-
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
When someone asserts to be true something you find ridiculous...
- Thread starter ygolo
- Start date
Qlip
Post Human Post
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2010
- Messages
- 8,464
- MBTI Type
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 4w5
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
When a topic of contention comes up, I have two attitudes to take: understanding or convincing.
First I try to understand, and if I disagree I try to point out the problems with their assertion. If they don't budge, then I continue to discuss to understand why they're so hung up on it. At least I end up learning about the nature of disagreements.
The most recent case I've had of this was talking to a homeless person about his assertion that no bull riders enjoyed their jobs, they only did it because the economy forced them to. It came up in a chat after I gave him a dollar. FYI, it's a bad idea to debate with homeless people, a large amount of them are homeless because compromise disturbs them more than the want for comfort.
First I try to understand, and if I disagree I try to point out the problems with their assertion. If they don't budge, then I continue to discuss to understand why they're so hung up on it. At least I end up learning about the nature of disagreements.
The most recent case I've had of this was talking to a homeless person about his assertion that no bull riders enjoyed their jobs, they only did it because the economy forced them to. It came up in a chat after I gave him a dollar. FYI, it's a bad idea to debate with homeless people, a large amount of them are homeless because compromise disturbs them more than the want for comfort.
I don't. I leave them in their state of ridiculousness. It's not my job to make the world right. I find a reason to excuse myself and leave.
PocketFullOf
literally your mother
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 485
- MBTI Type
- NeTi
- Enneagram
- pot
I usually correct them in a tone similar to the one they were using when they made the error. If I know there is no point because they are stubborn or will just start an argument to avoid admitting they are wrong I will just roll my eyes and keep it to myself.
Galena
Silver and Lead
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
- Messages
- 3,786
- Enneagram
- 4w5
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
I only feel qualified to challenge in a few subjects, because those are what I've spent significant portions of my life and power on at the expense of having a layman's understanding at best of many others. The latter isn't enough for me when it comes to helping maintain a shared body of knowledge. Shared is the key word. I have a perfectionistic sense of responsibility about things like this and can't bear to contribute something to public knowledge (by writing it or saying it aloud) when I'm not certain it's correct or if I don't have backup for it. I don't want to contribute to any spread of untruths. Not that I've never mouthed off incautiously, but it's embarrassing. I hold others to a similarly high standard and listen preferentially to those who are educated or experienced above the norm on what they're talking about.
But this reason for holding back on all but my specialties is overly rigid, which betrays it as a justification for simple sucky confidence underneath. I just want to be right or not open my mouth at all. The reality is, debate and public critique is just what the unrefined ideas we hide need to become more solid and fit for passing on. That's totally responsible as long as you're willing to respond to evidence when it doesn't sit well with your felt desires. What I should do is make more friends who I can engage with intellectually - engage for real, not on a basis of agreement.
But this reason for holding back on all but my specialties is overly rigid, which betrays it as a justification for simple sucky confidence underneath. I just want to be right or not open my mouth at all. The reality is, debate and public critique is just what the unrefined ideas we hide need to become more solid and fit for passing on. That's totally responsible as long as you're willing to respond to evidence when it doesn't sit well with your felt desires. What I should do is make more friends who I can engage with intellectually - engage for real, not on a basis of agreement.
Similar threads
