I talk to people, and it just takes so fucking long.
You have to use "scaffolding" to frame the topic if it is anything at all interesting or controversial.
Here is how it goes. You pick a topic. How about Money Laundering in Ukraine.
Start by encouraging the other person to talk on the subject. Show empathy and understanding.
Repeat back to the other person what they just said, to demonstrate that you understand their feelings and PoV.
Using the most mild tone and depreciating language suggest some minor changes to their (straight from MSNBC) worldview. "Have you considered..." Or "Have you ever thought about..."
If you did step one and two well enough, they MIGHT be in a place that they can accept a tiny little nugget of new information. Don't push to hard or you will alienate them and they will stop listening.
Watch the other person squirm because they don't like the way this new information makes them feel. They instinctively understand that for the new information to be true, then they must have been very wrong about a bunch of stuff for a long time, and they don't like that.
Use emotional language to deliberately manipulate the emotions of the other person so they are more likely to be persuaded.
Watch them agree with you (because you are pretty clearly very knowledgeable and consistent) then walk away and immediately reject or forget everything you discussed because they don't like the way it makes them feel.
People don't have to be dumb to require this process. l have met very smart people who are 100% emotional thinkers; that is they think with their feelings and use their mind to rationalize their decisions.
I have also met people who are smart but very firmly in the grip of the Dunning Kruger effect.
I am not even that smart. My IQ is about 150, but I am absolutely, deeply, obsessive about discovering the real, actual, measurable truth of the world. I am delighted to be shown wrong, because I can correct my worldview.
So I don't talk to a lot of people. There is literally nothing for us to talk about that isn't utterly trivial and insignificant.
I've found points 3,4 to be rather effective (actually without doing 1 and 2). An important factor, which is what 1,2 may be about, is that people need to like you. They're not even going to give what you say a hearing if they dislike you or are neutral towards you.
Regarding 5: it is not exactly a surprise that someone's worldview does not change based on one new fact that is inconsistent with it. If you think of someone's worldview in terms of a Kuhnian scientific revolution, one single anomaly should not make him change his entire worldview. Only when anomalies stack up and increase to make the worldview unsustainable.
Only when anomalies stack up and increase to make the worldview unsustainable.
My experience shows that for most people the new facts must reach a point where the cognitive dissonance becomes almost physically painful before they will change their mind about anything.
Then they will probably hate you for changing their mind, because they decide that you are the source of the discomfort, which is false, because you don't control the Truth of the world.
If parts of their worldview are connected to their identity, then they would probably rather die than change. For example, lefties who are deprogrammed enough to see that the cause they were advancing causes almost unlimited misery and death. To discover that you have been so badly wrong is intensely painful should cause deep reflection.
I am strange in that I have cultivated a willingness to be shown how I am wrong, specifically, so I can be less wrong in the future. It is a deeply unnatural mode of thinking and requires rigorous application to develop. I am still struggling with it. Being a devotee to the capital T truth of the world does not make one a nice person, nor is it advantageous for making friends or cultivating social relationships. I'd rather be right than happy. I won't lie, even to myself.
I talk to people, and it just takes so fucking long.
You have to use "scaffolding" to frame the topic if it is anything at all interesting or controversial.
Here is how it goes. You pick a topic. How about Money Laundering in Ukraine.
People don't have to be dumb to require this process. l have met very smart people who are 100% emotional thinkers; that is they think with their feelings and use their mind to rationalize their decisions.
I have also met people who are smart but very firmly in the grip of the Dunning Kruger effect.
I am not even that smart. My IQ is about 150, but I am absolutely, deeply, obsessive about discovering the real, actual, measurable truth of the world. I am delighted to be shown wrong, because I can correct my worldview.
So I don't talk to a lot of people. There is literally nothing for us to talk about that isn't utterly trivial and insignificant.
I've found points 3,4 to be rather effective (actually without doing 1 and 2). An important factor, which is what 1,2 may be about, is that people need to like you. They're not even going to give what you say a hearing if they dislike you or are neutral towards you.
Regarding 5: it is not exactly a surprise that someone's worldview does not change based on one new fact that is inconsistent with it. If you think of someone's worldview in terms of a Kuhnian scientific revolution, one single anomaly should not make him change his entire worldview. Only when anomalies stack up and increase to make the worldview unsustainable.
My experience shows that for most people the new facts must reach a point where the cognitive dissonance becomes almost physically painful before they will change their mind about anything.
Then they will probably hate you for changing their mind, because they decide that you are the source of the discomfort, which is false, because you don't control the Truth of the world.
If parts of their worldview are connected to their identity, then they would probably rather die than change. For example, lefties who are deprogrammed enough to see that the cause they were advancing causes almost unlimited misery and death. To discover that you have been so badly wrong is intensely painful should cause deep reflection.
I am strange in that I have cultivated a willingness to be shown how I am wrong, specifically, so I can be less wrong in the future. It is a deeply unnatural mode of thinking and requires rigorous application to develop. I am still struggling with it. Being a devotee to the capital T truth of the world does not make one a nice person, nor is it advantageous for making friends or cultivating social relationships. I'd rather be right than happy. I won't lie, even to myself.