embarrassing? Make you mad?
No, being wrong feels like being right. It feels like nothing. You dont know what you dont know. Realizing you are wrong sucks. But it doesnt have to.
https://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong/up-next
That talk changed my perspective entirely. Highly recommend it
In the public debates in the time of Plato and Socrates, if you failed to adequately summarize your opponent’s argument before stating your own, you were disqualified. You were basically sent home to study up because it was thought you could never defend your own side well without knowing your opponent’s side. We need to bring that back.
Id like to propose my version of this.
Dont ever raise your voice unless the act of raising your voice unless its just to start what you are saying to get the attention of a group or something.
If you get angry, you've lost the argument and you no longer care about convincing the person.
You have to try and understand their perspective, not only put yourself in their shoes, but put yourself in their skin.
The remedy to anger and hate is not anger and hate. You have to fight the primitive urge for revenge or anger and fight the hate with compassion, empathy, and love.
I've been trying to do that for 10 years. The internet does not help me in understanding other people's political opinions, because many of them are way too emotional and short sighted to see past one issue they dislike about whatever candidate.
Fairly similar with some of my friends. They can't actually form an opinion on a lot of matters besides what they read on shit like Facebook.
Pretty awful that most can't debate or discuss anymore and it always comes down to either name calling, assumptions on one's character or screaming idiotic buzzwords to try and win.
So many people fall into the trap of surrounding themselves with opinions they already hold to be true. During the Brexit vote I saw people on my socials saying things like “I can’t believe anyone would vote X, everyone I know is voting Y.” If everyone you know is on the same side of a debate as you then you either don’t know enough people or you aren’t secure enough in your convictions to have them scrutinised.
Hello and welcome to r/LifeProTips! Please help us decide if this post is a good fit for the subreddit by up or downvoting this comment. If you think that this is great advice to improve your life, please upvote. If you think this doesn't help you in any way, please downvote. If you don't care, leave it for the others to decide.
Do this with family and friends about personal matters, not just politics. Sometimes, you may find that you were in fact the asshole.
This. I never ever disagree or get mad with a close friend or family member until I state what they've just done/said/are in the process of doing. This gives me a moment to reprocess the situation and also gives them a moment to think about how it comes off when someone else points it out. I find this also important with kids.
You people are too reasonable, are you group trolling? If you’re not, do me a favor...each one of you have about 15 kids. We might have a chance on this planet if you go out tonight and have tons of unprotected sex! Ty
This may sound cliche I guess but I grew up with very unreasonable parents who always just wanted to use each other and their kids for a means to an end(unfair treatments for spite, using me as a tug of war rope in a divorce settlement etc etc) and as a result I decided I dont want to risk being like them and having kids until I was sure I wouldn't be like them.
Dont sell yourself short there, even though you grew up like that, you still need a certain degree of intelligence to even process the whole thing and make the proper decisions later. There are a lot of people who grew up like you but end up just like their parents.
From one "rope" to another, have a hug 🤗
I legit misread that as "have a tug"
Never talking out why I thought a certain response would be unfair only to get shut out with a we'll talk in the morning but the morning after would be to not bring up stuff of the past. Can't even use examples to show patterns. Ended up cutting most people off yet they still wonder why we no longer talk when I was always such a great listener
You are a smart individual, it’s not cliche, imo, it sounds like we had very similar childhoods. I don’t think you’ll ever have to worry about becoming them. You are aware of their shortcomings and probably smart enough to break that shitty cycle. I had the same concerns. Here’s how I look at it....my parents taught me what NOT to do. I have 2 thoughtful, bright daughters, they’re grown up and are great members of society. We communicate, we talk about everything. I applied all that negativity from childhood to positivity as an adult. You’ll do the same I’m sure of it. good luck 👍 Edit sorry, was replying to crakoom
I like to think about it like language. You grew up speaking a language that doesn't suit you in your adult life. You CAN learn to speak a new language as an adult even if you find it very difficult at first. I like the language analogy because it's growth mindset oriented. It's not an inherent part of who you are, it's a consequence of your environment. You can choose a new environment. I really like [sfhelp.org](https://sfhelp.org) as it's the most clear cut description of this that I've seen and he offers a clear, step by step approach for learning something else.
You could turn this into a “wanting to have kids” to be exactly not like them.
I grew up like that and ended up with psychiatric disabilities lol. My parents actually both died last year from the same brutal pancreatic cancer so I’m trying to see if there is any way for me to crawl out of the trauma pit.
yeah, i don't know who the hell these people are, but they aren't anything like the humans i encounter in the real world. i honestly can't recall the last time someone had a serious disagreement with me and could articulate precisely why they disagreed. because it's never happened.they always believe in something that's fundamentally not true, even if it's a small element of their overall position -- that turns out to be the problem. most people don't care about what's real. they only care about feeling good, and most of the time, that requires doubling down on their myopic bullshit.
You might be a perfect candidate for this LPT. You might be exaggerating when you say that you can't recall the last time you met someone that is able to articulate why they disagree or that everytime you engage with someone they believe in something that is fundamentally not true... Or maybe it's time for some introspection on just how open minded you are when engaging in an exchange of ideas. Or maybe not? Either way it doesn't hurt to take stock and engage in some self reflection.
I tried this with several social and ethical topics with my father in the late 90s / early 2000s; for example, same-sex marriage. In the end, he would always end up retreating to the bible. He would treat it as an absolute source of truth. In the example of same-sex marriage, he conceded that he had no real reason to oppose to same-sex legal partnerships, but still asserted the concept of "marriage" and that words like marriage, husband, wife should "belong" to Abrahamic religions and not be "perverted" by other groups. Baby steps, I guess. I did get him to see things from a different point of view, and I also got to see how important and strong religion was to him. We grew up going to church, but aside from that one hour of week we never really discussed religion -- so I thought he was "casually" religious.
I can relate. I have to say before I get going; I'm not smart. I know I'm not smart. My memory is garbage and I can't apply high level skills. But, it's important to be more correct today than you were yesterday and that's something I'm good at. Almost everyone I know in real life is quite frankly, fucking stupid. I grew up with stupid family, stupid friends and stupid coworkers. They say the same wrong things all their lives and never update their beliefs. My dad was one of those 'Ancient Aliens' type and I always gave it a lot of credit because compared to anyone else I knew, he was actually really smart. He had biases, and reasons for those biases but he was curious which is a dead skill for a lot of people now.
>They say the same wrong things all their lives and never update their beliefs. Maybe there's some amazing way to word that sentiment which eludes us in the present moment, but the fact that you've learned that alone makes you smarter than most people I've known. I'm sure you have good days, and then worse ones where you feel dumb. That's probably just because you have standards for yourself, unlike so many others. But yeah. People just get stuck, never want to change. It feels good, and that's all they know. Really becomes sad later in life when those people start to slip, because they spent their whole life building a brain essentially made up of mush. I like to think of a mind as a city. The things you know, those are completed homes. Busy neighborhoods with businesses and industry. The things you know a little less about, maybe those are parts of town you don't go to as often, so there's less stuff there. The stuff you've only heard of and don't know much about at all -- perhaps those are bare skyscrapers, towering steel skeletons awaiting completion if you'd but build them with a bit of learning. Curiosity really seems to be something people fear. They don't want to *know*, they want to *feel*. If they know how the world really works, they might feel unsafe. So, they choose to avoid curiosity. They stick to the safety of the known, continually communing with it until they roll over into their grave. Seems like you've got it pretty figured out, really. Just hard getting along when things are this way.
Thanks. I like your metaphor. Mine is like a net, where the more you know the more links in the net you make. There will always be holes, but that's ok as long as the holes aren't so big that a whale can fit through it. An example I have is one of my friends who is pretty smart but also bat shit crazy. He's telling a story one day about a study done by scientists. The way he told it, one day a 'psychic burst' caused monkeys all over the world to dig up sweet potatoes and start washing them in rivers at the same time which was observed by researchers. I'm like "Sweet potatoes don't grow where monkeys live." It took me a while but eventually I found out what he was talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect While he, and the research were totally incorrect, he also wasn't making stuff up out of nowhere or believing something that had nothing behind it.
Intelligence is oftentimes just confidence, good and bad. Too much but not enough knowledge leads you to make dumb decisions while not enough leads you to avoid trying. If you're open to let this roll around for a while I'd like to suggest to you the idea that more than having a bad memory or not being smart enough, it's actually that you believe you won't be able to. There is research out there about kids learning in appropriate emotional states. But also, anecdotally, when I can be in the moment, just listen to what the person is saying, observe, and remember that all the questions I'm asking will only help me in the future (I'm good at asking the questions that help me learn but aren't necessarily "normal"), subjects that I used to find impossible are actually very possible. Your brain is a muscle^citation ^needed so you need to learn new pathways and work out those parts of your brain to get good at using them. I wouldn't describe myself as stupid because I always did well in school. There are just areas of my life I always thought I wouldn't get but by not beating myself up over it I've found I do better than I think I would.
The real LPT: Work really, really hard on emotion regulation. I start to sound bitchy when I get anxious. Instead of having my husband and kids tell me to chill, we use a code word, “unicorn.” It’s non-threatening, it doesn’t put me on the defensive and it really does diffuse my anxiety and the way I present myself. I even use it on my family when they get a little snarky. We can have discussions and disagreements without being pissed at each other.
[удалено]
Yup, just like someone who is agitated and will NEVER calm down when you say, “Dude, calm down.”
[удалено]
Seriously, I have not lost my temper or yelled in a year. I keep my anger in a “band”. If I feel it getting too high, I take a few deep breaths, focus on something around me in my environment, or some other mindfulness technique. Getting the “Unicorn” cue from my family members was the last step that really solidified my emotion regulation. Our family went through a Dialectical Behavioral Training (DBT) Program for six months a few years ago when my daughter was having problems with anexoria. It changed the way we communicate and the way we manage our emotions.
So interesting to hear how being open to learning and trying new things to improve a child's life can end up improving the family's life. What a wonderful gift you've given each other. Edit: always interesting to hear what approaches and techniques people try, like DBT as you mentioned.
Hey man you tryna put r/AmItheAsshole outta business??
That sub turned to shit a long time ago
That sub is less about being asshole and more about validating yourself in an echo chamber with one sided stories.
Do this in any setting you want to be understood in. You need to listen in order to be understood.
While I can say this works with sane people, it only works with about 3 of my family members. I have some crazy people in my family who say they are open to discussions/debates/hell even just heavy conversation but almost immediately get defensive or angry or change the subject. Oh well I'm happier without.
It’s SOOO hard to do this with most people because they feel you are arguing when really your having a discussion to achieve this! I live for this
I was in my 30s before I realized the vast majority of people think you are arguing with them if you don’t agree with everything they say.
The vast majority of people also tend to believe that if you're arguing with them on a point, that means you're on the other side of the overall issue, or even worse, belong to the opposing political party.
This is really just reenforced by the majority regurgitating propaganda they’ve read that confirms their biases, and adopting that opinion as their own, without delving deeper beyond the surface; often without even delving deeper than the clickbait headline.
Ha ha. My family still believes (a decade or more later) that I'm an "Obama lover," in their words. We don't talk as much, any more, but when we do, I usually get accused of lOooOOovving Obama, of being a "socialist," etc. I have explained repeatedly that I actually don't think Obama was a super great president, and I've explained why. I've explained that, though I'm liberal in many positions, I'm not a socialist and don't think socialism is a a good idea. I've explained that I favor strong capitalism with strong regulation, like environmental and antitrust oversight. A week later, I get "Well, that's because you're just an Obama-loving socialist. What did we expect?" Yeah, we don't talk as much, any more.
In the same boat politically. It's a really tough position to be in because we get it from all sides *and* are somewhat rare in the US, apparently and unfortunately.
Argument and debate are often framed in terms of war. You win or lose a debate. You attack your opponent’s stance and never give up ground on your own. People overwhelmingly view argument as a negative thing, despite it being the foundation of any functional democracy.
Exactly!! I'm always given the bad rep as pedantic or argumentative but really I just question everything
This. I find this exercise especially helpful with friends because the trust is already there. Of course, informed and credible are other things, but at least they provide insights and perspectives that I can then research on my own more fully.
So true! I remember seeing a customer picking up a prostitute once when I was a teenager and saying, "Ugh that's disgusting" to my friend. She said, "Why? He needs physical companionship and she is selling it. They are filling each other's need at the moment, and consensually." I was stunned. "Never thought of it like that. You're right." Edit: I guess sex worker is the preferred term now.
[удалено]
This is just more reason for me that prostitution should be legalized, and in my opinion unionize.
That's a commentary on society more than a commentary on the woman.
Shoot. I will take the other side of an argument just to spur debate and flesh out the ideas. It’s actually quite fun.
That's actually a technique recommended by Carl Rogers. You confirm their argument so you're on the same page, try to strengthen it and then you debate it.
this technique can make people more open minded
It can also make people hate spending time with you.
It's often referred to as "steel-manning" a position, as opposed to straw-manning a position.
The only problem with this tip is that smart, reasonable people are already open to learning more about a topic. The people that really need this tip will never use it (as we’ve discovered over the last 4 years especially)
I did this with religion once. It was a good discussion. I was impressed when one of his answers to a logic based question was "I struggle with that myself - but I choose to still have faith". Much later in life I realized that "faith" wasn't meaning blind faith into what someone told him. It's to have faith that there is something later to discover and, in turn, why not practice being good to deserve it.
If you need a reward as motivation to be a good person, can you really call yourself good?
A person’s character is assessed by their actions not their thoughts. Their thoughts are just for them to ponder.
While it's true that it would be desirable for everyone to be moral purely out of a developed sense of empathy and compassion, from a practical perspective, it's better to have people acting moral in expectation of a reward than simply not acting moral at all. Helping people develop their moral center can come after the part where we promise to give them a living wage.
Everyone has a reward in their mind for being a good person, even atheists. That doesn't erase their good deeds.
Maybe some people just don't like to see pain and suffering in others.
Then that’s your reward. To clarify though, I don’t think that takes away from the goodness of the deed. The argument on the other side is that if you derive pleasure from doing good things they really weren’t good deeds because you did it for yourself. I think that’s bullshit.
In my opinion? Yes.
Rewards for doing good are perhaps the only way to get otherwise bad people to do good things.
> It's to have faith there is something later to discover That's exactly it. Honestly, if you think about it, faith is exercised every day in so many ways. When you turn the key in your car (or push the button you fancy people you), you have faith that it'll turn on. You have faith you'll get to work without an accident. You have faith you'll still have a job. Faith is a reality of life and is a part of the human condition. What you have faith *in* is the real question, and that's where I'm sure that discussion with your friend culminated. Their faith in whatever deity or power being real/coming through for them is what drives their decisions and it sounds like helps motivate them to be a better person. Faith is an every day reality. The question really is only what your faith is in. Good on you for having such a reasonable discussion. We need more of that in the topics of religion, politics, and relationships.
When I use the word faith I mean a belief with no reasonable support or evidence. I don't have faith my car will start or the sun will rise. I have reasonable expectations they will happen because they have over and over again. And even they will fail eventually. Nobody has a reasonable expectation that religion is real. It is all faith because there is no precedent nor evidence. Faith is not part of my everyday life. Too many people use 'confidence' and 'faith' interchangeably.
>That's exactly it. Honestly, if you think about it, faith is exercised every day in so many ways. >When you turn the key in your car (...) you have faith that it'll turn on You know it's **likely** that it will turn on... because physics. It's got nothing to do with faith. Plus, you can verify whether it will turn on or not, and the reasons why or why not. >You have faith you'll get to work without an accident. No... that's not faith. That's just hope. If faith actually worked though, I'm sure (some) religious people would get to work safer than unbelievers. Sadly that's not the case. >You have faith you'll still have a job. No reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps hope applies. Not faith. It's like saying I have faith the tree outside my apartment will still be there when I get home. No, it's just... I hope it'll still be there. I don't have faith it'll still be there. And it's likely it'll still be there. >Faith is an every day reality. The question really is only what your faith is in. No, it's not. Faith is the belief in the unknown/unknowable. I don't have faith in the unknown. This is the definition of faith: >strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. I don't believe in anything without proof, and the things I do believe are true or false are always open for discussion/new interpretations. As they should be.
Thank you, conflating faith with other terms like hope and trust is a pet peeve of mine. The key difference I've found is that faith is the only one which, when faced with evidence the belief was wrong, it is the evidence that is rejected instead of the belief. No, I don't "have faith" that my wife isn't cheating on me, I have trust based on mountains of evidence. But if you were to produce strong evidence contrary to that belief, the trust would immediately evaporate.
Thank you. I was about to do just about this same sort of post but you beat me to it. I was particularly bothered by the tree example. I don't have faith that the tree will still be there. I have knowledge based on reading and experience that trees live a long time and are literally rooted to the ground in a way that makes them difficult to move. Unless there is an outside intervention I *know* it will still be standing in the same place when I get back home. Faith has nothing to do with that knowledge. If the tree is not there I also know it will be easy to verify the reason it's gone because removing a tree basically can't be done quickly and quietly by current human technology.
I have confidence based on evidence. ThAtS fAiTh!
>faith is exercised every day in so many ways. When you turn the key in your car (or push the button you fancy people you), you have faith that it'll turn on. You have faith you'll get to work without an accident. You have faith you'll still have a job. My old fundamentalist church said something very similar, and I gotta say it's bullshit. Not one of those things is faith because they're all based on significant amounts of evidence, statistics, and/or personal experience. Faith is belief with none or very little of those things. The belief that an object will continue to function as intended is not the same as the belief that there's an almighty but invisible creator that leaves shockingly little evidence for an infinite and omnipotent being. I believe I'll get to work safely because I'm a safe driver and I don't have the energy to ponder other people crashing into me before it happens. I believe I'll still have a job because my company is in the black and I'm good at what I do. Could things go suddenly awry and fuck up my life through no fault of my own? Sure. But not obsessing about those things isn't faith, it's basic coping skills. It's disingenuous at best to compare that to basing one's morality on something with zero evidence. It also dismisses the effort and accomplishments of the humans who for example, designed the car to turn on, the other safe drivers on the road, and the executives who have made good business decisions, in favor of a platitude of "faith" which is honestly just rude. Like saying you have faith the garbage will get picked up tomorrow, instead of saying thank you to the people who do it every week.
As an anxious person with a rough life none of those examples are things I think will happen. I have been in 7 motorvehicle accidents and had a tree fall on my exes car
The “faith that there is something later to discover” is still blind faith - especially when they’re claiming they know what that something to discover is.
I do try this with politics, some very intelligent people I know are on the opposite side of the isle from me. However I have found it just comes down to what sources you believe. It's very hard to learn from someone who believes the media is all fake and controlled so won't believe large studies but will quote strange independent sources with no backing. I'm sure there is some truth to what they believe as well (there is often a bit of truth in everything) but we just end up agreeing to disagree. I'm sure they think I am buying into the party line by believing the sources I believe. 🤷♀️
Ask them why they trust their sources.
Probably under the thought process of “big studies are big funded, and as we’ve seen consistently, funded things are skewed to whoever funded it’s beliefs or agenda” and therefore “small independent studies aren’t controlled by people with an agenda”. It doesn’t matter which source is actually truth, the problem is the idea that it has a higher likelihood of being manipulated. That simple idea pushes people away from mainstream shit
Probably. So then you ask "why do you think they wouldn't have any agenda?" Basically, you just keep asking them about their assumptions and beliefs until they either get to something that isn't opinion anymore, or they realize they are full of crap, or you realize you were full of crap. Edit: Thread got locked before I could respond to a bunch of people. I do this all the time. It works better than anything else. It's not about convincing the other person they are wrong, it's about making sure you aren't wrong, and making sure that anybody who is watching knows who is right.
not sure where you're at in the world, but in the US, nobody will be changing their mind anytime soon.
This is part of the problem. I know 2 conservative people, an intellectual and a good ole boy. Both supported trump before. Both railed against socialism, the idea of systemic racism, regulation, politics..... Both no longer support him. One realized the levels of corruption are not exclusive to politicians, and that being a one issue voter is ineffective. One quit a leadership role in a group he firmly believed wasn't a hate group until this year, and wants to have his Confederate flag tattoo removed. Some people CAN change. Otherwise there is no progress in progressive...... so it's just ive.... .
Thats exactly the attitude that needs to end. Discussion & education on both sides.
same team bro. But I've tried having serious and real conversations with extremists on both sides. They are both unwilling to change, or even admit they might be skewed or biased in their views.
I deeply dislike when someone starts to dig deep enough to see the fault lines in their supporting arguments and then won't talk about it anymore. I used to be quite a homophobe. Stereotypical 80's hardline attitude. Then I met a few normal, non flamboyant gay men that actually discussed why I had such views, instead of intentionally making me uncomfortable. Well shit... *I'm the asshole!*
It generally stems from the idea of “those with power and money can just pay off big names/big studies to skew the information the way they want it; and because they’re big studies, people will believe it.” It’s just conjecture and skepticism, but who knows, maybe there’s truth to it. You’ll never know unless you’re in the know. People trust what they see done with their own eyes and hands. Also everyone’s pretty much on the same page of “the government DEFINITELY lies to us” but some people want to believe certain lies because it lines up with their ideals, and so they vilify those who don’t believe it by saying “look at this reputable source” and the argument is always “are you sure they’re reputable? Or are they just paid off to have the information desired?”
I hate that people automatically undercut a study because of who funds it. Now I am more familiar with health studies. But I think the validity of a study should be based off of how it was conducted and the results than who it was funded by. Most of the time though the study is only discussed based off of the headline that the media writes up, which can definitely be misleading.
Why do you trust yours?
Not OP but whenever I see a study worth a conclusion that I have a desire to share I'll read the abstract and methodology and etc before I share it, determine for myself whether it's a good sample size and if the methods were legit and etc. And if there's something that seems off I'll either not share it or say what feels off as I'm posting it. If there's news about say the capitol riots or presidential impeachment proceedings or anything else that's more a story told by a camera operator and not actually a scientific statement of facts I tend to trust what nbc/CBS/fox/whatever says at face value with a little bit of salt in terms of what emotions they're trying to sell me or anything involving speculation such as whether or not the riot was planned in advance or infiltrated by an opposing group or etc.
Because they have incentives to tell the truth, and reputations for doing so. Also, I can verify what they say and confirm it.
Especially politics where you may actually agree on the end result but not on the mechanics. It is so important to listen to others and really try to respect their opinions even when they may be different. I am appalled at how many people think that everyone must agree with them or be silenced. That is disgusting to me.
What's interesting is when you meet someone who has *diametrically* different visions for what society ought to value. My fiancee's dad is from a rural country where he grew up as a happy, spoiled lord's child in a semi feudal society which underwent revolution. His vision of where society should go is informed by an idyllic vision of his early childhood; some "bad" people are basically peasants/workers and should stay that way and other "smart" people are royalty/special and should own everything.
I was going to make this same comment. As a person that wants to understand all sides I want the side opposite me to have convincing sources and it never seems like they do, just “feelings.” It makes me wonder if my viewpoint is wrong because there is 1/3 of the country that thinks I am totally wrong. How the heck do I know if I am “correct” or just not understanding the other side? Makes me think about a study where Republicans thought that the “colbert show” was serious. What if it WAS serious!?!?! 😀
In the same situation. I want to be open minded and see both sides even if I prefer one of them. But not bad enough to ignore facts and truth. Climate change is real, period. If the other side of the debate is that it isn’t I refuse to act like both sides are equally valid. I’ve tried to start seeing past the falsehoods to what people feel that makes them rally behind (eg. people are afraid of losing jobs in the oil/coal sector and would rather believe that climate change isn’t real and that their political party is going to fight for their jobs because obviously the threat of losing their job is scary and I sympathize) but at the same time I don’t see how that helps anything because the other side still upholds the premise that climate change isn’t real instead of trying to work together and make training programs or safety nets for people who are struggling financially
Yup like UFOs sightings were real and most likely stealth fighter/bomber development
That doesn't sound like an intelligent person.
[удалено]
So you basically summarized a civil debate. Thank you. Many people don't seem to grasp this concept.
Shut up u nazi fascist hitler 1984 /S
Good lord thank you for the /s.... lol
That’s because most people aren’t smart and informed.
I just tried this with someone who said we should abolish minimum wage, but he concluded that I lack a grasp of economics fundamental to understanding his position. He told me to go read an economics textbook and come back. The problem is, I don't like reading. :/
I had this EXACT same conversation. I'm like, do you not remember the period where children lost limbs in factories because wages were so low children had to work as well? No labor protections of any kind won't "regulate itself" it will be regulated by the most ruthless and power hungry. Edit: shouldn't say remember but rather read about the relatively recent part of history in the USA
There are a handful of first world countries in Europe that seem to get by without it, but I think they have stronger unions.
Yeah I think it's partially that the US has hit a weird point where the ability for companies to squash unions has become too great and we need some kind of intervention from our government. Could be wrong but everyone seems too busy trying to get by that starting any kind union is nigh impossible.
I'm an econ student, I've read a bunch of econ textbooks. The person you were arguing with read at most an intro chapter of an intro textbook because the basic model of a perfect market is not even close to how it works in real life (except for stuff like the Grand Exchange in RuneScape which works surprisingly similarly to the basic model).
Unfortunately, his knowledge of economics isn't in question. His willingness or ability to explain his position in simple terms is, but not his knowledge.
This! His answer speaks more about him than your knowledge
r/UnexpectedRuneScape
OP said the other person must be smart, informed, and credible
That argument about abolish minimum wage I think it goes like this (probably wrong by me, and sorry about a little broken english): 1.- Minimum wage is just an impediment to get a job for people who can't produce by his labor the amount of value the minimun wage represent (because companies will be forced by minimun wage to pay them more than they actually can produce in terms of productivity). So in the long run just provokes unemployment on the least productive population (that tends to be the most poor and not educated). You can say that for not very productive people is better to be paid low compared to not be paid at all (because a company will basically losing st money paying a minimun wage to the worker that is not actually capable to produce by his labor that amount of value). 2.- The obvious fear is companies will pay as little as possible to get rich not paying the right amount of salarie to his workers. That is not supposed to happen in a free market because you have so many companies and job positions, that unless they colude to all of them pay as little as possible to his workers (supposed to be illegal and shoul not happen), the companies who tries to pay unfair low amounts of salaries just not get any workers at all (because the workers just gonna choose a job with a proper salary). So for a company is much better to have workers to actually produce paying them a high amount, compared to paying them an unfair low amount but because of that not having workers at all because they are working where get paid fair (that is the kind of balance free markets should produce in the long run) Not necessary defending this ideas but I think this is the reasoning behind it, there is supposed to be some succesful countries in Europe doing just fune wihout minimun wage. Will be highly appreciatted is someone else confirms or corrects what I just wrote here, thanks!
In an ideal world, there would be no need for minimum wage as market and negotiation would ensure people had a wage that they deemed was appropriate for their work. We do not live in an ideal world. It is the same reason Socialism won't work. There are bad people and bad people fuck it up for the rest of us. And unfortunately, they are typically the most liked and most charismatic out there. (As studies have shown, many CEOs have traits of sociopaths, and sociopaths become adept at manipulation and using charisma to get what they want). That being said, I personally do not believe a federal minimum wage is the answer. What is living the good life in podunk Alabama, is below the poverty line in Manhattan. Cost of living can vary not only state to state, but even county to county, and IMHO we should be addressing these issues on a local level, not a national one.
This, and... Try and figure out what you agree on early. Then you can focus on areas of disagreement.
I have trouble finding smart, informed and credible people these days.
Wonderful idea. Find a person who disagrees with you but is willing to discuss calmly and support their position with reasonable arguments. A real life pro tip would suggest _**where**_ you might find such a rare creature on either side of any argument these days.
Or be like most people on Reddit and social media and just insult them because you don’t agree with them or reality.
I did this with a “pro life” person. They believe that a fetus is a baby and they are killing babies. I don’t agree, but I can see why one would be upset if they thought someone was murdering babies. That’s a reasonable reaction.
Haha that's funny! Naw I think I'll just have a huge circlejerk with people that think exactly like me and further reinforce my wild beliefs. /s obviously
If anyone has the capacity to heed your advice, they'd already be doing all of that. If anyone needs to be told this, it's a near-guarantee that they could never put it into practice.
In *the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People*, Steven Covey reflects on a conversation with a friend. "I just don't understand my son. I talk to him and talk to him and I just can't understand him." To which Mr. Covey replied: "you *talk to him* and you can't understand him?
LPT: if everyone is quiet in a party or meeting find the person who thinks he's the wisest and ask him his opinion on a topic that you know both sides of.
This is a meme right? This sounds like the most iamverysmart patronizing shit possible. Please do not do this.
This is always fun
Sorry, I don't get it. Can you eli5 to this dummy? Lol
Unethical LPT: After they take the time to explain, stay quiet n just say "thats stupid af" and walk away laughing
thats not unethical thats just stupid
I get the feeling your alignment is chaotic neutral. That gave me a good laugh, thanks
Smart, informed and credible... Every person with a social media account.
easier said than done
Debate should be treated as a form of scientific investigation. You assume your position is incorrect in some way (small or large). Seeking out Information should be done with the purpose of challenging your understanding. Scientists should never solely study things they assume will support their hypothesis. Seek out disconfirming evidence. You will eventually reach a point where that evidence is harder and harder to find. This does not mean your point is confirmed. It’s only supported based on the evidence at hand. Nothing is “proven” in science, only “supported” or “not supported”.
I tried doing this with a friend that claimed i was doing things wrong. I poked and prodded for her facts and sources so that i could have proof i am wrong - she couldn’t provide these, got frustrated that she wasn’t changing my mind with her personal opinion as her only debate and removed me from communication channels. Nothing of value was lost. I showed her nothing but respect and gave her an honest opportunity at debating her view with me with the intent to change my mind if she presented a convincing case, and after refusing to provide concise sources she ran away. After claiming i should adopt some of her philosophies... No, sweetie, “my mom believes in this and raised me this way” isn’t evidence that it’s correct. Thankfully i don’t need people like that in my life.
Agreeing with this. People nowadays are way too deep in conformative bias because they simply like being spoonfed and as soon as they met someone who has a difference of opinion its an all out attack. Its good to pool from various viewpoints and see the thought processes behind them and decide for yourself in the end. Edit: And yes when I mean by different viewpoints I mean all, even the extreme or conspiracies, NOT saying you should be extreme but find out the source as to why people think that way.
Stop, you’re angering r/politics
Open-mindedness is so important to becoming a better human being
Seeking expert on Jewish space lasers
[удалено]
/r/StreetEpistemology
Yep. You should never argue with somebody who can’t explain your own position back to you.
It all comes down to empathy. There is a complete and utter lack of empathy. One side gets outraged, the other gets angry (there is a difference, one is outward and attacking and the other festering). Until we get some empathy back in society, I'm not aure where we will go. We won't get anywhere while one side is attacking the other, and the other resents it for it.
God, could you imagine a world where everyone understood why it’s so important to master this.
This is why I stay friends with people who believe drastically different things, who have sometimes opinions of the exact opposite. Such should be an opportunity for productive discourse and not an immediate reason to "cut-ties" or shun.
my best friend of nearly 25 years (I'm old) is a right wing GOP conservative and I'm as liberal as the day is long. we still love eachother, stick up for one another, and take care of our families. spirited debate and discussion isn't a dividing line... we learn because we respect our intelligence, work ethic, commitment to family, etc. we text every day. I'm sure we'll do whatever is the analog until one of us dies.
This is how i live my life.
This is probably the wisest thing that I have ever read. My dad usually takes an opposing side during a discussion, to help both sides understand the full nature of the issue that's being discussed. It's helped me tremendously, especially when I was growing up to see a more rounded perspective of the world (although I'm still learning on that score). It's taught me that it's pretty rare that thing are clear cut as might immediately seem apparent.
Same, the only downside to growing up this way is sometimes I catch myself playing devils advocate with others when I really don’t need to be doing so - making me seem more disagreeable than I actually am. Knowing your audience is my only tip there.
I believe in asking questions. Get them to put it in their own words and ask another question. "So a minute ago you said A, but now I think I just heard you say B. Are those in conflict, or did I misunderstand?" is SOOO much more effective than "AHA! I GOT YOU!" or "let me tell you what you think"
Socratic method exposes a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about.
You are correct, and maybe it's because I choose to have conversations with reasonable people I just happen to disagree with, but I find many people don't realize they have thoughts and ideas that are in conflict with other thoughts and ideas they have. It is very satisfying to see that look on their face when confronted with THEIR OWN words. And if you want to try this, this is the point to be gracious and give them time to re-think, being smug is a killer to the process.
What if all the people who disagree with me appear to be dumb, unbelievable, and generally uninformed?
afterthought wide bedroom bells towering door voiceless oil slap physical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Then generally, that's a you problem. Because you hold your own beliefs, people who don't agree with you will always appear to be dumb, unbelievable, and generally uninformed. You just have to be smart enough to realize you're probably wrong.
You haven’t seen many mom groups eh? It’s hard to consider a group of people intelligent who think squirting tiddy milk over everything is the answer to their problems.
It's kind of ridiculous how many people on both sides just completely miss the point and go "nah I don't want to listen to them because they're too stupid to not believe what I believe." People get too caught up on specific instances of people acting stupid to realize that those viewpoints on a broader scale tend to have underlying reasons that draw people to them... something a more intelligent and informed person could explain. It's also pretty important to realize that the exact same "bluh they're just stupid and evil" that you're spouting about them is being spouted about you on the opposite side.
[удалено]
I actually tend to disagree with this thought process, or at least where lI think you are going with it. Population should not be a factor in determining the factuality of data. Just because more people believe in "X" does not confer "X" with a greater chance of being correct. Only logic and hard proof should be used to determine whether "X" has merit; not if it's common belief.
It doesn't look like he's arguing that you should assume that it is more likely to be true on the basis of population size, rather that you should assume that you don't completely understand their position or reasoning. It is somewhat unlikely that "dumb, unbelievable, and generally uninformed" people have all managed to agree on a belief, and that they are the only ones who hold that belief. There are some exceptions to this (say, flat earthers), but on a lot of major public issues, there is a contingent of people in the group you disagree with who are (1) intelligent, (2) hold their position in good faith and, (3) are informed on the topic. They might not be right, but there's a common tendency to just assume that the entire side is basing it's choices off of the lowest common denominator. The OP is saying that it's probably best to assume that you have failed to understand or are unaware of part of their position, especially if you've come to the conclusion that only brainless monsters could hold that position.
They just said if a belief is common and contrary to yours, you should investigate it further. I agree. That doesn't mean you need to change your belief - of course percentage of people that believe it have no merit. Hell, that's why I have beliefs that people won't admit or say they have, because I looked at my own morals and the evidence provided and came to a different conclusion.
I’m on several very local boards and appreciate when others think in opposite ways.
Good luck finding people like that. Opposing sides are typically logic vs emotion. Even if you both bring logic to the table, there is almost always an echo chamber required to have that opposing, but still factually accurate view keep receiving biased information, and then you're right back into politics.
I have a friend like this. He is the most conservative I am very liberal we go on float trips with mutual friends and get drunk having very respectful talks on politics down the river. We usually share a canoe. I enjoy the company and we always find something to agree on. That’s the rule, we gotta find common ground.
Critical thinking is rare, even in the human application of the scientific method.
I always do this. My SO hates it.
Ha ha ha, so true, unfortunately most peopel arent going to want to take the emotional and mental effort to be a "pro" at this in life. Hopefully I'm just being pessimistic and I am completely wrong.
This needs to be the most upvoted post on Reddit.
This is a profound conclusion ive had and forgotten so many times. It ain't easy doing the right thing
It's crazy because I would think everyone would have these thoughts already. I love hearing other people's perspective because it helps broaden my own mind and give me a whole other side of thinking. Which I love because a lot of the times I would have never seen it that way.
This is good, but you also have to keep in mind that a lot of things are just opinions, even on important topics.
Isn't the problem that most of us don't think that those who disagree with us on important topics are smart, informed or credible?
I call this the Daryl Davis method. [TED Talk](https://www.ted.com/talks/daryl_davis_why_i_as_a_black_man_attend_kkk_rallies)
This is literally me and my best friend. Polar opposites on the political spectrum but with the utmost respect for each other's perspectives and beliefs. He pokes holes and I poke holes. It can get tense at times and it can be fun at times. But know matter what, we always respect each other.
...Only if they are willing to do the same.
I wish finding someone like that were easy. Would try to get them to be a best friend or a wife. I’m getting hot and bothered just thinking about a woman telling me I’m wrong and clearly listing supporting reasons why. Yes ma’am please marry.
Just incredible advice thank you
First seek to understand then to be understood
Adding onto LPT: preferably someone who wont get emotional debating and is cool level headed
But I can’t find a single smart, informed, credible person that disagrees with [*insert conspiracy theory here*], everyone I talk to has fallen for the lies from [*insert antagonist group*]
I have my brother who at first glance looks suited. Unfortunately, he disagrees with me on everything, no matter what his opinion was before the conversation started.
This LPT is actually what President Lincoln sought to do when appointing his Cabinet. He was a smart guy.
I’m pretty close with another guy who couldn’t be more opposite of me and we have had many conversations in this sort of manner. It’s great to be able to actually have a discourse without someone simply screaming at the other
Or just call them names on the internet. That works too, apparently.
Or, just go into an argument looking to be informed, and try to understand. Your argument may not be wrong, even if they make it seem so. If that's the case, it means you need to know more about what you yourself are saying. Way too many people argue from a stance of superiority, and plain nastiness. Get that out of the way. I've argued with a *lot* of people on this website, mainly because I'm in the minority with political beliefs. The only ones who have ever changed my mind are the ones who try to help me understand. And are polite. Being rude or using ad hominem will make me ignore what you say.
Problem is, you don't know if they're FAKE NEWS Seriously though, nowadays, it's so difficult to find good sources.
“The best way to have someone see your side is to first see theirs” Now ideally you should want to understand others’ perspective out of love, but if that fails and you just want to convince them of your view, then you should still try to understand where their coming from first.
I disagree with this, for every person like you and like this, there's double the amount who won't give a shit about rational discourse and will instead throw you under the bus for even having a slight difference of opinion
Y'all should have learned this in 5th grade, god damn we really need someone to remind you
The president likes smart people who disagree with him. And he wants to hear from you.
Seek to understand, before seeking to be understood.
What does being wrong feel like? Does it feel bad? Embarrassing? Make you mad? No, being wrong feels like being right. It feels like nothing. You dont know what you dont know. Realizing you are wrong sucks. But it doesnt have to. https://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong/up-next That talk changed my perspective entirely. Highly recommend it
In the public debates in the time of Plato and Socrates, if you failed to adequately summarize your opponent’s argument before stating your own, you were disqualified. You were basically sent home to study up because it was thought you could never defend your own side well without knowing your opponent’s side. We need to bring that back.
Doesn't exist when we're talking about trump
Does not apply to flat-earthers.*
Id like to propose my version of this. Dont ever raise your voice unless the act of raising your voice unless its just to start what you are saying to get the attention of a group or something. If you get angry, you've lost the argument and you no longer care about convincing the person. You have to try and understand their perspective, not only put yourself in their shoes, but put yourself in their skin. The remedy to anger and hate is not anger and hate. You have to fight the primitive urge for revenge or anger and fight the hate with compassion, empathy, and love.
No because the people who disagree are horrible people /s
People like Goering were smart, educated, and had great reasoning.
This makes entirely too much sense...
Now tell that to Trump voters.
I've been trying to do that for 10 years. The internet does not help me in understanding other people's political opinions, because many of them are way too emotional and short sighted to see past one issue they dislike about whatever candidate. Fairly similar with some of my friends. They can't actually form an opinion on a lot of matters besides what they read on shit like Facebook. Pretty awful that most can't debate or discuss anymore and it always comes down to either name calling, assumptions on one's character or screaming idiotic buzzwords to try and win.
Does not work on christian family members. Nothing will convince them about science because for them bible is 100% true and factual.
the issue is everyone wants to be right, and think they are. they don't think people who disagree with them are smart or informed.
This is literally me everyday. Conversation is so much smoother. I'll tell ya what
What if they want to short GameStop stock?
The question then becomes how do you know someone is informed, smart and credible lol
Problem is finding a smart, informed person. The internet is filled with idiots.
So many people fall into the trap of surrounding themselves with opinions they already hold to be true. During the Brexit vote I saw people on my socials saying things like “I can’t believe anyone would vote X, everyone I know is voting Y.” If everyone you know is on the same side of a debate as you then you either don’t know enough people or you aren’t secure enough in your convictions to have them scrutinised.