Why argue with someone extreme bias?

[ChocolateMoose123]

You can't argue with anyone with extreme bias. Are you seeking to understand them or change them? You cannot change their minds without understanding them. So, it is better to question.

Why do you believe xyz? Then go from there. It often gets personal and you can see how or why they came to believe the way they do.

I like doing this in person more than online. You get people telling you their experiences. It's actually humanizing. If I really disagree with them, I pose my questions like, "What do you say to people who say "insert factual or differing opinion"? Or sometimes I share something from my own experience that counters their opinion.

Putting a face to a belief is harder to deny or ridicule. You may not change their minds, but you earn a respect. That respect is not there online.

They can leave saying I don't agree but hey, the person I just met who has that opposing opinion was pretty cool.

 

[Lark]

Wonder if the people talking up changing peoples minds or finding others unchangeable are the sort of people who change their own minds much or just want others to become more likeminded to themselves?

 

[Lark]

You can't argue with anyone with extreme bias. Are you seeking to understand them or change them? You cannot change their minds without understanding them. So, it is better to question.

Why do you believe xyz? Then go from there. It often gets personal and you can see how or why they came to believe the way they do.

I like doing this in person more than online. You get people telling you their experiences. It's actually humanizing. If I really disagree with them, I pose my questions like, "What do you say to people who say "insert factual or differing opinion"? Or sometimes I share something from my own experience that counters their opinion.

Putting a face to a belief is harder to deny or ridicule. You may not change their minds, but you earn a respect. That respect is not there online.

They can leave saying I don't agree but hey, the person I just met who has that opposing opinion was pretty cool.

From time to time I've tried that, I've not gotten far.

Most of the time the people whose views I find most difficult to go along with are based on vagaries, for them those vagaries have the quality of facts and they are really satisfied with those vagaries, whereas I'm not.

Its a rare thing you describe though, I've not experienced it online or offline much, I can think of maybe one or two examples, I really and truly mean that.

Most of the time what I do encounter are people impatient with anything other than likeminded, people who straight up arent like minded, or even people who arent likeminded enough or who seem luke warm in their opinions, are reviled, not simply ridiculed but reviled, they want them gone. And, unfortunately, that mindset is one which I find is become more common, not less, more mainstream, less marginal.

 

[Jade Heart]

Heh... if they can't listen to logic and reject their obviously incorrect beliefs, they'll get f-ed up by reality eventually anyways. People like that madden me to a state of mind I often liken to a wrath-possessed five year old's.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

From time to time I've tried that, I've not gotten far.

Most of the time the people whose views I find most difficult to go along with are based on vagaries, for them those vagaries have the quality of facts and they are really satisfied with those vagaries, whereas I'm not.

Its a rare thing you describe though, I've not experienced it online or offline much, I can think of maybe one or two examples, I really and truly mean that.

Most of the time what I do encounter are people impatient with anything other than likeminded, people who straight up arent like minded, or even people who arent likeminded enough or who seem luke warm in their opinions, are reviled, not simply ridiculed but reviled, they want them gone. And, unfortunately, that mindset is one which I find is become more common, not less, more mainstream, less marginal.

Well, in my example, you listen more than speak. Meaning, they don't really know another opinion until far into the discussion. You aren't challenging their opinion with your own. You are responding to it - with thought provoking questions that may lead them down another train of thought.

 

[citizen cane]

What do you define as bias?

 

[Lark]

Well, in my example, you listen more than speak. Meaning, they don't really know another opinion until far into the discussion. You aren't challenging their opinion with your own. You are responding to it - with thought provoking questions that may lead them down another train of thought.

I knew what you meant, my point was really that, in my experience, people dont like even that.

They dont want a "what if...", "maybe...", "tell me more..." anything short of an outright "great", "fantastic", "you're so right", isnt going to be enough.

It could just be where I live, this place has afforded very little in the way of permissible differences on major or minor issues for some time but I see the rest of the world getting that way too, the trigger phrases are different but the essential character isnt.

 

[Lark]

Heh... if they can't listen to logic and reject their obviously incorrect beliefs, they'll get f-ed up by reality eventually anyways. People like that madden me to a state of mind I often liken to a wrath-possessed five year old's.

Or, alternatively reality will get f-ed up by them.

 

[Cellmold]

It could just be where I live, this place has afforded very little in the way of permissible differences on major or minor issues for some time but I see the rest of the world getting that way too, the trigger phrases are different but the essential character isnt.

That's interesting, would you elaborate?

I've observed similar trends myself.

 

[Lark]

That's interesting, would you elaborate?

I've observed similar trends myself.

What do you mean?

 

[Cellmold]

What do you mean?

Well I said I noticed similar trends, but these are through my personal view so maybe not so similar.

The example of people's unwillingness to entertain opposing or challenging views in favour of blind agreement. It's definitely become more obvious over the years. On a personal level I've found issues with what I consider a rise of 'validity' culture, but that's a separate issue.

Essentially being or maybe a better word is stemming from the notion of 'everyone is entitled to their opinion' which in itself is an ok idealism. However in practice it tends to lead to people engaging in ironic displays of shutting down other's opinions in favour of group consensus, contradicting that validity of opinions to be held.

The truth is no one can really practice it, even if they believe it. Many do view opinion with the same strength as fact and the loud and in agreement tend to shout down the quiet dissent, hiding behind entitlement to justify the bias.

Of course more irony would be that I believe this to be true.

 

[Lark]

Well I said I noticed similar trends, but these are through my personal view so maybe not so similar.

The example of people's unwillingness to entertain opposing or challenging views in favour of blind agreement. It's definitely become more obvious over the years. On a personal level I've found issues with what I consider a rise of 'validity' culture, but that's a separate issue.

Essentially being or maybe a better word is stemming from the notion of 'everyone is entitled to their opinion' which in itself is an ok idealism. However in practice it tends to lead to people engaging in ironic displays of shutting down other's opinions in favour of group consensus, contradicting that validity of opinions to be held.

The truth is no one can really practice it, even if they believe it. Many do view opinion with the same strength as fact and the loud and in agreement tend to shout down the quiet dissent, hiding behind entitlement to justify the bias.

Of course more irony would be that I believe this to be true.

People are entitled to their own opinion, they arent entitled to their own facts but a lot of the time they will give the weight of being factual to their opinions simply because they are their own opinions. Only interested in hearing about anything which vindicates them or proves their veracity. Or seems to. Often "I agree with that" or some similar noise, is all that's needed.

 

[Jade Heart]

Or, alternatively reality will get f-ed up by them.

If I were reality, I would definitely do something about that sooner or later. Just you wait. They will pay the price for messing with things they know naught of.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Could of ended the title of this post after the first two words:

'Why argue'

Discussion is the only grounds that can produce movement.

In general: most schema, if they are making hard claims- means that the schema displaying such a claim, must at least wield its authority by being a 'complete kind of schema', or schema that offers a 'total influence of some kind'. Generally speaking, such a schema can then only be dismantled by accessing and discussing its regulatory [fundamental] premises.

People don't like discussing fundamentals usually because they offer vulnerability (leaving one open to be debased by the stupid, and surpassed by the more intelligent within an open discussion). Thinking from a set of first principles (this was described well by Elon Musk in one of his TED talks): is a very empowering sort of activity:- when a discussion can be shared with people who are inclined towards yielding a fruitful result (this is probably what the Greek's described as wisdom (which is where the root of the word philosophy is traced [the love of wisdom]).

This is what distinguished the philosophers from the mere peddlers of sophistry. Sophists could only get their their petty foibles unraveled by conducting a framework in the line of discussion so as to shield oneself from their ploys to hide the lateral vulnerabilities in each of their void generating, light trapping first-principle-negating-black-holes. There is an excellent example of this when one see's Plato's account of how Socrates takes on (well maybe there is more than one, just google: "Socrates sophist dialogue").

Back to my points on argument: it is true some mental schema's are pervasive enough or eclectic enough to account for and engage in their own reconstruction or alteration- but such a thing would in any case be accessible through discussion- if a schema is too nervous to be put to discussion, or too brittle to conduct one, that would illuminate grounds alone to disqualify the schema for being severely feeble and limited (the limitation being wielded in the schema itself).

There are ways of discussing a severely limited schema without exiting it, it just requires that you must suspend investment (while still speaking on its behalf in a detached way) in some piece of the schema for the sake of discussion (the selection of some part of it can be revolved to different parts so they might each get tested, perhaps the part can even be openly declared, as perfectly excluding an element (if the schema holds any water) will be able to mark itself in the substance of the discussion by its absence if the discussion is pursued with any honest rigor).

Schema's which are not capable of being "meta" about themselves in this way, are usually just hollow instruments that are on the war path so as to appease some internal sense of instability by the practice of entrenchment [usually by argument, but also by other forms of 'table thumping' tactic or ploy].

 

[Lark]

I get angry that people are happy with simple answers that dont wash with me, and anger is a strong affect, makes you do things which your logical or rational self would know well was a waste of time and effort, over time I've gotten less and less inclined to argue because I really dont think it makes any difference to anyway at all.

Maybe that's why my perspective is shrinking and disappearing from the world, could be a lot of likeminded people are giving up the ghost too, the world wont be any better for it, of that I'm very sure, and when the people today who're all for the simple sweeping changes realise, too late, that the whole thing wasnt thought through, it'll be too late and they'll just be bewildered as fuck about what went wrong, maybe think the problem wasnt the sweeping changes and vagaries being a bad idea but that they didnt go far enough.

In short. Fucking. Pol. Pot.

 

[Tilt]

Out of sheer boredom, for fun, to get inside someone's mind and learn a random perspective.