What do you need to be convinced?

[Hygro]

We've all come across an ideology or two that failed to persuade us. But a lot of them didn't just fail to persuade us because it was weak, but it failed to persuade in the same shared way that most ideologies or perspectives fail to convince.

This thread is about sharing those things that all the others keep leaving out. All the things that never get addressed. That one thing that they need to prove or disprove to make their points that you just never see. What things are like that for you?

 

[Kyriakos]

The usual issue is that those who try to convince others, tend to be even less intelligent than those others who they aim to convince.
In my view it is only useful sometimes to try to help, and that never has to do with ideology. It just has to do with basic self-respect and views which act against it.

 

[Hygro]

Let me clarify and say my OP but with an eye toward our discussions with CFC.

 

[Kyriakos]

Isn't it even worse when dealing with people online, though? I mean they cannot even know how you look at them, or if you are upset or carefree, calm, friendly or hostile.

In my view most people reach their own balance, which often contains myriads of thoughts that are *most probably* against their own good. But no one can actually give them his own views; at best they will form their own impression of what was said. This is both good and bad, of course..

 

[Glassfan]

A new ideology would have to explain things that have happened in the past to my satisfaction. It would also have to be reasonably accurate at predicting future trends. So far, science is the only ideology that works well for me.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I once asked somebody who was seeking to change society for the better for an example of what society's structure would look like under their system. They said they didn't know. And I found that terrifying.

 

[luiz]

I think the grown up way to look at the world is to analyze facts individually instead of trying to find a grand system, a theory of everything.

So the question I always ask myself is: "is this true?" as opposed to: "does this fit into the theory that Mr. X laid out God-knows-how-many-years-ago?"

 

[Perfection]

Free beer goes a long way.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I vaguely remember a thread like this ages back.


But if online, and on CFC, it's extremely unlikely I'll change my opinion. Be more tolerant of another one? Maybe, though I like to think I can understand others' points of view to begin with (but perhaps that is an arrogant assumption on my part). But ironically maybe this attempt at tolerance makes it more difficult to change opinions, in a way.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I guess it is easy for me, as it's proven over and over again I'm wrong about everything.

 

[warpus]

We've all come across an ideology or two that failed to persuade us. But a lot of them didn't just fail to persuade us because it was weak, but it failed to persuade in the same shared way that most ideologies or perspectives fail to convince.

This thread is about sharing those things that all the others keep leaving out. All the things that never get addressed. That one thing that they need to prove or disprove to make their points that you just never see. What things are like that for you?

You will never convince me of an ideology, because ideologies never apply to everything 100%. So while an ideology might be amazing at tackling a specific case in a specific context and I'd agree with you to that approach then - I'll never agree that the ideology in question should be used in a broader sense than that - unless you bring forth every possible scenario and apply the ideology to it and show that it will lead to a good and efficient solution to whichever problem it happens to be. This is of course probably impossible.

I think accepting an ideology can be dangerous because a lot of people then throw that ideology at any situation in the world, even if it might not really be suited very well to yielding a solution to the problem, whatever it may be. So for example say someone convinces you that the libertarian ideology is good - and you agree and convert - you'll then start using libertarian strategies to solve problems - they will be good for some things, but not for others. You'll likely (not you you, the generic you) plow ahead and use the ideology as a tool even if the solution calls for something entirely different.

I have yet to encounter an ideology that works in all situations, so for now I have to assume that people who accept an ideology as a blanket solution for all problems are living dangerously.

But say you want to convince me of some specific thing.. The level and sophistication of your arguments required to convince me depends fully on the level of claim you are making. If you are saying that your best friend's name is Bob.. Well.. I know of several people who have best friends.. I also know some people named Bob.. Why would I not believe you? It seems like an incredibly likely proposition.

Now, if you are claiming that a supernatural event just took place, like.. oh I don't know, that you saw a flying unicorn that pooped bacon pancakes as it flew across the sky - put your science hat on because I am going to need a hell of a lot more proof and sophistication of arguments to be convinced that this actually happened.

So it really depends, but I will likely never accept an ideology as a solution to everything. As such I will probably refuse to "embrace" any ideology, as it is likely to stray me from valid solutions to problems in some (or a lot of ) cases.

 

[Kyriakos]

as it's proven over and over again I'm wrong about everything.

You are wrong about that too
(ie you are not wrong about everything, you should like yourself more ).

 

[Zack]

Let me clarify and say my OP but with an eye toward our discussions with CFC.

So this only applies to discussions with other intellectuals?

 

[Tahuti]

We are raised to close a certain ideology when we grow up, which makes us negatively predisposed to any ideology that appears to contradict the values of any ideology we have been raised to. That's key. I think most of us have been raised to a certain ideology of democracy, freedom and equal rights, which makes most of CFC attracted to either socialism, anarchism, communism, liberalism and libertarianism or anything in between. Very few here on CFC seem to have ideological sympathies outside of those groups simply because they do not intereact with such ideological values and may even appear to contradict them openly.

 

[Kennigit]

Able to predict responses and/or the ability to adequately explain the mechanisms at play and how it leads to the observed result.

To some extent new models should adequately explain past phenomenon, but understandably the mechanisms at play could be different. This is often the case with anything that particularly relates to technological development (many tools available now that may not be present in the past).

We may not predict particular events (such as an earthquake or something), but we have a very good understanding of what causes an earthquake [fault lines, etc etc], rather than saying God is punishing us.

For politics:
Humans have a pretty complex societal structure on the individual and institutional levels, but I still think there is a lot of progress in understanding why and how humans organize their society and process data.

And a lot of that leads to productive societal policies that have been and still need to be fully implemented (eg to strike down racism, sexism, etc). It also let's us understand that having legal markets of a variety of recreational material--be it pornography, marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, or others--are not going to destroy the fabric of society and can generate plenty of revenue to improve society. That social support for the elderly and poor rather than let people starve in the streets will benefit everyone. That investment into R&D will have the best return-on-investments. And a variety of other things: it's complicated, but humans are trudging their way through.

But I refuse to believe in very bold claims that contradict everything that is known about a subject without good rigorous study behind that claim.

 

[Phrossack]

To convince me that a certain ideology is correct, you'll have to prove that its values are the same as mine, that its goals are worthy, that it is internally consistent, that it is flexible enough to adapt to different situations and universal enough to be relevant to most things, and that it has practical, sensible, moral means of achieving its goals.

Also, and this is very important, you have to make your case politely and reasonably. If you try to convince me by being a sarcastic bully, I'll have a very bad impression of you and your ideology. Rudeness backfires, and it's sad and confusing that people still use it in debates.

I'll also be turned off if you're slavishly devoted to this ideology. Ideologues are too invested in their pet ideas to change their minds about them.

Of course, most peddlers of ideologies are in fact ideologues, and no ideology is perfect, so I don't really bother with them at all, unless you consider my personal Weltanschauung to be an ideology. I rarely share it and never try to proselytize. There's not much point in doing so.

 

[Hygro]

I think one of the most compelling things is when someone correctly understands my POV and can articulate it, and then proceed to make a case in light of that, keeping to arguments of cause-effect.

@Phrossack, at the core it needs to be consistent with your values. How do you know then when something comes along and has better values? Even when those better values, being values, seem offensive at first?

 

[Phrossack]

I think one of the most compelling things is when someone correctly understands my POV and can articulate it, and then proceed to make a case in light of that, keeping to arguments of cause-effect.

@Phrossack, at the core it needs to be consistent with your values. How do you know then when something comes along and has better values? Even when those better values, being values, seem offensive at first?

Values seem to be the very core of one's beliefs. There's nothing more basic. They're similar to likes and dislikes. Not much reasoning behind them, just opinion.

For example, I value personal happiness (amongst other things). Why? Because I enjoy being happy. Why? Well, it's tautological, really. Of course I enjoy being happy; happiness is enjoyable by its very definition. So what do you mean, "better?" Values are so personal, so subjective, that the concept of "better" simply doesn't apply.

 

[Tahuti]

I notice that very right-wing ideologies opposed to capitalism like traditionalism, paleoconservatism and fascism tend to very strongly emphasize natural beauty and irrationality. I can very well understand why someone would like these ideologies, in spite of their implications. The New Left has largely subsumed those values of beauty and irrationality while opposing the values of extreme hierarchy.

 

[Traitorfish]

You will never convince me of an ideology, because ideologies never apply to everything 100%. So while an ideology might be amazing at tackling a specific case in a specific context and I'd agree with you to that approach then - I'll never agree that the ideology in question should be used in a broader sense than that - unless you bring forth every possible scenario and apply the ideology to it and show that it will lead to a good and efficient solution to whichever problem it happens to be. This is of course probably impossible.

I largely agree. Closed systems only really make sense from the inside, so unless a person sets out (conciously or not) to revise their views in conformity with the system, I don't think they're going to be properly won over to it.

I once asked somebody who was seeking to change society for the better for an example of what society's structure would look like under their system. They said they didn't know. And I found that terrifying.

That's interesting, because when people propose that intellectuals have the ability, responsibility or even right to imagine entire social structures and impose them onto the world, I find that terrifying.

Takes all sorts.