To counter people's false beliefs, seek to better understand them, advises expert

[Akita Suggagaki]

To counter people's false beliefs, seek to better understand them, advises expert

"People have divided into "tribes" and their shared beliefs are tied into their sense of belonging to their group of choice. Countering entrenched beliefs can feel like an assault on people's sense of identity, said Yasmin.

"She advised that people seek deep, meaningful connectivity with others of differing opinions and plumb what they are thinking and why.

"The goal is not always to change people's minds outright but to come to a mutual understanding, a greater chance of understanding one another, Yasmin said."


Plumb what they are thinking and why

Basic listening skills

 

[DiscipleOfChrist85]

If only more Christians could do this, think of the lives we save.
I say this as someone who runs their mouth instead of leading an ear.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

If only more Christians could do this, think of the lives we save.
I say this as someone who runs their mouth instead of leading an ear.

Christians actually do a version of this. However, when it becomes obvious that they only care about pushing their worldview, (and not genuine sharing) it backfires.

 

[perplexed]

It is rare for people to be talked out of bad ideas, you should try to understand your political opponents because it stops you being bitter and twisted but don't expect to change anyone's mind

There was a considerable number of people that believed anyone that opposed the US was in Iraq must of have hated America and they just kind of stopped

There has a been a drop in the number of people that believe the 2020 election was stolen

Unfortunately the number of people believing that Big government can easily solve lots of problems has not dropped

I probably believe all sorts of nonsense but I cannot tell and I have not been talked out of anything

 

[gaara4158]

This rings true for me. While it may feel more satisfying in the moment to humiliate someone who is sharing a perspective you find to be rationally untenable, it’s more productive instead to ask how it is they came to believe as they do. Not only will you gain insight into their thought process, they might come to recognize flaws in it on their own just by being asked to explain it. Also, by not being directly hostile, you’re countering the illusion of fundamental incompatibility between members of opposing political sects.

 

[FireDragon76]

To counter people's false beliefs, seek to better understand them, advises expert

"People have divided into "tribes" and their shared beliefs are tied into their sense of belonging to their group of choice. Countering entrenched beliefs can feel like an assault on people's sense of identity, said Yasmin.

"She advised that people seek deep, meaningful connectivity with others of differing opinions and plumb what they are thinking and why.

"The goal is not always to change people's minds outright but to come to a mutual understanding, a greater chance of understanding one another, Yasmin said."


Plumb what they are thinking and why

Basic listening skills

The responsibility to understand others, and to make oneself understood, is a question of privilege and power.

 

[John Caldwell]

What I have seen over the past couple of decades on Christian discussions is each side often seeks to advocate their own position (to make converts) without any attempt at understanding the other views.

The problem is more than just listening in order to change minds.

Until we understand opposing views (opposing Christian views) we cannot determine if our view is correct. We end up just followingbtradition or what sounds good, often investing in a position.

Until we understand an opposing view we simply speak past one another.

And until we understand an opposing false position we can never address those holding the view in a meaningful way.

 

[Estrid]

To counter people's false beliefs, seek to better understand them, advises expert

"People have divided into "tribes" and their shared beliefs are tied into their sense of belonging to their group of choice. Countering entrenched beliefs can feel like an assault on people's sense of identity, said Yasmin.

"She advised that people seek deep, meaningful connectivity with others of differing opinions and plumb what they are thinking and why.

"The goal is not always to change people's minds outright but to come to a mutual understanding, a greater chance of understanding one another, Yasmin said."


Plumb what they are thinking and why

Basic listening skills

How do you propose to correct your own?

 

[Estrid]

What I have seen over the past couple of decades on Christian discussions is each side often seeks to advocate their own position (to make converts) without any attempt at understanding the other views.

The problem is more than just listening in order to change minds.

Until we understand opposing views (opposing Christian views) we cannot determine if our view is correct. We end up just followingbtradition or what sounds good, often investing in a position.

Until we understand an opposing view we simply speak past one another.

And until we understand an opposing false position we can never address those holding the view in a meaningful way.

I found the thinking and beliefs of Christian creationists
to be exotic and utterly weird when I first encountered it.

Since then, I have come to understand it quite well.

I've not encountered one creationist who has the
least interest in deep time, evolution or astrophysics.

The only reading they do, if any, is in creationist sites
from which they cut n paste garbage with which to
argue.
Zero willingness to learn what the actual science is,
the attitude generally being, " I know the Truth, why
wcould I study lies?".

 

[John Caldwell]

I found the thinking and beliefs of Christian creationists
to be exotic and utterly weird when I first encountered it.

Since then, I have come to understand it quite well.

I've not encountered one creationist who has the
least interest in deep time, evolution or astrophysics.

The only reading they do, if any, is in creationist sites
from which they cut n paste garbage with which to
argue.
Zero willingness to learn what the actual science is,
the attitude generally being, " I know the Truth, why
wcould I study lies?".

The issue with arguing against a Creationist (I am one) is that many of us acknowledge the data that you would present.

For example, I work at a nuclear facility and deal with radiological decay. I recognize some of the arguments against radiological dating to be completely ignorant (like comparing it to a candle burning, not knowing how long the candle was).

But how can you argue against those who acknowledge your data while denying your conclusions?

Again, an example - you could say Man had to have evolved. I could agree with your data but say God created Adam as a mature adult. Neither side can persuade the other. It is an argument that cannot be won based on data.

 

[Estrid]

The issue with arguing against a Creationist (I am one) is that many of us acknowledge the data that you would present.

For example, I work at a nuclear facility and deal with radiological decay. I recognize some of the arguments against radiological dating to be completely ignorant (like comparing it to a candle burning, not knowing how long the candle was).

But how can you argue against those who acknowledge your data while denying your conclusions?

Again, an example - you could say Man had to have evolved. I could agree with your data but say God created Adam as a mature adult. Neither side can persuade the other. It is an argument that cannot be won based on data.

No argument with a closed mind can be won with anything.
I thought we were talking how to counter, not about impossible
situations.

For those inclined to be rational, the argument based
on opinion but zero data v argument based
on reason and an enormous body of data could hardly
be a contest.

Of course, my response was to a post about understanding
the other side, not irrational people.

And the suggestion that it's always mutual misunderstanding.

It's easy to understand creationism.

Science, not so much.
Yecs who understand science but reject it anyway
are quite rare, and are in the unfortunate position
of having their faith require that they abandon all pretense
at intellectual honesty.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

How do you propose to correct your own?

It is always a work in progress. I recently read a critique of "Modernism". Guess what. I am pretty Modernist. In contrast are the Thomists. So I am going to get more familiar with Thomism. I am prejudiced against it already. I'll try to be open to it. I am more Eastern philosophy. In answer to your question, I try to hear and fairly consider different perspectives than my own. How about you?

 

[Estrid]

It is always a work in progress. I recently read a critique of "Modernism". Guess what. I am pretty Modernist. In contrast are the Thomists. So I am going to get more familiar with Thomism. I am prejudiced against it already. I'll try to be open to it. I am more Eastern philosophy. In answer to your question, I try to hear and fairly consider different perspectives than my own. How about you?

I finally grew up to where I welcome
learning when I am.wrong

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I finally grew up to where I welcome
learning when I am.wrong

Good for you.

 

[9Rock9]

The issue is that listening to others and seeking to understand necessitates a degree of humility on the part of the listener, and we humans are definitely prone to pride, especially pertaining to online discourses. I myself, am guilty of this.

We are brought up to believe that our worldview is correct, that we do things the correct way, and thus, those who disagree and do things differently must be wrong.

I'm not really sure what we can do about it. Yeah, I agree we need to listen more and argue less, and be open to being wrong, but I don't see how you are going to get people to do that, especially nowadays.

I think the only thing we can do is agree to disagree and try to de-escalate.