• Track_Shovel
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is why, rather than slapping people in the face with a mountain of research, I try to ask them questions that lead them to the conclusion I want them to reach. Oh we discuss along the way, but you get a lot less of the black and white thinking bold statements that someone entrenched in their beliefs tends to make

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The research backs up your statement. Especially if you yourself are genuinely interested in the conversation, and also willing to update your own thinking, along with helping get everyone in the conversation to start understanding the real answers.

      In case you haven’t listened to it, the You Are Not So Smart podcast covers the topic of how to get people to change on a pretty regular basis. It’s a great podcast that talks a lot about conspiracies, misinformation, and how to combat them.

      https://youarenotsosmart.com/podcast/

      My favorite part of this podcast is that if you listen to it from the start (nearly 300 episodes at this point), you can hear him slowly become very jaded and pessimistic, but then as the podcast goes on, he starts turning around his opinion and gets exited and optimistic about all the progress that is made. It’s a really great podcast and makes me excited for the future.

    • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is just the Socratic method. It’s like…the oldest formal rhetorical strategy.

      • abbenm@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t think so? The Socratic method wasn’t necessarily a strategy intended to carefully persuade someone by bypassing psychological blockers. If anything, Socrates’ counterparts were often antagonized and angered by his questions because he exposed contradictions.

        I think the ethos behind it was that Socrates presumed he knew nothing, other people seemed like they knew things, so he asked them what they knew, since others were so bold as to make knowledge claims.