Conversations with people with delusions of infallibility

[Revoltingest]

Winner!
...

Oops. Sorry for bothering you again. (cringe, cower)

Frubal me, & you're forgiven.

 

[Niatero]

Some people have a need to be right even when they're wrong.

Yes, but what are some ways that you respond to that? Leave them alone? Fight fire with fire? Smoke some -- smoke a pipe?

 

[Heyo]

Most of the time, it's hardly even worth it, so I would just walk away. If that's not an option, then fighting fire with fire might help. Sometimes, you have to hold your ground and be just as stubborn as they are.

If they say "Yes, it is," then you say "No, it isn't" with equal conviction.

Some ideas are dangerous, and it is worth fighting them, independent of who spreads them.

If they say "Yes, it is", then you say "No, it isn't", and cite the papers which show that, or build a logical chain that shows how they are wrong.

 

[Tomef]

The idea of there being a simplistic "right" and "wrong" is an assumption I aim to not entitle. The painting of the landscape is not the landscape and every artist must paint the landscape in the fashion that suits who and what they are. Do not ask the artist to change their style for this is folly. Instead ask the artist to marvel at many other different paintings of the same landscape they themselves paint and see if they can appreciate the aesthetic. The artist may continue their favored style, honing it and refining it into something even more beautiful. The artist may adopt elements of another style, evolving and changing into something else that is beautiful. A few artists might simply refuse to walk into the gallery and look at other paintings of the landscape that they themselves paint; they only want to look at paintings by themselves or those who paint in a similar style. It could be they just plain don't understand other styles and see no value in them.

So be it. It will be as it must be. I don't really see a "right" or "wrong" to it, usually.

That’s a great way to look at the whole question of debate, but I don’t think it can always hold. If a person insists that their interpretation of something is ‘fact’, when there is no basis for that belief, that may be a matter of perspective - but a perspective of not knowing something that can be known. In that situation a person might choose to hear what other people say, and learn something more about whatever the issue is, or they might refuse to do either and just continue to repeat their ‘facts’ with small variations in how they are presented. In that case the person is wrong by choice.

Many things are relative, not everything is. The Earth is not a flat disk, all people of a political persuasion are not inherently evil, to give some extreme examples. There are lots of ways of being wrong about something on the spectrum from views that are demonstrably incorrect to those for which the evidence proves at least the experience of those things to be consistent with what can be known about them, and inconsistent with views that ignore the evidence.

 

[LadyJane]

Learning how to decipher when to proceed and when to cut bait is beneficial to any conversation. For everyone involved. That point is something each individual must figure out on their own. It's usually a matter of discussing a subject with people who are as curious about the topic as you are.

When folks mainly want to make themselves the subject and focus on personal anecdotes it takes away from the objective arguments being made. If that is, indeed, what a thread sets out to do. The discussion turns personal and feelings get hurt along the way. Things are perceived as an attack when it hits too close to home. It's completely unnecessary. Plenty of threads are made available for the personal side of things.

The same rule applies to those mired in ideology. There's no distance between the person and the topic. It makes discussing current events very difficult when someone is already defensive out of the gate. They've made up their mind and assumed all the things they think you'd say. Which means the conversation was already over before it had the chance to begin.

Taking a beat and mulling things over, not taking yerself too seriously and having the self control it takes to simply walk away. Some folks feel the need to always get the last word. Let 'em have it.

 

[Vinayaka]

You'd say all creationists have the same personality trait?

I have no idea. I've never had many conversations with creationists, nor is that about to happen. What's your take on it?

 

[Spice]

I like to find out "why" they think as they do. Their reason may give me new insight. If it becomes obvious they are stuck in "because" and have no concrete support, then I generally move on.

Sometimes the rub it's just difficulty in expressing thought. I have that issue, myself. It's one of the primary reasons I've renewed interest in online forum chat. Explaining my POV keeps the brain gears greased, and hearing the POVs of others prevents my discernment from rusting.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Fools can't be separated from their folly. At least not unless they decide to separate themselves by wising up

 

[Vinayaka]

Sometimes people look to me like they think their views can't be wrong. Maybe they don't always really think that, and it just looks that way, but for purposes of this discussion I'm just thinking of how it looks to me. What do you do when it looks that way to you and/or what are some good ideas about what to do? Leave them alone? Try to break through their defenses? Never give up trying to reason with them? I only just thought of this question and haven't thought much about it, so I'm having trouble thinking of examples of what to do.

This old thread I started might interest you. Infallibility

 

[Alien826]

Most of the time, it's hardly even worth it, so I would just walk away. If that's not an option, then fighting fire with fire might help. Sometimes, you have to hold your ground and be just as stubborn as they are.

If they say "Yes, it is," then you say "No, it isn't" with equal conviction.

 

[Quintessence]

That’s a great way to look at the whole question of debate, but I don’t think it can always hold. If a person insists that their interpretation of something is ‘fact’, when there is no basis for that belief, that may be a matter of perspective - but a perspective of not knowing something that can be known. In that situation a person might choose to hear what other people say, and learn something more about whatever the issue is, or they might refuse to do either and just continue to repeat their ‘facts’ with small variations in how they are presented. In that case the person is wrong by choice.

Many things are relative, not everything is. The Earth is not a flat disk, all people of a political persuasion are not inherently evil, to give some extreme examples. There are lots of ways of being wrong about something on the spectrum from views that are demonstrably incorrect to those for which the evidence proves at least the experience of those things to be consistent with what can be known about them, and inconsistent with views that ignore the evidence.

The notion of painters and landscapes and maps of territories can always hold - if the painter of the landscape chooses to render their painting in the fashion that they do, it is what it is. This may not be something some like to hear, but again, it is what it is. It matters not what the "facts" are with respect to human behavior - humans will behave and act on what they render for themselves.

Such is a lesson that can be derived from many knowledge-paths, including the modern studies of psychology. I see little purpose to denying the nature of something - if one painter renders Earth as flat, it is so for them and that's the end of it. They will behave accordingly. One can whine about the content of their rendering all one wants, it does not change what they have put to the canvas. Just don't go to their exhibitions if one cannot handle different art contents. I used to hate abstract art until I learned how to have the eyes to see and understand it. Before then, I couldn't handle it. Some cannot handle the rendering of Earth-as-flat. They are set in their own ways, insist they have the "fact" of the matter. They forget, perhaps, that all humans are finite, idiot mammals who have a fraction of a glimpse of the totality of everything. Or perhaps they do not, and believe themselves gods who are all-knowing and true-knowing. It is all paintings of landscapes anyway. Or is it?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Sometimes people look to me like they think their views can't be wrong. Maybe they don't always really think that, and it just looks that way, but for purposes of this discussion I'm just thinking of how it looks to me. What do you do when it looks that way to you and/or what are some good ideas about what to do? Leave them alone? Try to break through their defenses? Never give up trying to reason with them? I only just thought of this question and haven't thought much about it, so I'm having trouble thinking of examples of what to do.

I’ve not really got suggestions to your question but wanted to say that I love the way you phrased this; I find it admirable.

To me, your attentive reflections signalise wisdom and I’m sure this considerate, inner wisdom that you bear within will guide you perfectly well.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Tomef]

The notion of painters and landscapes and maps of territories can always hold - if the painter of the landscape chooses to render their painting in the fashion that they do, it is what it is. This may not be something some like to hear, but again, it is what it is. It matters not what the "facts" are with respect to human behavior - humans will behave and act on what they render for themselves.

To me that seems like taking an idea beyond its own limits - sure people can render their own versions of reality. As you say, psychology/neuroscience, philosophy, other disciplines point to how we create realities, but those terms are often misunderstood. A useful example is Bruno Latour; being asked at a conference by an earnest physicist if he believed there truly is no reality became a turning point in how he presented his ideas. He realised that people were taking him too literally - or rather that they misunderstood his investigation of how ideas about the world are constructed as a mission to declare such processes invalid.

We do interpret the world, maybe in some sense we create it, but that isn’t the whole story. Facts can’t be taken out of the equation, they are there whether understood, ignored or rejected. A flat earther lives in a timezone, on a globe that turns every day towards the sun. Facts of the sort that make a flat earth a fiction. Everyone on the planet experiences those same things, however interpreted. Whether they are not ‘real’ in some other sense, they are factual elements of our collective experience of the world. The person who believes supporters of another political party are all evil by definition is wrong, the person who misconstrues someone else’s ideas is wrong about what that person meant. These are things that happen all the time, if all interpretations were correct words would literally have no intrinsic meaning - and they do. My niece used to say she doesn’t eat meat, but she does eat hamburgers. So she eats meat (not that I would ever say that to her). But her eating meat, sometimes, is a fact. Latour’s carefully constructed ideas were misunderstood by some scientists - they were wrong about his meaning. And so on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

They forget, perhaps, that all humans are finite, idiot mammals who have a fraction of a glimpse of the totality of everything.

Not to mention those idiot mammals who believe they have a fraction glimpse of a the paranormal and seek to titillate others with their insights.

 

[Niatero]

This old thread I started might interest you. Infallibility

Thanks.

 

[Niatero]

The notion of painters and landscapes and maps of territories can always hold - if the painter of the landscape chooses to render their painting in the fashion that they do, it is what it is. This may not be something some like to hear, but again, it is what it is. It matters not what the "facts" are with respect to human behavior - humans will behave and act on what they render for themselves.

Such is a lesson that can be derived from many knowledge-paths, including the modern studies of psychology. I see little purpose to denying the nature of something - if one painter renders Earth as flat, it is so for them and that's the end of it. They will behave accordingly. One can whine about the content of their rendering all one wants, it does not change what they have put to the canvas. Just don't go to their exhibitions if one cannot handle different art contents. I used to hate abstract art until I learned how to have the eyes to see and understand it. Before then, I couldn't handle it. Some cannot handle the rendering of Earth-as-flat. They are set in their own ways, insist they have the "fact" of the matter. They forget, perhaps, that all humans are finite, idiot mammals who have a fraction of a glimpse of the totality of everything. Or perhaps they do not, and believe themselves gods who are all-knowing and true-knowing. It is all paintings of landscapes anyway. Or is it?

I’m curious. Your mention of maps and territories has me wondering if you’ve read Korzybski.

 

[Niatero]

I’ve not really got suggestions to your question but wanted to say that I love the way you phrased this; I find it admirable.

To me, your attentive reflections signalise wisdom and I’m sure this considerate, inner wisdom that you bear within will guide you perfectly well.


Humbly,
Hermit

Thanks.

 

[Quintessence]

Not to mention those idiot mammals who believe they have a fraction glimpse of a the paranormal and seek to titillate others with their insights.

Wisdom is wisdom, knowledge is knowledge, art is art, value is value. What does it matter if the human mouth it comes from is doing it "seek to X, or Y, or Z" or whatever? Then again, I'm part of a religion that believes in opening doorways to inspiration, not slamming them shut.

 

[Niatero]

I haven’t had a chance yet to observe what I do, but I have some more thoughts about it. I might do what I want to do with everyone, post friendly comments and questions, and sometimes say what I think. Maybe what I do (want to learn to do) in a conversation when it looks to me like a person thinks they’re infallible isn’t much different from what I want to do with anyone else. Maybe it just affects where I think the conversation can go, and what questions and comments to post.

 

[Quintessence]

I’m curious. Your mention of maps and territories has me wondering if you’ve read Korzybski.

Nope. Probably. I couldn't say.

As mentioned, knowledge is knowledge. It comes from everything and everywhere to be followed or not as one wishes. Like convergent evolution, the same wisdom oft rises from different wells in different places and minds and ages.