As a fellow contrarian, I like to know why a person, and especially groups of people -- the larger the better -- think the way they do. So I often posit a contrary response, one maybe contrary to my own point of view, just to engage in civil discourse and extract from them a deeper understanding of how they reached their conclusions.
Where I have been convinced by their response, or at least moved in their direction, it is usually because it is fact-based, and has been fact-checked. Who doesn't appreciate hearing and thus learning something new?
Where I have not been so moved to change my mind or position is where it is fact-free, built upon erroneously cited or misconstrued "fact."
People can also have very powerful, even life-changing, personal experiences that can't help but change their views. One can understand, even sympatize with that, but It does not necessarily change or even alter larger truths, except for them.
Thank you. I found greater truth in George F. Will's long ago and oft-repeated observation: Everyone is entitled his or her own opinion, not his or her own set of "facts."
Exactly right. I think that quote goes as far back to Senator Moynihan in the 80s.
But just as important is to treat and engage with everyone respectfully. If we’re just arrogant and condescending jerks to people with whom we disagree, it doesn’t matter if we’re right on the facts. They won’t listen to us anyway.
What I learned very early in life is that it’s nearly impossible to change minds on a controversial issue unless you understand their side of the discussion as well as they do. It’s often disarming to them that you can actually speak and understand their language, and that then seems to invariably open them up to be more willing to actually listen to and discuss counter arguments. Assuming, of course, that the discussion is based on true curiosity from both parties and mutual respect in the first place, versus the typical discourse you find online.
Yes, I do this all the time in family, in business in personal relationships. The method is empathy for other perspectives and to engage in conversation with listening the primary activity, and then paraphrasing that other perspective.. and then delivering any counter point frames with that perspective.
However, that approach only works when there is an honest interest in truth telling and objectivity. The problem is that the left has adopted an ideological direction that is based on their campus indoctrination from Critical Theory. It manifests in the modern practice of woke. They adopt the principles of this set of beliefs as faith. Men can get pregnant. There are 52 genders. There is a climate crisis. Any restriction to abortion is a Handmaiden's Tale. And lastly, there is no objective truth and everything is relative to power and the oppressed.
I am a contrarian, but more than that, I am motivated by the simple understanding that I don't know everything and know in my life that my lack of knowing has led to mistakes and bad choices I have made. I am a constant student that wants to learn so my path in life is less error prone.
My attempts to engage my liberal Democrat friends to learn have almost always resulted in disappointment in a lack of logic, objectivity, facts and truths. For them, it is a faith. I can be empathetic to their faith, just like I can for pious religious faithful, except for their drive to dominate politics so they can shove it down my throat.
Haidt makes the point that appealing to a person's moral filters is the best way to get through. I get that, but then I don't know if appealing to the moral filters of people so emotionally dis-regulated is really a good move. It is enabling. I think it makes more sense to constantly remind them that they are full of shit.
The philosopher Richard Rorty argued that liberal democracies might work better if they stopped trying to give universalistic self-justifications, stopped appealing to notions like "rationality" and "human nature" and instead viewed themselves simply as promising social experiments.
As a contrarian conservative I use 'code switchng', if one wants to call it that, when I am the only conservative in a group of 20 some elderly persons who mostly come from the legal or academic world. I try to show respect for their arguments and let them know I hear them and in some points agree. I feel it is the only way to have a discussion with people of opposing views.
Just a technical comment... when I clicked on the link "Sohrab Ahmari’s pro-labor case for restricting immigration" it went to a Wapo article on code switching re abortion in Kansas. No biggie but I was curious as I thought labor and immigration was the default not a code switch, take this down if you want.
As a fellow contrarian, I like to know why a person, and especially groups of people -- the larger the better -- think the way they do. So I often posit a contrary response, one maybe contrary to my own point of view, just to engage in civil discourse and extract from them a deeper understanding of how they reached their conclusions.
Where I have been convinced by their response, or at least moved in their direction, it is usually because it is fact-based, and has been fact-checked. Who doesn't appreciate hearing and thus learning something new?
Where I have not been so moved to change my mind or position is where it is fact-free, built upon erroneously cited or misconstrued "fact."
People can also have very powerful, even life-changing, personal experiences that can't help but change their views. One can understand, even sympatize with that, but It does not necessarily change or even alter larger truths, except for them.
Excellent points, Dale.
Thank you. I found greater truth in George F. Will's long ago and oft-repeated observation: Everyone is entitled his or her own opinion, not his or her own set of "facts."
Exactly right. I think that quote goes as far back to Senator Moynihan in the 80s.
But just as important is to treat and engage with everyone respectfully. If we’re just arrogant and condescending jerks to people with whom we disagree, it doesn’t matter if we’re right on the facts. They won’t listen to us anyway.
Right on both counts; that was Will attributing the comment to Moynihan, whom he much admired. Thanks for clarifying.
And just as right about disagreeing agreeably. Anything less just prompts folks to dig in defensively.
What I learned very early in life is that it’s nearly impossible to change minds on a controversial issue unless you understand their side of the discussion as well as they do. It’s often disarming to them that you can actually speak and understand their language, and that then seems to invariably open them up to be more willing to actually listen to and discuss counter arguments. Assuming, of course, that the discussion is based on true curiosity from both parties and mutual respect in the first place, versus the typical discourse you find online.
Yes, I do this all the time in family, in business in personal relationships. The method is empathy for other perspectives and to engage in conversation with listening the primary activity, and then paraphrasing that other perspective.. and then delivering any counter point frames with that perspective.
However, that approach only works when there is an honest interest in truth telling and objectivity. The problem is that the left has adopted an ideological direction that is based on their campus indoctrination from Critical Theory. It manifests in the modern practice of woke. They adopt the principles of this set of beliefs as faith. Men can get pregnant. There are 52 genders. There is a climate crisis. Any restriction to abortion is a Handmaiden's Tale. And lastly, there is no objective truth and everything is relative to power and the oppressed.
I am a contrarian, but more than that, I am motivated by the simple understanding that I don't know everything and know in my life that my lack of knowing has led to mistakes and bad choices I have made. I am a constant student that wants to learn so my path in life is less error prone.
My attempts to engage my liberal Democrat friends to learn have almost always resulted in disappointment in a lack of logic, objectivity, facts and truths. For them, it is a faith. I can be empathetic to their faith, just like I can for pious religious faithful, except for their drive to dominate politics so they can shove it down my throat.
Haidt makes the point that appealing to a person's moral filters is the best way to get through. I get that, but then I don't know if appealing to the moral filters of people so emotionally dis-regulated is really a good move. It is enabling. I think it makes more sense to constantly remind them that they are full of shit.
The philosopher Richard Rorty argued that liberal democracies might work better if they stopped trying to give universalistic self-justifications, stopped appealing to notions like "rationality" and "human nature" and instead viewed themselves simply as promising social experiments.
Trump and MAGA generally are the champion code switchers and Democrats still think they are running against Romney and Ryan.
As a contrarian conservative I use 'code switchng', if one wants to call it that, when I am the only conservative in a group of 20 some elderly persons who mostly come from the legal or academic world. I try to show respect for their arguments and let them know I hear them and in some points agree. I feel it is the only way to have a discussion with people of opposing views.
Just a technical comment... when I clicked on the link "Sohrab Ahmari’s pro-labor case for restricting immigration" it went to a Wapo article on code switching re abortion in Kansas. No biggie but I was curious as I thought labor and immigration was the default not a code switch, take this down if you want.
Fixed, thanks for flagging