If faced with critical thinking, people tend to disregard what you’re trying to say and push back to their outlook.
You must log in or register to comment.
Because we’re emotional creatures first, we default to what’s familiar or comfortable. Logic/critical thinking take sustained practice and a lot of effort. There’s a study that suggests that many of our conscious choices are simply post-hoc rationalizations for decisions made in the unconscious.
I absolutely no longer trust anyone that insists they’re naturally and perfectly logical, they are unquestionably hiding some fixation or personal opinion which–if challenged–will make them unravel in the worst fashion.
Agree. Every single “logical” person I’ve met has had no more logic than anyone else, just incredibly low EQ.
deleted by creator
When it comes to changing someone’s mind, I believe it helps to first question whether there’s even a need to do so. If there is, then asking questions is vital. You can’t just hit someone with Facts & Logic™ and expect that it will immediately undo something they may have had drilled into them since childhood, or something that requires recognition that would challenge other dearly held beliefs (e.g. “if my dad did a bad thing, then is he not the great, infallible man I thought he was? If he’s a bad person and people tell me I look and act just like him, does that mean I’m a bad person, too?”). Finding out why someone believes what they believe, and taking time to understand it yourself and validate their experience is instrumental in opening up people’s hearts and minds. Or, at least, that’s been my experience and is therefore true to me. 😉
No they don’t. 🧌
Really though, look up brain plasticity.
Many reasons.
- the message seems fishy
- the messenger is not charismatic/trustworthy enough
- there’s lack of clarity in the message
- it contradicts personal model of reality, and these form the cornerstones of our identity, thus can’t be changed just like that
- etc, etc, etc
Not sure if this is helpful, but my take is:
Because in most cases, what is assumed to be “truth”is subjective. If you’re talking political. More often things are blurred with regards to truth as most things tend not to be empirically true, but instead, emotionally true.
For example;
“All conservatives are Nazis!”
This is inherently untrue. Yet I see every day- people who believe this to be the absolute truth. Same thing with-
“All liberals want to do is make our children gay!”
Also untrue. But when you try and correct them, they will almost always entrench themselves within their own version of the truth and disregard any form of critical thinking.
All conservatives are Nazis
Some were very fine people.
This is why asking questions is important. All conservatives are Nazis may actually be true if the person merely equates conservatives with Nazis, the proposition a mere tautology. Same for liberals trying to make kids gay, where people who make kids gay are liberals.
And by asking questions, trying to understand someone else, both parties can engage in critical thinking.
I think it’s wrong to think that critical thinking should spontaneously arise because someone’s beliefs are challenged. That’s never how it works. Rather, one person has to be vulnerable and ask, “What do you mean? Help me understand where you’re coming from.”
I don’t think there is such a thing like making someone gay.
I have a friend who had surgery to become gay. He was a straight guy before the surgery, and now she is a lesbian.
Fake. Was already a lesbian pre surgery.
Can’t argue against straight facts
That’s sort of exactly the point. People believe it to be true, and it’s sort of impossible to prove them wrong. Nature vs Nurture still isn’t proven either way, regardless of how strongly you feel one way or the other.
The simple fact that someone believes it’s possible to “make people gay”, almost necessarily leads to them believing there are people out there actively doing it.
Sure, but the problem isn’t fundamentally different from any other based on different views of how the world works, which is important. It means that it’s subject to the Socratic Method, for example, or any other method of inquiry that helps people explore their own beliefs.
What it means to “make people gay” may just mean having LGBTQIA+ stuff in the general area, inviting others to come out and normalizing the behavior. I’m willing to bet that’s exactly what it means based on what I’ve seen and read. And even if I disagree with that perspective, it makes way more sense than literally forcing people to become gay. And that’s definitely a step forward than merely thinking that person is as dumb as a box of rocks, because now understand how they’re as a dumb as a box of rocks.
The real power of the rainbow carebear stare.
People don’t like being wrong.
Being wrong has long been viewed as a form of weakness.
I’m weak several times a day.
When in reality, if you are faced with knowledge of your wrongness and make a correction, then over time you grow. In which case, being wrong is a strength of sorts.
My kink is admitting when I am wrong.
Well you’re wrong
I can only read the beginning of his tweet/story as someone who is not signed up to Twitter. He also says there is a link somewhere, but I don’t see one.
yeah linking to Twitter threads is a complete mess now since Elon fucked that up
damn it’s cool that nitter is working again!
It’s called liberal propaganda.
“I think it’s very easy to convince people they are wrong.”
“Actually, here’s all these studies that prove that the opposite is-”
“Well I don’t believe that.”
I think we underestimate how much normalisation is a survival mechanism. Personally I struggled to acknowledge the ‘truth’ about my traumatic childhood but I can see now that I did this because it was easier to get through life.
Here’s a fun thought experiment: you’d think that it’s because people don’t like being told they’re wrong, because you’d make them seem stupid in public and their pride & ego will kick in and they’ll do everything so that they don’t appear like they’re wrong, but what’s funny is that they have the exact same attitude also when online with anonymous pseudonyms. It should in principle be easier to just say “mea culpa, I’m wrong” online since you’re dealing with random internet strangers and no one knows who you are, but no, you will very rarely see that.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
The older you get the more you believe that your view of the world is right. This makes sense. Children still need to find out how everything works. They get corrected all the time because the formed wrong assumptions and opinions.
However, Imagine if you checked your smartphone’s manual every time you used it. Imagine your colleague had to fetch their reference books whenever you asked them something about their job. No-one would survive for more than a week.
This issue is a research point in AI: How ‘certain’ do you want an AI to be? Always second-guessing itself would render it as useless as always assuming it was right.
People just make up their own truth and say that you’re the one in need of “truth.” It’s a product of the “alternative facts” era that mainly Trump ushered in and others have picked up. If your facts do no support the preferred agenda, it’s just dismissed as “fake news.” Easy-peacy.
I’ll disagree. This issue has probably been around since humans could communicate.
Not to this extent in any way. It has been infinitely exacerbated with the dawn of social media. Those who seek to divide have the tools to do so. And we’ve seen since 2016 what it leads to when people are being continually lied to and they believe it because the lies fit into their own belief system. Trump is not a master at much, but he’s a master at that.
People don’t like making mistakes. I don’t know if it’s innate or a cultural phenomenon, but in my experience, the immediate reaction to a mistake is a bad feeling—even for inconsequential ones in a friendly environment. Being wrong is not only making a mistake, but living by it. There’s a much greater incentive to not be wrong. The easiest way for an individual to “not be wrong” (in their view) is to assume that the other is wrong, so they reject their hypotheses in a discussion.
I think you could argue that this is an example of cognitive dissonance. It is uncomfortable to come face to face with new information that contradicts your beliefs or actions, and it requires energy if you want to integrate that new information into your worldview and adjust your actions. It is much easier to deny that information, even when it is clearly true.
For example, when it came out that aspartame might cause cancer, if you (like me) have eaten/drunk a lot of products containing it or have had a strong belief that it was completely safe, then it may be more comfortable for you to criticize WHO or think “well, it’s not really relevant for me because my family isn’t predisposed for cancer.” If you didn’t care about aspartame or artificial sweeteners before, you will probably readily accept that there may or may not be a cancer link.
This might be spot on
