May I suggest changing what you think of as winning an argument.
If we are “arguing” and you are convinced for your reasons that I should think differently, don’t call that winning anymore. Wait until I am convinced that I should think differently before you declare victory.
You could even ask your conversant: “what would change your mind? What would it take for you to think differently abuot that?”
I don’t understand the first bit of what you said, but:
You could even ask your conversant: “what would change your mind? What would it take for you to think differently abuot that?”
I commonly try that. The last time I asked what evidence would change someone’s mind, it failed in an interesting way: my interlocutor refused to answer, stating that they didn’t want me to be able to provide it.
That is an amazing result! I guess the whole idea that losing faith is a sin, that questioning god is a sin comes in here. Also, the idea of “shunning” people who have placed themselves outside the current fantasy about what is true and false. A fierce shared belief in something stupid may be the best way to create a highly loyal organization. Perhaps the thing believed in doesn’t have to be stupid, but presumably the belief in it must be far beyond what is justified by facts alone in order to have it serve any purpose of group-binding.
I know I have heard Mormons talk about their sadness over losing all their friends and family as they came close to losing their faith, or perhaps more to the piont, acknowledging out loud to themselves and perhaps others that they had lost their faith.
So what would allow a person who thinks he needs to be part of some group the freedom to consider ideas that would set him apart from that group? You’d have to make a strong case that there is some really fantastic payoff to get them to want to do that.
And yeah, I haven’t experienced a great deal of success with that technique myself. Though, my failures are usually along the lines of “divine revelation”.
May I suggest changing what you think of as winning an argument.
If we are “arguing” and you are convinced for your reasons that I should think differently, don’t call that winning anymore. Wait until I am convinced that I should think differently before you declare victory.
You could even ask your conversant: “what would change your mind? What would it take for you to think differently abuot that?”
I don’t understand the first bit of what you said, but:
I commonly try that. The last time I asked what evidence would change someone’s mind, it failed in an interesting way: my interlocutor refused to answer, stating that they didn’t want me to be able to provide it.
That is an amazing result! I guess the whole idea that losing faith is a sin, that questioning god is a sin comes in here. Also, the idea of “shunning” people who have placed themselves outside the current fantasy about what is true and false. A fierce shared belief in something stupid may be the best way to create a highly loyal organization. Perhaps the thing believed in doesn’t have to be stupid, but presumably the belief in it must be far beyond what is justified by facts alone in order to have it serve any purpose of group-binding.
I know I have heard Mormons talk about their sadness over losing all their friends and family as they came close to losing their faith, or perhaps more to the piont, acknowledging out loud to themselves and perhaps others that they had lost their faith.
So what would allow a person who thinks he needs to be part of some group the freedom to consider ideas that would set him apart from that group? You’d have to make a strong case that there is some really fantastic payoff to get them to want to do that.
Well that’s… honest of them, at least.
And yeah, I haven’t experienced a great deal of success with that technique myself. Though, my failures are usually along the lines of “divine revelation”.