How to communicate with people who think you're just uneducated on their position? - Religion, politics, social issues, fitness, it could be anything, but they think you just don't understand.

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

View attachment 7178594


I'm glad you brought this up. I'm not sure if we've completely overcorrected, but I am certain that there are downsides to raising children to ignore those instincts and to "get comfortable being uncomfortable". It can be very dangerous and even debilitating later in life.

Yet our lives are shallow, dull, and overall truncated running around driven so much by fear, which I see in equally overwhelming amounts, probably moreso. Idk if it's this place, or a "today" thing, or the combination, but there's an incredible lack of nuanced thinking. To take an example itt, it is dumb to think that there are just two options: 1) every kink is equally innocuous and you must enjoy all of them vs 2) that hand resting at the base of your throat in bed clearly belongs to your murderer who wants to skin and eat you. So long as people think in extremes and think they've discovered "THE reality," they're going to be difficult to discuss things with.

To OP, why do you care if you think they think you don't understand? Tbh, in that scenario, I go Columbo and get really curious. I ask questions, let them tell me what they think (and I LISTEN, which has the effect of curbing me from assuming I know what they think), and then I ask what they mean by x or y, repeat it back, "so, hold on, I want to understand something you just said. Are you saying....?...And that is because...?". (I listen, but I do not cede control of the conversation, btw. If they're going to drone on, I will get what I want or need from it. So my questions are clarifying, but in some conversations they are also to find weaknesses. Depends on context.

Generally, I want to know what they think, how they're thinking about it, their underlying assumptions and context, and how they get from A to B. And I look for places of commonality but also where assumptions bs diverge bc then I can identify some root causes of disagreement. That usually means an effort to really "get" them, or often to pull us together, though if it's a more sporting and brutal kind of person/ relationship, that may be looking for ways to win a debate. Either way, if someone is just throwing out conclusions, there's no debate; that's just slap-fighting so who cares, anyway. But I think it's valuable to really - really - listen to what people say, even if it seems pedantic. If it's an earnest discussion, really pressing them to articulate their whole iceberg of how the problem is framed up in their mind, you can then talk about what they really think, not just the pop-politics conclusion, or your assumptions about what they think. And then debate on those terms or shift them. But don't take it personally if someone wants to tell you what they think or if it's because they think you're dumb. If it's earnest, that's the only way you can find any agreement.

And if it's bloodsport debating, if they don't think you know something and that's annoying, then play dumb. Probe - both to understand and to win. Take mental notes so you can rhetorically knock down every pillar under their house. From a game standpoint, consider it a gift - they've revealed everything and have learned nothing from you.

And on that game note - sounds like you're arguing to convince someone or change their mind, or to be "right." If that's important to you, go ahead. But I'll just say that there is also a lot of fun in rhetorical parrying / taking positions and arguing to win by arguing better, moreso than putting your beliefs on the line. Or a combination, but if you aren't the type to enjoy out-clevering and being out-clevered in equal measure without getting mad about it, if you can't laugh and say "nice one, cheers!" when someone traps you in a corner, then that kind of sport/pastime isn't for you.

 

[NoReturn]

Have you considered that you don’t actually understand the topic as well as you think you do?

Yes, but there are also some things where I reject the very premise of their argument, and in cases like those, what you do seems to be what was explained already: Accept there is a fundamental disconnect.

e.g. In the example in the OP, I know the guy is arguing that [1] Pedo brains are different and therefore [2] we should treat them as we would anyone else, whether that's as a sexual minority like NAMBLA wants, or as people with a mental illness. The disconnect for me is that I do understand [1]; but sometimes when you talk about these things with people they assume you must not understand [1] or else you'd automatically accept [2] as a result.

To OP, why do you care if you think they think you don't understand?

And on that game note - sounds like you're arguing to convince someone or change their mind, or to be "right." If that's important to you, go ahead. But I'll just say that there is also a lot of fun in rhetorical parrying / taking positions and arguing to win by arguing better, moreso than putting your beliefs on the line. Or a combination, but if you aren't the type to enjoy out-clevering and being out-clevered in equal measure without getting mad about it, if you can't laugh and say "nice one, cheers!" when someone traps you in a corner, then that kind of sport/pastime isn't for you.

It's not like some ongoing issue in my life I need solved. I just remembered a couple incidences in the last decade where I found myself in that scenario and got curious about other people's experiences with it. Like you said, generally speaking, I do want to know what other people think, but what I struggle with is how to navigate cases like the one I outlined above.
This came up during COVID as well. I had to kind of "talk around" things like the jab because I knew that the phrase "safe and effective" was a thought-stopper and I wasn't going to be able to convince anyone who was going to get it to NOT get it, nor did I care, nor was it my business in the first case. Where it did matter was when people were telling me to get it for their reasons.

"Did you get vaccinated yet?"
"No."
"You should get vaccinated."
"I got real COVID."
"That's not good enough."
"Why not?"
"The vaccine is more effective at preventing the spread."
"Is it?"
"Why are you being so difficult!?"

 

[Großmann]

e.g. In the example in the OP, I know the guy is arguing that [1] Pedo brains are different and therefore [2] we should treat them as we would anyone else, whether that's as a sexual minority like NAMBLA wants, or as people with a mental illness. The disconnect for me is that I do understand [1]; but sometimes when you talk about these things with people they assume you must not understand [1] or else you'd automatically accept [2] as a result.

What you have to do is get that person to articulate a functional argument to even respond to in the first place. In your example, the person is presenting a major premise that’s too broad and undefined. On top of that, the minor premise is missing entirely.

• Major premise: “Pedo brains are different.” This premise doesn’t sufficiently outline what “different” actually means.
• Minor premise: [MISSING]
• Conclusion: “Therefore, we should treat them as we would anyone else.” The conclusion does not follow the major premise because new term is introduced that wasn’t present in the major or minor premise. An argument needs three terms to structurally make sense. In this argument, you have “pedo brains” and “different.” If the minor premise was present, the third term would be there. The conclusion should not introduce another term.

The problem that often happens with arguments that lead to frustration is that the arguments being presented are unstructured and often accompanied by logical fallacies. When such is the case, it feels like pissing in the wind because you aren’t able to offer a counter argument to essentially a non-argument.

 

[regalterry]

It's pointless to argue with people about political, ideological or religious beliefs since those are the ones buried deep. All you will ever do is provoke an emotional reaction, a kind of cognitive immune response, the lizard brain categorizing your argumentation as an attempt to infect the host with your ideology, and the person will get angry and confrontational as part of the defense mechanism. That's why you never argue about this kind of shit with friends or family, not unless you want to lose them.

You only really do this if you have an audience and want to make the other person say something obviously insane that will undermine their position. As in, the discussion is wholly performative and meant to make the other person look bad in the eyes of the public.

Change in someone's political/ideological/religious views must come from within, after a lot of introspection, and usually gradually and over a longer period of time. I think many people here will agree, starting out as liberals or leftist and slowly changing into something else, or eventually going off into the deep end like I did.

 

[Executive Petrel]

Be a man.

 

[Otterly]

Did you get vaccinated yet?"
"No."
"You should get vaccinated."
"I got real COVID."
"That's not good enough."
"Why not?"
"The vaccine is more effective at preventing the spread."
"Is it?"
"Why are you being so difficult!?"

Funny thing. This happened to me multiple times, and I’m a molecular geneticist who works in creating gene therapies.
They know that. They know that’s what I do for a living and I still had that conversation, again and again and again. With people who didn’t know I pointed out that this was what j do for a living and that I’m well aware of ‘the science’ and do not ‘get my opinions from Facebook.’
They don’t know more than me on this - they can say they know more than me on a million other subjects but not this one. And yet, I had this conversation, repeatedly.
It’s not about them thinking you know less. It’s about them accepting a viewpoint wholesale because they were told it was right, factually and morally, by whatever authority source they worship.
I felt during Covid that I was in a conversation tree talking about rats in the cellar before the main quest. It was very odd and I can see why people think half of humanity are NPC bots because it was just uncanny

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

There's no point in arguing with Mohammed in Jews or leftists they all believe there's absolutely no moral problem with lying to advance There positions

Funny thing. This happened to me multiple times, and I’m a molecular geneticist who works in creating gene therapies.
They know that. They know that’s what I do for a living and I still had that conversation, again and again and again. With people who didn’t know I pointed out that this was what j do for a living and that I’m well aware of ‘the science’ and do not ‘get my opinions from Facebook.’

I have to argue with people about illegal immigration driving down the wages of carpenters even though that's what I've done for a living my entire life I've seen it first hand but because I don't have a degree in economics my opinion doesn't matter then when I link to them actual economics talking about it that doesn't count there's no point in arguing with people who just want to be right and I ignorant idiots

 

[Otterly]

but because I don't have a degree in economics my opinion doesn't matter

I bet your house is perfect! (Sorry…)

Even if you did, they wouldn’t admit they were wrong. You could be a professor of economics and they wouldn’t listen to you.
I’ve got multiple bits of useless degree paper and still, I had that conversation. I’ll freely admit to being a clueless talentless idiot in most subjects but the area around Covid? I know my stuff.
i have several people who refused to see me after finding I wouldn’t get the shots. I wasn’t shoving it in their faces, they were pestering me and I was politely refusing. The things some of them said to me were incredibly cruel and hurtful. Hoping people I loved died, hoping I’d never see loved ones again, hoping the kids were hurt. I was taken aback by the gleeful cruelty of them. None of them have acknowledged or apologised.
The ones who have said ‘you were right’ were the ones whose opinion at the time was ‘I wish you’d get it but it’s up to you.’ So there was some flexibility there in their attitude at the start. The ones who ran with e ett talking point and revelled in the power it gave them will never change.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

i have several people who refused to see me after finding I wouldn’t get the shots. I wasn’t shoving it in their faces, they were pestering me and I was politely refusing. The things some of them said to me were incredibly cruel and hurtful. Hoping people I loved died, hoping I’d never see loved ones again, hoping the kids were hurt. I was taken aback by the gleeful cruelty of them. None of them have acknowledged or apologised.

I forget who said it but give someone an ideology that allows them to be a horrible person to someone for absolutely no reason or some arbitrary reason and you have hundreds of people signing up

 

[Screamer_2]

My issue is that most people who hold opinions I disagree about are idiots who don't actually know why they hold that opinion. Yet hold those opinions as sacred cows.

So you can't actually discuss it. I'll just go, "I don't really know but what I don't understand is...." and just lay out a massive logic hole or fallacy in what they think. Or just explain some facts they don't know in a matter of fact way questioning how it fits with their opinion.

Just not be combative.

 

[Otterly]

I forget who said it but give someone an ideology that allows them to be a horrible person to someone for absolutely no reason or some arbitrary reason and you have hundreds of people signing up

Aldous Huxley.
The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone,” “To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’ — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”
It’s unpleasant to see it play out in front of you.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

Assuming these aren't earnest people I can have a reasonable discussion with I take the approach of taking the most extreme interpretation of a belief, orders of magnitude more than my actual belief and litigate it in the most ardent, obnoxious and toxic way possible. After all if you can't stand up to a caricature when can you do to something real.
Sometimes if the concept hinges on something technical I will render the crux of the debate into the most basic question possible. A good one is: "Are humans immune to evolution?".

 

[Trump's Chosen]

I forget who said it but give someone an ideology that allows them to be a horrible person to someone for absolutely no reason or some arbitrary reason and you have hundreds of people signing up

It's like people want a moral letter of marque to manifest destiny and let out their vindictive desores

 

[Doublefrag]

Roll your eyes, look to the side and mutter some sarcastic insult about how everyone around you is a moron. Make sure to portray YOURSELF as the wise but unaccepted know-it-all.

 

[Sperg_rancher]

I understand pitbulls can't help their nature.

I've found that the best way to pull down denialism and irrationality is with examples. You show them a video and news article of a pibill mauling an old lady, and without variance they always lay bare their true feelings. There is zero arguing with video, and must skip straight from their argument being "what if its raised bad" to a more concrete "this pibill was raised bad", and they know those sort of what-aboutisms applied to specific scenarios are very weak. If you can force them to see what actually happens, almost never will they continue to feed into denialism. Some will, and that's a good sign to leave the conversation, or do a little bit of trolling. The risk you take is that they skip straight from "it isn't happening" to "it's a good thing". At that point you've got a different bear on your hands.

 

[NoReturn]

If you can force them to see what actually happens, almost never will they continue to feed into denialism, as it doesn't work.

This requires them to be willing to watch. One of the situations I was thinking about when I made this thread was one where I realized that a couple people with whom I had been interacting had all said some variation of "I won't look at X" or "I refuse to watch Y." and it seemed dishonest to me that they were willing to hold an opinion on something without looking at that something firsthand.