|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #985608 added June 14, 2020 at 12:16am
Restrictions: None
Oh, Pinions
"The problem with internet quotes is that you can't always depend on their accuracy" ~Abraham Lincoln
https://qz.com/1513176/john-stuart-mills-philosophy-shows-arguing-online-is-futi...
150 years ago, a philosopher showed why it’s pointless to start arguments on the internet
Wildly inaccurate facts and spurious arguments are unavoidable features of social media. Yet no matter how infuriatingly wrong someone is, or just how much counter-evidence you have at your disposal, starting arguments on the internet rarely gets anyone to change their mind. Nearly a century-and-a-half ago, British philosopher John Stuart Mill explained, in a few clear sentences, why certain arguments simply won’t go anywhere.
So despite the sensationalist headline, a philosopher made a point about arguments in general, and, quelle surprise, the point applies to arguments on a specific medium.
Philosophers, of course, are often wrong, but it's hard to argue with John Stuart Mill. Because he's dead.
Mill highlights the often overlooked reality that many opinions aren’t based on facts at all, but feelings. And so, contradictory points of information don’t shift emotionally rooted arguments, but only cause people to dig deeper into their emotions to hold onto those views.
Of course, MY opinions are entirely based on rationality and facts, while THEIRS are all emotionally based and WRONG.
And chartered psychologist Rob Yeung, whose book How to Stand Out emphasizes the effectiveness of emotions, rather than logic, in convincing others to agree with you, points to research showing that use of metaphors motivate people to make decisions.
1. What the neurological fuck is a "chartered psychologist?"
2. I've been saying that metaphors are powerful, but does anyone listen? No. They're brick walls.
3. "motivate" points to "use" and thus should be "motivates." Does no one edit anymore? Pay no attention to these editor-less blog entries.
There are often multiple ways of interpreting a single point of information and so, much though some people might like to think they’re right about everything, there are surprisingly few issues to which there’s an unequivocally correct opinion.
Except mine, of course.
Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view.
Now why would I go and do that? It might turn out that I'm wrong, which of course is impossible, and even if it were possible I could never admit it. So it must be that I've been brainwashed.
Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts.
Unpossible.
There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.
No, YOU are wrong, and probably a sheep-shagger too.
Okay, seriously, though, like most philosophy, this is not helping. Joking aside, yes, I could be wrong. But am I supposed to think that I might be wrong about issues like:
 Science is the best tool we have for figuring things out, even if it's not perfect;
Racism is bad;
Vaccination saves lives;
Apollo 11 put two dudes on the actual Moon;
The Earth is roughly spherical
etc.?
I've run into arguments against all of these positions. Some of them, of course, come from trolls who are just trying to get a reaction, which I try not to provide. But some people actually believe the opposite of the above statments, and they're painfully, objectively, dangerously, wrong.
I also have opinions that, yes, could be wrong. Not only that, but I might have facts wrong. If so, I try to be open-minded when I get new facts. My problem in that regard is that I have a lousy memory and I tend to forget the stupid shit I used to believe. It's one reason I blog. But then I'd have to go back through old entries and cringe at old beliefs, and that's painful so I don't do it.
Still, I understand and respect that some people believe differently than me on, for example, the existence (or lack thereof) of a deity, or whether or not we're living in an advanced simulation (or that, effectively, these are the same belief). I admit that if a flying saucer landed near me and a little bald guy came out and asked me to take him to my leader, well, first of all, I'd ask if he could wait until we have a sane leader, but mostly, assuming I'm sober, I'd abandon my disbelief in sentient extraterrestrial life in a snap.
Unlike some people on the internet, I do seek out contradicting views, or, at the very least, I don't automatically dismiss them -- unless they're patently absurd, like the contradicting views to my bullet points above.
Still, nothing's worth the drama or hassle of arguing about it on the internet, or even, usually, in person. Just have a beer and relax already. |
© Copyright 2020 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
