RoR: Forum

Duncan, I really liked this article. I took the point to be to try to bring objectivity to the debate. "The question" brings up the subject of standards of proof. It makes each side think about what kind of evidence would be needed to settle the issue, or if any amount of evidence would do the trick. It may have the side-effect of letting you know whether the person you're talking to is beyond reason, but that's a consequence. It boils down to whether people are just debating, or are they serious about what the truth is. If they are serious about the truth, then "the question" brings reality into the discussion, and allows it to be the final arbiter. It emphasizes that our views should be judged by what's real.

I also think it would focus the discussion on what's real, and not on simply winning the debate.

I don't see it this as a weapon against the other person. It would go both ways. You'd also have to state what kind of evidence would convince you.

Anyway, very interesting topic. Thanks!

Post 21

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 12:56am

I'm waiting for Bob Palin to come to the defense of the Question, and-oh wait, wrong thread.

Coincidence?

Post 22

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 7:01am

Kevin,

You wrote, "People change their own minds, or their minds don't really change."

That is a great aphorism. I'm tempted to post it as a quote on the front page, but that would be like stealing earned points from you, so please post it to the front page yourself.

Post 23

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:39am

Out of curiosity, why are you offended by people trying to 'sell' you ideas?

Ah, I should clarify, yes.

I don't mind that at all. If I did, I'd mind myself, because in the end that is primary to my job description. I just don't like people trying to be cute.

Specifically, what I don't care for are overtly-used techniques. Because of my training and business background, I know when they're coming the day before.

There is a very fine line with selling technique. It has to be highly internalized, and that's true of technique in general.

There's nothing more annoying than someone trying out their new (or old standby) toys on you. It's not sincere, and I don't like being part of a practice run. I have a certain amount of patience for the latter.

This particular one we're talking about is mildly compound, but in the end it's an assumptive close, and those don't impress me. It is one step away from the "If I could/would" model.

In general, for this kind of thing (which is actually not selling, I think you're talking more about educating), a more consultative approach might be better.

rde
They tell us to stand in doorways if there's an earthquake. Don't- all that will be left are you, magazine salesmen, and JW's.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 10/12, 8:40am)

Post 24

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 10:52am

A related question that might garner more respect from the listener for the speaker is:

How does this principle satisfy your needs over time?

In other words, given the assumption that all beliefs form as abstract survival mechanisms, how does the principle in question satisfy the needs of its advocate?

I use this question during the evaluative portion of our monthly SOLO in Florida at Merritt Island discussions. See the article there entitled "Experiencing Objectivism through the Reality Model" for more information.

Post 25

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 11:48am

Right, Luke.

There are some techniques that can be looked at to ease into that, but again, they have to be internalized. Basic Sandler stuff, with a little NLP slant. The thing is, you have to really be convinced of your good intentions when you do this kind of thing.

If you truly think the person is laboring under some majorly malignant misconception (and this is where I see fuckups abounding with some folks), you think of it as pain. People move away from pain very rapidly, much more than they gravitate to pleasure (think about how significant that is). So you can take the gap in understanding, fill it up with boulders of pain, and build a bridge for them to walk across.

Specifically, the technique involves bringing the pain to a focal point- from background, to concern, to critical bleeding.

NLP type techniques, in a good sequence: Why? (answer) And...? (answer "and I...") Which means? (answer "which means I...") And? (answer "and I...")
So...? (they will start to get it) How does that make you feel? (there's the pain)

But this isn't shit you just screw around with.

Post 26

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 3:29pm

Sometimes it's not about changing the mind of the person you're arguing with. As I said in this article:

http://www.solohq.org/Articles/Elliot/Take_The_Moral_High_Ground.shtml

"Now, here’s the thing. You’re firing at hard targets, flabby minds, but hard targets. You can shame them, refute them, reduce them to quivering jelly, but you won’t change them. They are who they are: idiots, dangerous for sure, but idiots nevertheless. Lock ‘n’ load. Aim. Fire. Fuck ‘em and forget ‘em.

Your real target is the sort of person who is always present at any social gathering: the quiet observer. Hope that some of your moral shrapnel ricochets off the target dummy and hits "the silent one" fair and square in their quiescent sense of life. Show them that they don’t have to stand silent and listen to the bullshit that infects modern life. Show them that moral outrage is not only alive and well but that it is proper and necessary. Most importantly, show them that good men don’t have to stand around and do nothing."

Yup, and I couldn't agree with me more.

Ross

Post 27

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 9:19am

Duncan asked:

"What would I have to show you in order for you to change your mind?"

The person might answer, "Nothing you could show me would ever change my mind."

Before you accuse him of rock-headed evasion, would not an Objectivist also offer this same answer regarding certain issues such as the basic axioms?

This question has limits to its effectiveness.

Post 28

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 3:19pm