!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Your title is un-self critical and condescending, so your conversations probably aren’t terribly productive in either direction.
That turn of phrase has never been used by someone conversing in good faith and with an open mind.
Edit: Jack Nicholson excepted
Seriously, that title is worded like a straight up attack. Such a question, while open ended in who would consider what truth, still leads to the same outcome: engagement based purely on outrage and "proving the other side wrong."
I sometimes wonder if people post things like this with the intention of filtering through comments to block people that post their political viewpoints in response. If thats the case, I would conssider this a very effective and intelligent post. However, I don't think that this is the case.
My goodness that sounds like a lot of work lol.
“Can’t handle the truth” = I’m gonna write you off as a whole person and call you weak and stupid because we disagree.
On one hand people often don't like to hear bad news or an idea that means they have to do a thing or face a problem. On the other hand how a person is told the idea is a big part of a negative reaction. Often there is no reason to tell someone the thing at all.
I'll be straight forward if someone asks but I'm not "brutality honest". OP sounds like the "brutality honest" without anyone asking type.
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.
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.
Have you considered that they probably feel the same way about you? That you're disregarding what they say and pushing back with your own outlook?
"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."
Humans are more influenced by emotions than logic, which means that critical thinking alone may not convince them. Only those who are receptive to logical reasoning can be persuaded.
People don't like being wrong.
Being wrong has long been viewed as a form of weakness.
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.
I'm weak several times a day.
Many reasons.
That's great question! From psychological perspective, people like to think that they are right. If they encounter some person or situation that threatens their believes they have three choices:
Eg. if you are self-proclaimed expert on some topic, naturally opinions different than yours are wrong, at least to you. However, if you approach your expertise with attitude of trying to understand underlying principles, it would be easier to accommodate for new, sometimes very surprising facts or theories.
Also, humans are very susceptible to biases, meaning the world they perceive is different to what "objectively" is. One of them is attribution bias, which causes people to assume some results depend on their actions - even if there in no basis for that. This bias started the whole "vaccines cause autism" belief. The reaserch paper which started the whole thing is based on a survey directed to parents of autistic childen asking, do they think autism of their child was caused by a vaccine. It is ridiculous belief for most nowadays, but it provided a clear cause of the disease for those parents.
I know my writing can be confusing sometimes, so let me know if you would like some clarification.
I'd be interested in a example. What is an example of a truth that you have found it difficult to get people to accept?
Be honest, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much does this question have to do with your constant posting about how the maaaaan, maaaaan, is holding down all your crypto "investments" and they're due to go to the moon any day now as soon as the cabal of lizard people who run the world is eradicated?
You just can’t handle our reptilian overlords smh
Damn, I wish I'd noticed this bit of context before responding.
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.
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.
Absolutely do not 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.
It's not simply that people believe specific things, but that they define themselves in terms of what they believe.
And in fact, it's often the case that people invest in specific beliefs not because they've reasoned their way to that conclusion, but simply because they've effectively picked it off the rack of possible beliefs as the one that most clearly represents whatever image of themselves they wish to promote - it's the position held by smart people or enlightened people or trendy people or moral people or strong people or whatever.
So if you try to argue against their belief, you face two immediate and generally insurmountable obstacles.
First, they're psychologically invested in the belief, so if you call it into question, you're not just threatening the belief - you're threatening their self-image. Anything that casts doubt on the belief by extension casts doubt on their self-affirming presumption that holding the belief demonstrates their intelligence/morality/whatever.
And second, since it's likely the case that they didn't reason their way to the position in the first place, they can't becreasoned away from it anyway. So itvinevitably shifts back to their psychological investment in the position, and your attempts at reason are a distraction at best.
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.
Could you make an example? They most likely see you the same way.
Is there even an objective truth though? I’d say there technically is, but I think we all have our own subjective versions of what our “truth” is that rise and fall like a sine wave around the straight line of objective Truth.
Just remember that what is popular is not always true, and what is true is not always popular.
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. 😉
There was a study about sometihng simiilar a while back. It was posted on Reddit, so if that site hasn't imploded yet, you might be able to find it. I don't remember the whole thing, but it said a lot of people rather double-down on their already accepted beliefs than open themselves up to new results. It wasn't everyone, of course and it wasn't for all topics either. Maybe someone can go find that study and post it here for OP.
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.
Most people's values and beliefs are all wrapped up with their sense of self, so if those beliefs get attacked, they feel like they're being attacked.
Avoiding this is very tricky and counter-intuitive, but there are techniques. Look up "street epistemology" if you'd like to know more. There's a guy on YouTube who goes to college campuses and has discussions with passersby regarding their beliefs. Basically, it's asking people "What do you believe?" and "Why do you believe that?" Like I said, though, it's tricky and takes a lot of practice, and it's really easy to fall back into old patterns again.
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.
When you interact with people, you often do it on your grounds, i.e. in your area of expertise. This inherently means that you are more likely to be right in a discussion. I believe this transfers to other areas of your life – where you are not the expert. So you automatically assume you’re right even if you aren’t. However, in my experience this doesn’t apply to situations where you are very aware that you are the (intellectually) subordinate person, e.g. when talking to a doctor.
Confirmation bias is strong with some.
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.