For me it's super important. I believe we can't have productive conversations if we aren't understanding each other, and part of that means we are using the same words to mean the same things. For example, in this case we completely misunderstood each other because my definition of "close minded" seemed completely different to your's. If I hadn't asked you to clarify, I would have never known you meant skeptical which makes perfect sense to me. Instead, if you had been some random internet dude that I didn't care about I might have just thought you were an idiot who thinks closed minded means being open to new ideas and left it at that. This is exactly it right? How can we have a productive conversation if we don't make sure we understand the words we are using in the same way? We will just continue talking past one another.
Nitpicking is the Bane Shift that sok does when he questions specific wording while all the while oftentimes understands the point of the person he's talking to, whereas what you're doing, where you ask questions to ascertain the meaning, rather than picking apart the phrasing, is not nitpicking.
So the Climate Change was mostly just an example (I truly feel there is a consensus but that's another debate altogether), so let's not focus too much on whether there is actually a consensus for the purposes of this particular discussion. The point of the example is really to think about the entire flow of that conversation and what it takes to convince someone of something. For example, assume, for a moment, that there is a fact that exists. Person A wants Person B to know that fact. Person A presents that fact, as a fact. And Person B says, "As far as I understand, that isn't true, and because you claim it to be true, I am now skeptical of you and your claims." How does one proceed? Should Person A not have presented the fact in the first place? Or is there a better way of presenting that fact? Should all facts be presented as possibilities only? How should "The scientific community largely believes that Climate Change is real" be phrased to be "acceptable" to a Conservative in this context?
I question the wording when it doesn't make sense to me - especially in cases where it sounds like you are saying one thing but mean another. Such as when you used the term close-minded when it seemed like you meant open-minded from my POV. It turned out you meant skeptical which made more sense, and the discussion facilitated in our understanding each other better. I don't consider that nitpicking and I don't know why you do.
Possibilities are generally received better, because they require the person to do some level of thinking work. Don't just spoon-feed me something, I'm immediately going to question your motives, as though you are some level of salesman. You're gonna want to get them to the point of getting to a conclusion themselves.
So let's use this as an example then. I believe that the scientific community has a consensus that climate change is real. If I simply say that, you would consider that an "absolute statement." If I present a meta-analysis or study that shows that, I would be spoon-feeding you. (Is the above true?) So I need to rephrase it as a "possibility" and also present it to you in a way that requires you to do the work yourself? So for example, perhaps I should say, "In the subject of Climate Change, there are many viewpoints, but it is likely that there is some kind of consensus one way or another. What do you think that might be and how would you go about finding out?"
That would probably be better, but a better way to get there would be more along the lines of "So, climate change, definitely something people keep going on about, but I heard that <insert latest scientific thing here (for example, the toxic algae blooms or the huge polar temperature spike in recent years)> has been happening, have you heard about that?" And kind of go from there, giving your thoughts on the matter, but not presenting them as though they are gospel truth.
Yea, I can see that. I don't mean to seem like I am nitpicking, I honestly felt like you either mispoke OR was deliberately spinning your phrasing to be more favorable to conservatives. Rather than assume, I pointed it out so you could clarify your intent so I could better understand you. I do admit I am very technical person when it comes to language and terminology, it comes with the territory of being a game designer with a focus on rules text. I am a stickler for being precise with words and terms, as well as a consistent use of language and meaning what you say. But it's never intended to be nitpicking so much as I feel clarity is important. For example, in Space Wars, there were 2 abilities that were pencilled in, one read, "Engines cannot be disabled" and the other read, "Engines cannot be damaged from the rear." If you know that engines can ONLY be damaged from the rear and that damaged and disabled mean the same thing, then you would conclude the 2 abilities are, in fact, the same ability. But it's ambigious. So for me, it's important that, if these 2 abilities do the same thing, that they use the same language, because as written, it leaves things open, and from an implementation perspective, if Engines could ever be damaged by from somewhere other than the rear, then this ability would be implemented incorrectly if we simply did it as "Engines cannot be damaged" and left the text as it is.
That's fair, and I see where you're coming from, but from my experience it tends to only leave one party satisfied and the other angry, though they may not express it.
I am assuming you would say that when I quote a bunch of articles and link graphs and charts that that qualifies as "presenting them as though they are gospel truth." In reality, I would LOVE to have more people engage with that stuff but I find mostly they just get ignored. ~ So did you like the way I presented the clams study then? For reference: And did you read the article? Do you think this information was potentially absorbed by any of the conservatives in this forum and had an impact? Do you think most people then dug into this issue and looked at the actual study itself? (Not to say that one article about one study should have any impact, but I am mostly asking about the potential relative to the way it was presented.) From my POV, it seemed like a couple read it, SiredofSuns, for example. He didn't look into the actual study or any additional information that I know of, and "nitpicked" a technical term which, in his defense, the journalist failed to explain. Ultimately, it seemed like it didn't fare any better than if I had made a more absolute claim regarding what the authors of the study had found (in fact, if I had, it might have gotten more engagement). Granted, I didn't say much about it, so that probably doesn't help get people interested, but almost any statement I make could be interpreted as "presenting gospel truth" so it's difficult there unless I preface every sentence with "It is possible" or some such. ~ Additionally, how do you feel about the way DarkJello posts, which is, IMO, very authoritative in tone, often without presenting any evidence for the claims.
More generally speaking, my question of "how do you convince someone" is really also speaking to the fact that it seems like "it's biased" is a default answer these days and so even if you can get someone to look at new data, it can always be countered as "bias." So I am not sure if there are actually any objective facts anymore or if information itself has become partisan - which does seem to be the case based on what you are saying/suggestion and that information cannot be presented as information, only possibilities.
out of curiosity, how often do you feel that a person nitpicking you is trying to attack you in some way (or perhaps that the nitpick is itself an attack)?
For me, I am not sure you can actually, for the most part, persuade someone from their actual beliefs. I subscribe to the idea that most of us are prone to the "backfire effect." Note: I am not trying to present this as an absolute truth for all people at all times, but I believe that, based on the evidence, that this afflicts most of us. You are free to read the studies on this yourself and draw your own conclusions. But I also think most of us can confirm this anecdotally. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect "The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. The effect has been demonstrated experimentally in psychological tests, where subjects are given data that either reinforces or goes against their existing biases - and in most cases people can be shown to increase their confidence in their prior position regardless of the evidence they were faced with. In a pessimistic sense, this makes most refutations useless." There was actually a study that espoused what you were saying (about letting them dictate the pace of the conversation, for example) and suggested you COULD change people's minds for the long-term... but it turned out the study was doctored You can listen to the original story here: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/ra...5/the-incredible-rarity-of-changing-your-mind Specifically note: "NOTE: One of the authors of the study about people changing their minds about gay marriage - covered in the Prologue and Act One of this episode - has asked the journal Science to retract the study because of apparently falsified data. Our story was based on the facts that were available at the time. Now the facts have changed. Ira writes about the retraction at length on our blog." ~ Personally, I feel like I make great effort to understand people's points but apparently it comes across as nitpicking so perhaps I need to be better at that
Anyway, in the future, @SPiEkY, if I make statements that you feel are too absolute or spoonfeeding, and you have a suggestion on how I could better phrase things, feel free to let me know. Because I generally enjoy these conversations (with a few exceptions for particular individuals who are more interested in one-upping people than talking) so I'd like to be better at it if I can.
I find graphs tend to be just a way that people manipulate data to make it support their view, I don't know if others feel this way, but it would help to explain why they just get ignored ("Oh, here comes graph-guy trying to push another agenda on us" kind of thought process) I did like that. It was much more just showing something interesting and letting it speak for itself than using it as evidence of something. I read it, I haven't had a chance to really look into the study, but I kind of skimmed it a little. I'm not sure if it has been absorbed or not by the conservatives, but it's definitely the better way to present information. I think it did, if nothing else, there wasn't the usual backlash that you see from the usual suspects (apart from biscuitcase) See, I don't see an authoritative tone to it, but maybe that has to do with my background being somewhat similar to his (he's a lot older and has had more life experiences, but otherwise, we're rather similar). I get a friendly tone off of his posts. Sometimes it comes across as trying too hard, but that's about it. Now, I wish he would discuss the articles he posts more often, but he's met with backlash most of the time when he does, so I see why he doesn't. This, unfortunately, seems to be true, but it's still a truth that needs to be remembered when trying to have a political discussion with someone, I feel. Very rarely, it just feels like I'm beating my head against a wall trying to get them to understand until I finally unlock the "correct" words that make them understand.
In my experience, even if someone initially becomes even more staunch in the defense of their beliefs, if someone listens to what others say it still sticks with them. If the point is solid, it'll niggle into them through their bluster, defensiveness, and general anger. Or it might not. But I think how good a point/argument is made does have an impact on how frequently it will be successful. But when there is a change, it is usually long after the person instigating the change is even still thinking of that specific exchange. And it might not be a full change, or a complete persuasion, but it does seem to manifest often enough. To me, often enough when you're (general "you" not any individual person here) arguing with someone about the same thing over and over, it's because either you haven't given them time to absorb it, and/or you're trying to find that "just right" phrasing or perspective to reach the other person in the first place. Of course, if everyone involved just makes the same arguments over and over it's not likely that any progress will be made on that front.
