How do you discuss open minded topics with close minded people?
On my way to work this morning, I saw a bumper sticker on a truck in front of me. It said "Ecology is not a religion", my first thought was this guy is an idiot, etc. etc. Then I began dismantling the entire bumper sticker in my head while I drove. "Of course ecology isn't a religion, it is a science! -ology denotes a field of study!" I don't know why, I guess to reassure myself the world wasn't falling to pieces. This brought up a question that often crosses my mind but I've never had an answer for: How do you discuss open minded topics with close minded people?
This doesn't necessarily have to focus on ecology and environmental issues, any "controversial" issue that one side might become completely close minded to could qualify. Homosexuality, gender identity, gun rights, and privacy all come to mind. If you spend any amount of time on Internet forums and boards, you've come across someone like this. No matter how much scientific fact, evidence and truth you show them, they simply deny it. They cherry pick what you presented to make their point, they pull the fake news card, etc. How does one deal with this?
In my mind, I don't think there is any way one can deal with it. How do you reason with someone who is explicitly rejecting reason? I'm not asking "how do you change their mind?", doing such a thing is quite difficult and shouldn't be the primary goal of a debate (though it could be a byproduct of a healthy debate). I don't like to attribute one's opinions on some topic to their entire personality. Just because I disagree with them doesn't make them bad, nor I to them. Sometimes, this is a hard pill to swallow. How do you a) converse or debate with these people with an end product being improved mindsets on both sides, and b) swallow the proverbial pill?
In the end, we all need to talk to each other, or else we end up in 2018 where the sitting president rejects scientific fact, politicians are being elected on planks of homophobia, racism, and denial of science, and intolerance is the new norm it seems.
I find changing people's mind a... questionable goal usually. It's easier for a mind to change from within than from without. In fact I feel uneasy when I try to change people's mind.
I find it easier and perhaps more productive to express myself patiently, creatively, and in congruence to my inner experiences. And if I try to really listen, my interlocutor tend to become more at ease and willing to engage and explore.
Of course I can't do this every time. There are times we simply need to just cope. We care about some people more than others, which is normal.
It's really not easy.
Yeah I've found with others (and myself) that arguing/debating/discussing things doesn't result in much immediate change, but later on in a quiet moment the brain drifts back and thinks about what was said, and can change then.
My opinions have flipped on stuff a few days after. You just have to be patient and reasonable and hopefully they will seriously consider it later
If you challenge someone's beliefs, you challenge their core identity. This is a very difficult thing to change. For very good reasons, we biologically reject changes to our core identity. By even questioning why they hold a certain belief you can potentially put them on the defensive, depending on how you word it you might be implying that they are stupid, uneducated, or some other negative trait. If you do this, the person will quickly become defensive and immediately write off anything you have to say.
The best way to change someone's mind is to listen to them. Understand where they are coming from and why they hold an opinion. If you have a chance, you can introduce them to why someone might think otherwise, but don't insist that either way is right.
The goal is to get them to start considering that another opinion exists. Yes, you can have opinions on facts too. You choose what you believe in, and it's influenced by your upbringing, your education, your friends, your immediate society, your work environment, and so many other things. Even if they don't agree, if they can understand why someone might hold a different opinion, it's a step in the right direction.
I agree completely - trying to change someone's mind just leads to frustration for me. Instead I just try to expose myself to people with views that are different from my own with the goal of understanding.
Listening and expressing yourself can be a fine line. If you push too hard on being heard, the other person might not want to continue the conversation. If you push too hard on understanding, you may feel like you didn't get anything out of the conversation. When I concentrate on this balance rather than trying to change someone's mind, I usually enjoy the conversation much more.
The Backfire Effect is your worst enemy.
To avoid it, consider the following tips:
I feel that this is generally good advice, but I want to point out if I were in an argument, and my opponent started explaining the worth of science to me I'd explode inside. The two bulletpoints I take problem with are:
and
Both of these fly in the face of the "Don't be condescending" advice. Imho there are two extremes - one where you try to befuddle your opponent with pure logicks, and the other where you condescend basic concepts upon them. If they're willing to conversate, have a conversation - discuss what they think, and what you think, and probably continue to disagree. But hey, maybe you'll make a point they hadn't considered - just don't let that point be "actually the scientific method is when you..." or you'll get hissed at.
The word "actually" by itself is so risky to use without sounding condescending that I often have to worry whenever I use it (and I often sound condescending unintentionally). I think your point is well made.
Actually, that's so true. :)
I struggle similarly, I feel that reddit worsened me in that way - it really stripped compassion away and gave me an interaction model of "find what's wrong with this comment and criticize it to get upvotes."
You are right. What I meant with "Don't be condescending", in relation to the two points you marked, was more in regard to presentation rather than content. Of course, the idea also was to work with people from where they stand, regardless if that's an elementary school student or an university professor. For that, it helps to know your conversation partner, so you can know where to start. If you run around explaining the basic principles of the scientific method to everyone and their grandma, that'll obviously lead to nothing.
I dunno, bulletpoint lists of how to act with another person feel dissociative for me, so I tend to criticize when I come across them ("How to Win Friends and Influence People" comes to mind) - I mean no offense to you, and I do appreciate you bringing up the backfire effect.
None taken. And I understand your criticism of the bulletpoint format for this kind of information.
In cases like these it's especially important to consider another point , understand who your audience really is. If for example you're arguing with an ardent global-warming denier on an anonymous public forum, there's basically no chance you'll convince them in anything close to the future, but what you may be able to do is help everyone else understand why that line of reasoning isn't valuable. So for example you don't necessarily need to avoid hurting their feelings (within reason), but you do need to avoid alienating people who are receptive to, but not already sold on, their arguments.
Your question (and most of the replies so far) seems to imply there's only one "correct" way of viewing various issues. That's where you're making your mistake IMHO. I try to judge people based on their actions and intent rather than label them as "bad people" simply because they have different views than me. I don't understand this eagerness in recent years to condemn people as "bad" simply due to their political opinions, and have never unfriended someone on Facebook or elsewhere solely because they have different opinions than me.
How do you feel about opinions that are objectivley wrong? I try to be open minded and accepting of all opinions but get annoyed when people espouse and opinion that is just wrong.
For example I know people who say "Obama is a Muslim, and not an American citizen". And this is something that can easily be disapproven, how do you discuss a topic like this?
You start by asking them
Fair enough, I thought maybe there might be a better way. But you're right, people far too often make difference in opinion a personal attack, or think someone who disagrees is evil.
The trouble is that if you disagree, you're attacking their opinion. Attacking someone puts them on the defensive. You need to find out why they think the way they do, and then either get them to realize that either their support/facts is wrong (can be risky) or introduce them to another opinion and it's support/facts.
I think the question is not about political belief (how do we organize ourselves around solving common problems) but rather closely held, ungrounded opinions about circumstances (what are the problems).
Many people, mostly on the right around environmental issues, hold certain values so tightly they become unwilling and unable to perceive imminent threats to their well-being.
This is a bit reductionist. The notion of the state being able to seize or ban the ownership of private property for the benefit of society is widespread and accepted. It is not that I would hypothetically want to take away your guns, it's that I would like to take away our guns. That's an important distinction.
Disregarding that specific topic, I don't know how much meaningful discussion is possible if people get so easily tripped up in their own logically contradictory opinions or values.
I think whether it's one side taking away the other's guns or everyone's is still an important distinction in terms of intent. It should inform whether the other side considers it a mere bad idea or rather a more severe attack on their freedoms. In this case, I think it should be considered the former for the reason specified.
Sure, but if you disagree with such a deeply societally embedded concept - to the point that even taxation would be considered wrong, and unjustifiable as a necessary evil - then I think you need to argue that case. If your worldview is so radically different then we could never possibly reach consensus on something further down the logic tree like firearm controls.
If I am arguing with someone about gun rights, there is at least a 95% chance that they agree with the premise that, in certain circumstances, that the state should be able to "seize or ban the ownership of private property for the benefit of society" (though we necessarily disagree on which circumstances).
As for the other 5%, that is not an argument worth having, except perhaps to discredit the other guy before an audience.
I used to want to try so hard to change people's minds and now I'm just beyond caring. If it's clear early on that you can't be reasoned with - that you can't change your mind when presented with information - then I don't have any real interest
Sometimes you just can't. I have a friend who used to be a very good friend of mine. We grew up together but we have just changed so much and I've kind of outgrown him.
He can be very closed-minded, and you just can't change his mind. You can pull out some double standard or whatever and he just won't acknowledge it. There's just no point talking to him because nothing will change his mind. And a big reason is because a lot of his beliefs or thoughts aren't based on facts, they're based on something he's built up in his mind.
A good example is there is an election happening and we have a Democrat running that was a very successful Attorney General. He looks like real change for the state for the better. And my friend didn't know anything about this man or who he was and was ready to condemn him because he was a Democrat. My friend was saying all kinds of terrible things about this man that he knew nothing about. So I asked him who he liked in the Republican runoff and he didn't even know who was running in the Republican runoff.
Our current governor pulled something shady recently and this Democrat sent out an email to his mailing list and I showed it to my friend and my friend said I don't buy that, he just wants elected. But the thing is of course he sent it out because he wants elected, that doesn't mean he doesn't mean it. He might have laid it on a little thick but that doesn't mean he doesn't mean it. But he'll buy anything a republican says. He's so quick to say nope don't buy it he just wants elected but he'll eat up anyting the Republicans say. One of the Republicans in the runoff had his business shut down over mortgage fraud but he won't acknowledge that. (To me it's not about party it's about which candidate seems better so if I come off like I'm just anti-republican, I'm not I'm just pointing out his train of thought.)
Our board of Health was recently put up to something shady to try and push back something people here voted for. My friend just wouldn't believe that the politicians in office put them up to it. There was clear evidence of outside pressure but he kept saying no no no the Board of Health is its own entity they make their own decisions. But it was clear as day and there were facts and people coming forward to admit what happened.
So sometimes it's just not worth it.
If anyone asks him about Trump he'll just say something like, "we're winning." And won't go into detail or hell bring up something but then he won't show you a source or anything else and say, I stopped showing sources years ago. Some people you just can't talk to.
You can’t, because while you’re trying to have a discussion, they’re thinking you’re insulting their beliefs and therefore, them.
Starting a meaningful discussion is difficult with these kind of people.
I feel like this can work both ways, it's just harder to believe someone's trying to have a discussion when you are the person feeling insulted. Please note this is absolutely NOT to say there aren't tons of people arguing in bad faith.
This isn't my experience. Of course there are times when I might say something that insults the other person, but if I notice they change their behaviour, I can usually ask "Were you offended by something I said?"
People can usually read your intent. When I keep the intention to have an open discussion the entire time, usually I can avoid these situations.
In my humble opinion: you don't. If someone has a deep-seated belief, and refuses to act in good faith or have open conversations about something, it's just not worth debating about.
Ultimately either you move past it and appreciate the person for other reasons, or don't associate with them. That act is far more powerful than any blah-blah-logic we can throw.
I think that people on the left has an amazing capacity to overanalyze and think they can outargue an opponent to pursuade them, when what really is persuasive is the social isolation that comes with holding firm but wrong beliefs. I'm speaking in extremes, but in my local DSA chapter, we have agreed to just not engage fascists or supremacists in argument or conversation. It gives them a platform, what we need to do is suppress them.
On reddit t_d is this huge deal that literally turns some young people into extremists - the proper move is to ban them and move on, not to offer space or have a conversation.
Measures can be taken, I'm not saying ignore them at all costs - but don't engage, and if danger brews, suppress.
Again, my opinion, but I've put a decent amount of thought into it.
If you try to force your opinion or ideas onto someone else you will soon discover that it is impossible to do so. The best way is to bring upon reasoning and facts with your words and leave it up to the person to think for themselves. I find it easier to be civil and patient when discussing controversial topics. The mind can only change from within, given with the information it receives. If you were disagreeing with someone in a heated argument you wouldn't really want to listen to their opinions.
To answer your question, you do so with the intention of not changing their mind on things right there and then in the moment, but to give a secondary perspective on the matter.
I started to listen much more instead of talking myself. Instead of vehemently arguing against them, I try to ask follow up questions to get where they're getting the idea from.
I then read into it at home and try to drop some of my arguments subtly in the next conversation, that might even be about a different topic.
I started doing it because I talked a lot about politics with some moslems, and I quickly learned that I don't have enough knowledge to argue it right there, so I switched up my strategy a bit.
The result, I'm one of the few that can talk calmly with my Moslem workmates about politics, while still having a different view on a lot of things and representing it.
It might not be the best strategy, but I can get my point across without having them shut down the conversation completely.
People who think rationally can have open minded conversations, if they work at it.
Most people never learned to think rationally. Humanity's number one problem in a nutshell. It's not like we go out of our way to teach rationality in schools, arming children with the single most important tool they will ever have for knowledge.
If someone wants to change my mind, all they need to do is show me the facts. That's it. I'll change my mind in an instant, being 'loyal' to a belief or view is a trap best avoided even if it goes against instinct. I might verify that the 'facts' I was presented with aren't biased and are gathered with proper scientific rigor, but that's all.
This is not how humans instinctively act, however. I'll link you a video (bit over a half hour) that illustrates the disconnect between how we think people think and how they really think. I know Stefan is a somewhat controversial internet personality, but you can take this video to the fucking bank, it's pure science and psychology, not his opinion.
Often trying to change a persons mind with facts and scientific arguments won't work, they just end up becoming more entrenched in their position.
The best way I've found is to ask them to explain their reasoning and then don't interrupt. Usually once they start talking at length the cracks in their argument will start to become apparent to them and it's the first step on the road to changing their viewpoint.
Key things to this approach are being a good listener, drawing out further explanations by asking why and avoiding the discussion becoming personal. That last one is key, avoid the word "you" if at all possible.
Scott Alexander at Slate Star Codex wrote a good post about the scales of argument, and the purposes of quasi-political statements based on effort and medium. It's worth a read.
To look at your example, a bumper sticker is not a great messaging format. Maybe it's better than Twitter (shots fired!), but it's certainly below even facebook in terms of the capability of the medium to convey a complex message, and it allows for not real counter point that doesn't veer into the criminal, (i.e. slapping a "we've only got one world" bumper sticker on the person's car.
It's hard to say what that person really meant, and it's heavily context sensitive in a medium where the context is unavailable. Maybe they're a theologian who's upset at the inroads made into religious studies by people pushing ecology. Maybe they're a conservationist who's frustrated at all those fucking hippies who get in the way of you stripping a blighted tree before it spreads to the rest of the forest because they know that mother earth has a plan for the forest and that plan doesn't involve humans removing any trees, at all. Maybe it's a climate change activist who's trying to remind their fellows to not get sucked into patterns of rote dogma. Maybe they're a hick who's trying to tell people that if God wants them to stop rolling coal, then God would tell them in a way that doesn't involve scientists.
What context is necessary for you to approve of that bumper sticker? And, since you're probably not going to know the context, would your life had been better if you just recognized the bumper sticker for what it was, not an attempt to convert anyone, but a signal to a specific group that you are not part of?
Unless required to at work, I rarely attempt this. Life is too short and there's much more work to be done.