How To Convince People They're Wrong

[Lollipop2]

You almost never change minds.

occasionally you can give someone new information that they may later integrate into their world view. Humans seldom change their minds. I persuade people for a living. It’s very challenging and you can never go against what someone already believes.

+1 Beliefs are so entrenched, that it almost is impossible to mandate or encourage from the external; it requires arising from the internal.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Youtube is like the most difficult place in the world to convince someone of anything.

It's actually a great place for that, if you are posting videos.

 

[ecstatichamster]

+1 Beliefs are so entrenched, that it almost is impossible to mandate or encourage from the external; it requires arising from the internal.

sometimes you can give someone "new information" but as we see with the Covid, they never believe anything once they are scared, if it contradicts what is internally already believed. "Masks don't work becuase the virus particles are .2 microns and masks only filter multiple microns" and they nod, yes indeed, but they still believe in wearing their stupid horrific masks.

Cognitive dissonance = holding contradictory thoughts about something at the same time, and this is what we see everywhere today.

When people are emotional their higher thinking shuts down. The prefrontal cortex is as thin as a paper napkin and that is where we do our higher thinking. Most people are incapable of the simplest logic once they are frightened or even if they are tired or otherwise stressed.

You can't ever under estimate people's stupidity. It is very utopian to think people are smart and that they will catch on, but they are not, and they do not.

HOWEVER, as you can see reading the terrific book Thinking Fast and Slow by Tversky and Kahneman, thinking "slow" does happen. People do eventually form opinions that may be more right than wrong, despite their being stressed and frightened.

It's a long and slow process though. What makes it super effective is if you can use emotions to persuade and not logic. Stories get you very far.

For instance if you are trying to prevent the city council from passing gun control you will never win by citing statistics and facts.

But if you bring in ONE paraplegic in a wheelchair who testifies that she can only defend herself with a gun, you can win over the people.

It is silly but true, that it is through stories and emotion that minds are altered. That may go against what I said before, but so be it, LOL.

 

[opethfeldt]

You can't change someone's mind unless they're willing to change it. It's a waste of time and energy to try. Trying to change someone's mind automatically puts them in the defensive. They're building a wall up faster than you can tear it down.

 

[Lollipop2]

sometimes you can give someone "new information" but as we see with the Covid, they never believe anything once they are scared, if it contradicts what is internally already believed. "Masks don't work becuase the virus particles are .2 microns and masks only filter multiple microns" and they nod, yes indeed, but they still believe in wearing their stupid horrific masks.

Cognitive dissonance = holding contradictory thoughts about something at the same time, and this is what we see everywhere today.

When people are emotional their higher thinking shuts down. The prefrontal cortex is as thin as a paper napkin and that is where we do our higher thinking. Most people are incapable of the simplest logic once they are frightened or even if they are tired or otherwise stressed.

You can't ever under estimate people's stupidity. It is very utopian to think people are smart and that they will catch on, but they are not, and they do not.

HOWEVER, as you can see reading the terrific book Thinking Fast and Slow by Tversky and Kahneman, thinking "slow" does happen. People do eventually form opinions that may be more right than wrong, despite their being stressed and frightened.

It's a long and slow process though. What makes it super effective is if you can use emotions to persuade and not logic. Stories get you very far.

For instance if you are trying to prevent the city council from passing gun control you will never win by citing statistics and facts.

But if you bring in ONE paraplegic in a wheelchair who testifies that she can only defend herself with a gun, you can win over the people.

It is silly but true, that it is through stories and emotion that minds are altered. That may go against what I said before, but so be it, LOL.

Great post! I appreciate the logic of not having logic when in fight, flight, freeze. It makes so much sense. I remember they did tests on Buddhist monks brains to determine where they spent most of their time. They used happy, engaged mothers and housewives as a control group. The monks lived 80 percent of the time in the frontal cortex and the happy mothers lived 80 percent of the time in reptilian brain - and these were not stressed out fearful people!

Love the idea of stories! As I reflect, my husband does this well and he certainly gets a lot of buy in...

 

[ecstatichamster]

Great post! I appreciate the logic of not having logic when in fight, flight, freeze. It makes so much sense. I remember they did tests on Buddhist monks brains to determine where they spent most of their time. They used happy, engaged mothers and housewives as a control group. The monks lived 80 percent of the time in the frontal cortex and the happy mothers lived 80 percent of the time in reptilian brain - and these were not stressed out fearful people!

Love the idea of stories! As I reflect, my husband does this well and he certainly gets a lot of buy in...

yes indeed. I have long observed my wife's talking about a problem when all she did was read a "story lead" in the newspaper about one person with that problem. From there she generalized. It is only natural.

A few other anecdotes:

Someone called into Dr. Peat and said, "my naturolpath told me that my body can't digest sulfur. Do you have a way for me to digest sulfur" or something like that (on Jodellefit recently.) Someone "told" this person something and it became gospel. A guru that you accept can change your mind sometimes.

Regarding the facts...

@tankasnowgod has done an AMAZING (and largely thankless THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!) job of bringing facts to the Covid-19 posts here...but how many people will have their minds changed from it?

I have long admired @tankasnowgod's tireless dedication but the fact is that most people don't care about facts and facts don't change their mind.

edited to add: @tankasnowgod has helped me immeasurably to support my opinions or help reshape them, so thank you again for your tireless dedication!

 

[Energizer]

convince (v.)
1520s, "to overcome in argument," from Latin convincere "to overcome decisively," from assimilated form of com-, here probably an intensive prefix (see com-), + vincere "to conquer" (from nasalized form of PIE root *weik- (3) "to fight, conquer"). Meaning "to firmly persuade or satisfy by argument or evidence" is from c. 1600. Related: Convinced; convincing; convincingly.

To convince a person is to satisfy his understanding as to the truth of a certain statement; to persuade him is, by derivation, to affect his will by motives; but it has long been used also for convince, as in Luke xx. 6, "they be persuaded that John was a prophet." There is a marked tendency now to confine persuade to its own distinctive meaning. [Century Dictionary, 1897]

We can contrast this very Western (though perhaps not exclusively so) idea of the desire to control the other's will with the much more laid back concept of Anekāntavāda (अनेकान्तवाद, “many-sidedness”)

Anekāntavāda (अनेकान्तवाद, “many-sidedness”) refers to the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India. It states that the ultimate truth and reality is complex and has multiple aspects. Anekantavada has also been interpreted to mean non-absolutism, “intellectual Ahimsa”, religious pluralism, as well as a rejection of fanaticism that leads to terror attacks and mass violence. Some scholars state that modern revisionism has attempted to reinterpret anekantavada with religious tolerance, openmindedness and pluralism

The word anekāntavāda is a compound of two Sanskrit words: anekānta and vāda. The word anekānta itself is composed of three root words, “an” (not), “eka” (one) and “anta” (end, side), together it connotes “not one ended, sided”, “many-sidedness”, or “manifoldness”. The word vāda means “doctrine, way, speak, thesis”. The term anekāntavāda is translated by scholars as the doctrine of “many-sidedness”, “non-onesidedness”, or “many pointedness”.

When you're revealing errors that someone else might be making in a way that is visible to them, they may change their mind. But there is no need to hold on to that as a goal, imo. I think the goal of trying to convince someone can often backfire, because it assumes a position of grasping and attachment and trying to control the other rather than an openness to many different perspectives. I have made the mistake myself of trying to hold strongly onto ideas and convince others.

 

[schultz]

It's actually a great place for that, if you are posting videos.

Oh yah, haha, of course. I was specifically referring to the comments section.

 

[B___Danny]

I made the mistake of going into the comment section of a YouTube video hating on "conspiracy theorists" today. The people were incredibly hostile, ignorant and angry at me beyond belief. Nobody would listen to or read any of the factual information presented to them. None of them had any info to retort what I said, but still called me an idiot, cultist, tinfoil hat-wearer, dangerously ignorant, among other really hateful things. To be fair, I was a bit hostile in a reply or two. I must remember these people are victims of the media. But no one person can tame an army of starving lions. I was there alone and stood my ground, but it ruined my day and my stress levels shot through the roof. I needed help, and with enough information presented to people, it can reach critical mass. How else did we all get here in the first place?

We as a community should pick certain threads and use our collectively superior knowledge on health, science and media bias to politely and logically inform people why what they're viewing is wrong. There are too few of us to naturally be found in groups. We need to help each other in these situations. I was thinking the whole time "I really wish the informed people of the peat forum were with me now". I know this sounds weird, but ethically it will be okay if we:

NEVER ever insult anyone
Only use verified sources
Be willing to explain to people what it all means
Avoid topics such as microchips, flat earth (I know lol), and 5G. These are their Pavlovian buzzwords that trigger an angry response
Avoid reacting emotionally

With just 5 of you with me, I could have really reached probably 50 people today. The truth spreads. Some would say it spreads like a virus. What do you think? Can we make a difference?

If they call you a tin-foil hat wearer, call them a mask-wearer. Except the masks are more of a joke because they are for something that has never been prove scientifically transmittable.

 

[Dr.Winston O'Boogie]

I got myself tied up in a protracted 'Climate Change' debate once on a forum, the same scenario really, your back up against lots of people all holding the same safe, majority, scientific (97% I think it was lol) viewpoint.

What did I learn? How stupid you feel when you spend hours to find some genuine science and then post it only to have it ignored, misunderstood and swept aside. I also learned that the faster they resort to name calling and placing you in boxes the more threatened by genuine discussion they actually are and the more genuine discussion you provide the more names you will be called and boxes you will be placed into. Also how you have to totally resist throwing insults in return (I never did once), that's a 'tool' only licensed for use by those with the privilege of having the majority viewpoint.

Anyway, I learned a lot about the subject, became even more entrenched in my own views about it (I like to think through knowledge) and I used up a lot of time running around proving how others were 'wrong', generated a lot of stress, made a few more enemies and gained some respect from a minority.

I don't recall a single incidence of anybody in the opposing camp saying "Yes, you are correct" or even a "good point" but...

A few years later a couple of my forum 'opponents' admitted to me in private that I was 'right'. The thread on the forum was closed and I was kind of relieved because it freed me to apply my time thoughts to other areas of my life.

 

[Lollipop2]

A few years later a couple of my forum 'opponents' admitted to me in private that I was 'right'.

That is a huge win actually! Especially in the climate change bunch...good for you.

 

[Dr.Winston O'Boogie]

That is a huge win actually! Especially in the climate change bunch...good for you.

Yes, but it's a 'victory' that would have been so much sweeter at the time. I think people do catch on eventually but when it comes to the situations being discussed time is a very important factor and people can realise things 'too late'.

 

[Lollipop2]

Yes, but it's a 'victory' that would have been so much sweeter at the time. I think people do catch on eventually but when it comes to the situations being discussed time is a very important factor and people can realise things 'too late'.

Right. And also it takes time (maybe even years) to sink in especially if it radically upsets their world view. “Too late” is context driven, which makes it hard to make a blanket statement.

 

[Dr.Winston O'Boogie]

To add to my first post in this thread, I also learned how arrogant people can be when they believe that their cause is somehow saving the planet/humanity. It's a lofty position that few are willing to concede any ground on and puts you in the role of the 'immoral' even before any of your points have even been considered.

 

[Jib]

I never try to change anyone's mind about anything. I prefer how my face looks when I'm not bashing it into a brick wall

 

[Geronimo]

To add to my first post in this thread, I also learned how arrogant people can be when they believe that their cause is somehow saving the planet/humanity. It's a lofty position that few are willing to concede any ground on and puts you in the role of the 'immoral' even before any of your points have even been considered.

I think a really handy approach in this situation is to acknowledge that everyone here is trying to protect themselves and their family while trying to do the right thing with the information we've been given. Maskers are afraid people not wearing masks will endanger everyone, including their loved ones. Anti-maskers, or people who have scientific literacy, are worried about the bigger implications of what they perceive to be systemic lies. Both groups want to keep people safe, we just view the dangers differently on how we interpret data. We're all in this together and we ultimately want the same things. You can bring up how the media isn't trustworthy, but people take that as you (accurately) calling them idiots for believing the media. I think the only functional approach goes something like:

We all want to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe. Our only differences are the information we've been given and how we interpret it. Maybe we've both seen things the other hasn't. Please take a look at this information, because it really concerns me for ____ reason. Let's get to the truth of the matter together.

 

[Teres]

As others wrote, it's really a waste of time. Such people, most often, are not to be rescued, so to speak. They're not to be enlightened. They are not victims to ignorance, they are it's guardians, they have chosen it. Quite often they are not being fooled by any cunning disinformation campaign, but by themselves. And when people do fool themselves they know they're doing it. It can be a bit confusing, yes.

Hostility towards different viewpoints, viewpoints they're not obliged to accept anyway, usually whispers insecurity about the value of one's views and convictions. People often delude themselves about things quite deeply and the delusions become part of their persona. Attacking those delusions can be taken as personal assault, and much more importantly - an assault to one's own decision to be a fool. If it's a lone fool, it may be a different story. Collective stupidity is another animal. Such people in a group, being a comment section, forum, or anywhere else, do feed each other with the same filth constantly, taking the decision to not question it. And you appear on the horizon, with your unwelcome, unasked, so persistently avoided evidence and just.. reason.

You're not gonna be welcomed into the delusion party with your annoying evidence which might accidentally force me to think, got it? Thinking isn't always easy, and realizing I've been an idiot for so long might not feel nice. Apart from that, the other fools may start pointing at me with a finger, and I don't know neither I get along with others apart from them.
Exactly like children. By suggesting that they should be approached by many people at once, with arguments, this tells you that the first do not value truth, but bend only before gang approval, or hostility.
A human being who values reason finds truth heavy, yet voluntarily accept it as a cold shower an a slap, quite often on top of that.

Write and share your points. If there's someone who's open to reasoning, so be it. If the hordes of foolishness rush towards you, just leave, and leave the evidence in their backyard full of filth and let them deal with it, if they want to. They may not feel nice seeing it around, but someone else, likely a passive reader who may not type a word, will see it. The apparent guardians of ignorance will be seen, and seen as such as well.

 

[Dr.Winston O'Boogie]

Yes Geronimo, that might be a good approach when it comes to the current mask issue. Always better to not attack and put people on the defensive if you can avoid it.

Don’t expect any reciprocal tact from them though. They’re in the majority and are trying to save humanity after all.

 

[Geronimo]

Yes Geronimo, that might be a good approach when it comes to the current mask issue. Always better to not attack and put people on the defensive if you can avoid it.

Don’t expect any reciprocal tact from them though. They’re in the majority and are trying to save humanity after all.

I don't need their tact. I need people to not force me to take a vaccine from the eugenicist freaks producing it. This can only be prevented if enough people have some doubts about this entire situation. With enough people having doubts, we can reach critical **** on the topic.
Edit: critical mass. Woops lol. Keeping it in though.

 

[Dr.Winston O'Boogie]

I don't need their tact. I need people to not force me to take a vaccine from the eugenicist freaks producing it. This can only be prevented if enough people have some doubts about this entire situation. With enough people having doubts, we can reach critical **** on the topic.
Edit: critical mass. Woops lol. Keeping it in though.

Yes, sometimes I am optimistic, more and more people are questioning current actions. I think an even bigger issue is the number of people who just carry being compliant despite their personal doubts because they don’t want to risk their jobs by going against the grain, so it’s not even as simple gaining a majority, the ‘critical mass’ will have to be such that they feel confident enough to take action despite their fear of potential consequences.