On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 20:03:00 GMT+1, Tina Hall
<Tina_Hall@kruemel.org> wrote in
<news:MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet_5534dfc5@fi donet.org>
in rec.arts.sf.misc:

> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

[...]

>> That would be fine. But unless people believe that their
>> views have no intellectual basis at all,

> I doubt people believe that. Whether it's true by your
> view or not doesn't affect their take on it.

>> I don't see why they would object to subjecting the
>> intellectual basis of their views to argument with those
>> whose views are different.

> That's a blind spot with you, then. Not understanding how
> other people do not think the way you do.

Or that they may make a distinction between contexts in
which such argument is appropriate and contexts in which it
isn't.

[...]

Brian

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Graham Woodland <gray@graeghama.plus.comb.invalid> wrote:
>> David Friedman wrote:

(Moved here from rasf.composition.)

>> It isn't irrational for people to be reluctant to be persuaded
>> against the grain of their experience, which embodies a huge amount
>> of low-level data selected for personal salience, and to only a small
>> subset of which they have direct and conscious access.

> I agree. But ending an argument with some version of "your conclusion
> still seems wrong to me, but I agree that my reasons for thinking so
> turn out to be inadequate so I will have to reconsider the question"
> doesn't require one to be instantly persuaded--merely to recognize
> the current status of the subset of reasons that are easiest to get
> at.

Which asserts that they are willing to do that, or see it the way you
do. But the whole point is that the people in question aren't willing to
do that, and don't see it the way you do.

I wonder what keeps you from realizing that not all people think like
you want them to think.

They don't. Thus discussions don't work out. Thus discussions are
unpleasant. Thus the idea to move them elsewhere.

Yet you argue that they be kept because you think people should respond
differently, and start arguing your cause to be reasonable, and they
only need to behave as you suggest.

You make up a hypothetical group of audience and participants, and
reason how it would be sensible for them to behave. Your hypothetical
group doesn't include the actual people involved.

The actual people involved react differently, the discussion turning
unpleasant for them and bystanders. You're the only one left benefiting.
Wishing others to benefit isn't making it so. You can't will people to
think and behave differently.

Do you see how it's going round in circles, how even in talking _about_
these kinds of exchanges you want them to change their reality to yours,
so everything goes smoothly?

But fact is that some people don't want to think and behave differently.
Whether that's reasonable or not, it's the way it is. Providing
arguments for why that's not sensible isn't going to change the way they
think and behave, because - as turned up somewhere in this thread - they
don't accept reasons for changing their behaviour and thinking, they
want to keep their way. They think they're right just as you do. However
they arrived at their opinions. Your path to arriving at opinions falls
flat with them, because they take a different path, sometimes it seems
to me they take no path at all, just blindly accept what they are
taught. All too often, with people in general, opinions aren't based on
facts and calculations and conclusions.

Basically, your facts and reason approach finds no docking place with
your target; it exists in an entirely different dimension.

So suggesting how your approach is met with someone responding as you
consider reasonable, is doing the very thing discussed.

And a benefit to someone's writing nowhere in sight. It's just
exchanging views. While that may be interesting and entertaining for you
and your discussion-partner, it has nothing to do with composing SF. It
doesn't even have anything to do with the proposed FAQ addition, because
it doesn't take the actual people involved into account.

>> Perhaps your diagram might be better with two axes labelled
>> 'intuition/intellection' on the one hand, and 'commitment' on the
>> other.

> That would be fine. But unless people believe that their views have
> no intellectual basis at all,

I doubt people believe that. Whether it's true by your view or not
doesn't affect their take on it.

> I don't see why they would object to subjecting the intellectual basis
> of their views to argument with those whose views are different.

That's a blind spot with you, then. Not understanding how other people
do not think the way you do. And other people don't necessarily work the
way you consider reasonable (yet you assume that they only need the
flaws pointing out to reconsider).

It would make things much easier if you just accepted that as fact.
(There's certainly enough evidence. Think of all the prejudices floating
around the globe, and how it's impossible to convince some people that
<target> is not evil, less than human, <insert appropriate bias>. I
recklessly assume you're informed enough to know that these people
exist.)

Just because someone has less radical beliefs doesn't mean they didn't
arrive at their opinion by the same process (which discards reason and
facts).

> The arguments here aren't of the form "and since your reasons for
> doing X have been shown to be mistaken, you must stop doing X right
> now." Or at least, I can't remember any such.

But even in this post you are suggesting a behaviour for them. The very
act not considering how they work, only considering what you see as
reasonable.

But people don't all work the way you would consider reasonable.

It would be nice if you considered that in your replies or suggestions
for their behaviour. Especially since your approach seems to be a
minority.

--
Tina
WIP: Magic Earth (7/6): 101649 words
WISuspension: Seasons & Elements trilogy
Posted to Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.misc.

In message <7nmgpe4tzkbt.l1juy5qmzx1i.dlg@40tude.net>, Brian M. Scott
<b.scott@csuohio.edu> writes
>On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 20:03:00 GMT+1, Tina Hall
><Tina_Hall@kruemel.org> wrote in
><news:MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet_5534dfc5@fi donet.org>
>in rec.arts.sf.misc:
>
>> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> That would be fine. But unless people believe that their
>>> views have no intellectual basis at all,
>
>> I doubt people believe that. Whether it's true by your
>> view or not doesn't affect their take on it.
>
>>> I don't see why they would object to subjecting the
>>> intellectual basis of their views to argument with those
>>> whose views are different.
>
>> That's a blind spot with you, then. Not understanding how
>> other people do not think the way you do.
>
>Or that they may make a distinction between contexts in
>which such argument is appropriate and contexts in which it
>isn't.
>
Absolutely! I just wanted to second everything Tina said and also agree
with Brian's slight amendment.

There are time when I'm open to purely rational argument, other times
not. Sometimes it's the topic -- I'm much more likely to engage solely
in rational thought when deciding whether to install double-glazing, for
example -- and sometimes it's the location. However much I may feel my
house could do with double-glazing, I'm not going to buy it from a bloke
who just happens to go to the same writers' group. Or rather I might,
but the absolute maximum I would want him to do at the meeting would be
to say (if double-glazing happened to come up casually in conversation),
"Oh, I sell double-glazing! Do have a brochure." I could then take the
brochure away and compare details and prices with those offered by other
firms.

What I would *not* want to do is start a complicated discussion about
size of house, number of windows, how much I was prepared to pay, would
cavity wall and loft insulation actually be a better idea? and what sort
of savings I was looking for on my heating bills, when the rest of the
group are trying to discuss a problem another member is having with
Chapter 7.

To embark on such a discussion would be inappropriate to the location
and therefore rude and if the double-glazing salesman kept pressing me
to go into the details then and there, I would get angry because I was
being forced to go into details I didn't have with me at the time and
only too aware on the disruption our debate was having on the normal
flow of conversation.

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk