"The researchers suggest that this conflation of agreement with listening quality arises because speakers believe their views are correct, leading them to infer that a disagreeing listener must not have been listening very well.
This aligns with the theory of naive realism, which holds that people usually feel that their views are objective and correct."
Aumann's Agreement Theorem says that two people acting rationally and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree.
The idea is, someone needs to be wrong about *something* for the disagreement to exist in the first place. Either have a fact wrong, or be making an incorrect conclusion from the facts. And rational actors should want to know if they're wrong.
Second, I think it's actually pretty trivial that people feel their views are correct. Why would you hold a view you felt was incorrect?
So when someone walks away without being convinced, it must be because they don't have all the facts, right? And since you were giving them the facts, it must mean they didn't listen.
Except, humans of course aren't rational actors. Philosophy always misses how messy human interactions are.
(I'm disagreeing here with Aumann, not you...)
> The idea is, someone needs to be wrong about *something* for the disagreement to exist in the first place. Either have a fact wrong, or be making an incorrect conclusion from the facts. And rational actors should want to know if they're wrong.
When it comes to discussing what's true, then yes. That doesn't take into account being in disagreement over the best course of action to take (perhaps disagreeing over what to optomise for, rather than how to optimise for it), or when it comes to discussing less objective subjects such as art, having different opinions, preferences, focuses, or needs.
Different subjective experiences also tend to combine with people talking at crossed purposes a lot because they don't *realise* different people have different experiences. If one of the people talking is, say, colourblind and doesn't realise, or has much more sensitive hearing than the other one and doesn't realise, it's easy for them to get into a disagreement about what's clearly distinguishable or too loud. Which admittedly is another case of missing information, but what they're wrong about isn't really what's being discussed so much as whether the two people having the discussion can even both perceive the thing being discussed in the same manner if at all. (Kind of like the whole "Is my sense of 'red' the same as your sense of 'red'?" thing, only you can objectively prove it isn't in such cases.)
> So when someone walks away without being convinced, it must be because they don't have all the facts, right?
>
> Except, humans of course aren't rational actors.
I spent far too long expecting people to be rational. It turns out a lot of what people do is caused by emotions, and that includes not wanting to learn new information, or have to admit being wrong about anything (especially with sunken time/cost/effort/etc).
It sounds like what this particular philosopher was overlooking was that people have emotions and are often not merely influenced but even actively led by them.
It turns out a lot of people do *not* want to know if they're wrong, as being wrong might be emotionally shielding them from an uncomfortable truth they'd rather avoid. Being corrected about that is something they'll actively resist as a personal attack.
And that's just emotions, before even considering being tired or hungry, and so thinking at a diminished capacity.
Also, it turns out neurotypical people tend to want to optimise their social interactions for group cohesion rather than factual accuracy. This seems to be quite advantageous for most people most of the time, although it can lead to quite bad project failures.
You're right, human interactions are messy.
Oh, also people lie! And say things in order to assert propaganda or rhetoric rather than to try to share the truth. Which I guess can be a rational action for them to perform, although it will make for speech with logical inconsistencies.
Very messy.
For what it's worth, I think Aumann's correct given his stated assumptions. Just, those assumptions describe a scenario so narrow, it's likely never actually occurred.
From a cursory glance, it looks like these hypothetical agents are the kind of people I like talking with, but I gather I’m in a steep minority. 😅
Also, knowing people more knowledgeable than me, I do spend an awful lot of time being corrected, heh.
You’re describing the is-ought gap, yes.
Something like,
>We can agree on what is the case but disagree on what should be done about it.
However, it’s not that simple.
1. Our “is” (empirical) conclusions are also grounded in normative (ought) assumptions. That is because,
2. The concept of rationality is normative. It is emblematic of the “epistemic norms” presupposed for doing science.
3. Even reasons are normative constructs.
4. As such, if reality is something we can ascertain (if science is legitimate), then there are standards for the acquisition of truth.
5. These standards are paradigmatic of rationality.
6. Therefore, two rational agents cannot disagree about situations wherein all the facts are known.
Aumann is correct because the alternative doesn’t just undermine moral claims about the badness of suffering, it undermines all science.
I don't think it's trivial that people feel their views are correct. Obviously I don't think they're incorrect, but I hold many views that I am at best 95% confident in, and the remaining 5% is out of my reach at the moment. Not every knowledge claim (even a rational one) is purely objective — most involve some degree of inference, extrapolation, value judgment, or other form of fuzziness. That leaves plenty of room for some disagreement where the other person's position is still respectable.
I consider that there's something wrong in that theorem, at least in the way it was phrased in the 2 first paragraphs.
Mostly, I consider that there are many cases where 2 people will rationally share all of their knowledge and still disagree at the end, not because one is wrong, or being irrational. It's simply because in every argument, both parties lack some information. Nobody has ALL the information on any topic, an d most meaningful positions are actually based on predictions towards the future, which are intrinsically non-factual and somewhat subjective.
As a very simplified example, I think that the best way to deal with this particular patient is giving him no meds and only psychotherapy. A fellow doctor thinks that it's better to start with meds first, because this doctor thinks that in this case we need a quick intervention to keep them safe. Even if we share all of the information, we will disagree, because the way we weight probabilities for our predictions is different, since none of us has full information on the workings of this patient's mind.
It's simple, people just don't know why they think every little thing they think. So you cannot ever fully share all thoughts or feelings with someone else! Also, people just aren't rational machines that process logic, hard as one might try. In the end, admitting to being wrong also just sucks - more so if you dislike the other person. And we shouldn't forget that some things just take time and a lot of effort to grasp, even if given the relevant facts. What might be an obvious conclusion to one person could be difficult for someone else - or else there wouldn't be any disagreements in science ;)
I agree with what you said, but I can't fully connect that with my comment. Can you please explain a bit more how your paragraph is related to mine? I'm interested in understanding further
I don't understand how this leaves any room for judgment, preference, and morality. we can't agree to disagree about how many sides a square has, but what about how to raise a kid? there is no "correct" answer to a lot of questions until you pick a value system to judge it by. we can agree to disagree on the value system, and we can both be right.
That's just because "how to raise a kid" Is not a well-formed question. If you and I have different value systems, we can each learn each other's value systems without adopting them. In that case we will agree on the answers to both these questions "how to raise a kid to make you happy" and "how to raise a kid to make me happy" and there will be no disagreement.
It's not a value system I pick to judge whether doing stuff certain ways would be wise or right/wrong/whatever so much as I'm deciding what'd be desirable and how to get there. Mostly I defer to past judgement on deeper questions of values without feeling the need to even think about it.
When it comes to ethics unless our starting point is to assume we'd all be better off aspiring to the same general purpose or notion of paradise we'd lack for any objective critique as to why someone else would be doing it wrong to the extent they'd be doing it right given their different purpose. Like for example if only humans matter maybe our politics and economics should look one way but if all thinking feeling beings matter they should look another. If we'd disagree whether everyone should matter we're going to disagree about lots of other stuff too. The reason to decide everyone matters is to make our laws and norms other than instruments of organized selfishness because if we'd see them that way we'd lack for a reason not to try to bend them to our own special interests. Ultimately logical consistency and fairness in laws requires the spirit of the law be magnanimous.
>There is no "correct" answer to a lot of questions until you pick a value system to judge it by
There are some particularly hard-nosed logicians who would simply say that all such statements are false. For the record I'm not one of them, but I respect the commitment to the bit, and I think there's a strong possibility that they might be right.
> Why would you hold a view you felt was incorrect?
This is one of the biggest issues. Go through list of biases and ask yourself which ones you're currently falling for with your beliefs. If you approach this in good faith, you'll find it's *really really* hard.
People who know their mistakes (and actually genuinely care about not making mistakes and aren't at least consciously willing to lie) fix them.
Part of the issue too is how much research out there suggests that people change what arguments and evidence they accept based off their prior existing beliefs. So attempts to research and correct yourself could end up with you being even *more* incorrect.
The only solution I've ever found is just to try my absolute hardest to always listen and consider ideas and viewpoints I don't like and practice devils advocacy more, and I'm probably still massively under correcting.
The problem with this theorem is that a truly rational actor would also understand and be conflicted by the fact that they are never, ever 100% correct. Given enough nuance, there should nearly always be an instance, at some point in time, where the argument no longer holds.
> rational actors should want to know if they're wrong
i think it depends what their goals are - the enlightenment idea of people as truth-seeking robots is demonstrably false, even in common experience. when people are debating, they could have as their actual goal:
* status-seeking or -defense
* group identification
* management of their emotional state/cognitive dissonance
* political ends
and these are reasonable goals to have, and in all seriousness, people in real practice often or even typically rank these goals higher than an indifferent pursuit of a factual model of reality.
We can keep digging through the mess of human interaction and explain the math behind it. To wit: People tend to have different preferences over future states. When they're too different, persuasion is impossible, and when they're similar enough, you are better off being completely honest, but inbetween, there's a regime in which something called Bayesian persuasion works, and it's optimal (for both sender and receiver) to lie (and buy the lie) some of the time.
I feel like there's some linguistic conflation happening where people use words like "listen" and "hear" in part to refer to comprehension and understanding. E.g.: "Yeah, I hear you" is often used to mean "Yes, I understand" instead of literally "I heard the sounds that you made."
Maybe this is some Sapir-Whorf territory, though.
I just don't believe that anyone uses language in the strictly empirical sense that studies like these seem to presume.
10/10 book. Also regarding the book, it should be clear a different culture or childhood experience might greatly affect individuals' syntax and meaning, leading to different meanings of "I hear you".
This is accounted for. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/09567976241239935 The language they use is unambiguous, and in the free-form comments example "hear" is even used as "understand", as is clear in the context.
I feel the opposite of this and it leads to anxious rambling if I am not careful. Rather than assuming the other person isn't listening well enough I turn it around and feel like its my fault, that I am not explaining it well enough.
>that I am not explaining it well enough.
This doesn't sound quite like the opposite since you still think the other person would agree with you with more information.
"I must not have explained it well"
"No no it was perfectly clear, I just disagree with you completely"
"OK. Let me start again"
- a biweekly exchange in my house.
My favorite is "I saw it on tiktok, they're putting in a bill that (massively hyperbolic statement)"
*shows pdf of bill* where in the bill does it say this? It even has a section specifically stating it won't do that
"I don't want to argue about this"
Everyone thinks they are right. I still listen to what the other person has told me and I've changed my position plenty of times.
I have a feeling that if I continue *this* conversation that I am going to make myself look stupid, so Ill bow out.
I do see what your saying and I can't argue with that either.
No, in some cases it is *exactly* like that person is describing. The difference is we’re placing blame on *ourselves*, not the other person. I have done this to myself my entire life because of the fact that I have ADHD/autism. I truly often worry I’m not explaining things well enough, whether someone is agreeing or disagreeing on a certain topic, simply because of the way my brain works. Sometimes it is also because most people have never taken me very seriously growing up due to my differences. It’s definitely not always because of some underlying “tactic” used to excuse ignorance regarding a topic/conversation between two or more people.
It might come across as a bit difficult to understand if you don’t have these types of issues, but it’s for real.
Yeah so trauma response can be fight flight or freeze or fawn - when we placate to those around us at our own expense it can sometimes be fawn - like for me, if I am arguing and keep convincing or trying to convince someone of something, I’m highly likely lapsing into fawn. Or when I am hurt by someone but I feel I need to help them feel better first so I hold space even when I’m hurting - that’s fawn. What you described seemed a lil similar!
Thanks for the explanation. I have PTSD from a few different things from childhood through adulthood. I definitely fawn I just wasn't familiar with the term. My counselor sucks but she is better than most at the community health center.. I have gotten better at not doing it though as I know it just creates more and other problems.
That’s awesome you realize it!! If you search YouTube for it there are some great creators like crappy childhood fairy and Patrick tehan - I hope learning more helps you get more control over when you fawn!
Yeah, of course people believe their views are correct. Who holds views that they believe are incorrect? That makes no sense. If you put forth a thoughtful perspective and the other person just flatly disagrees, with no reasoning, you’re going to assume they either weren’t listening or didn’t understand what you said or didn’t care about it anyway.
Believing you are correct is different than outright assuming you are correct and that you can’t realistically be wrong. A better way to put it might be “you are not willing to consider that just because it makes sense to you, that does t necessarily make it true.”
yeah a couple of times I have said "finish the whole sentence before responding", because I was saying something along the lines of "...I thought dreams are real alternate dimensions, but then I woke up and realized that was all a dream". like they see the comma and stop reading. Then they respond with "you idiot dreams can't be alternate dimensions, you are so stupid and i hate you for writing that and now i am turning off comment response to protect myself from your stupidity". I'm like... OK?
in another weird thing, many times someone would be talking about how "not all people dream" or some other random fact, and i would respond with a cited article stating "49% of people don't dream", then the person would get super defensive and argue back, and i have to respond, "Dude I was **agreeing with you**. I provided a source for the **same argument you were making**"
Comment Threads don't have to be antagonistic, but some people see any cited response as an attack.
Like a lot of things it's a two way street.
People who don't read the original comment properly, but also people who don't read the reply to them properly.
> speakers believe their views are correct
I've often said that bigots (as one example) do not believe they are bigots, they believe they are *correct.*
Sure, but there’s a big difference between “I think this is probably true but I’m not 100% sure” and “I think this is incorrect but believe it anyway.”
True. Logically the latter statement is an oxymoron. You can't think something is wrong and also believe it. You can go between thinking one thing and another but you'd still believe the one and not the other at any given moment perhaps hopefully with some moments in between where your position is that you don't know (and hopefully the information you are processing is such to justify changing your mind so much in a short period of time).
Of course a person can think something is incorrect but lie about their actual opinions in public, but that's not thinking it's incorrect but believing it anyway, that's pretending to believe.
The point of my comment is to remind ones self of that obvious fact when engaging with such people. I see countless arguments on Reddit that go nowhere because both parties fail to remember that the other thinks their opinion is indisputable fact.
Distinction between 'correct' and 'exclusively correct.' I have views that I think may be correct (-ish) but also think that are lots of other perspectives that may also be substantive. The issue seems to arise when exclusion or categorical absolutism comes into play. Which seems to be, often.
I've definitely gotten into pseudo arguments trying to explain that I don't have a strong opinion about something because I don't know enough about it. Sometimes people demand that you stick to a strong viewpoint for some reason.
If I don't feel confident in knowing something, I try to account for that. I do not have a strong opinion about some things.
Anecdotally, I get this a lot with disagreements with my husband where he'll act like I'm not listening or not understanding. If it gets heated I have to forcefully make it clear that I heard and understood and still disagree. It's tiresome. But well, looks like he's just being a human.
how about people who disagree just not explaining themselves well?
as a natural peace keeper, I feel like I do a lot of explaining for people in social situations because two people are arguing without understanding that they don't necessarily disagree. neither one is doing a good job of explaining their point of view and they just end up talking past each other, instead of clearly communicating their position and finding the common ground.
A useful dialogue skill is repeating what the other person said before adding your disagreement. This gives a backhannel to them that you did listen, allows them to clarify if you did indeed misunderstand, and then you can move on to your disagreement. Usually couches the rejection as well.
This is part of "active listening" and it's a key way to keep the other person from feeling like you're not hearing them. It also forces their brain to re-interpret their own words as though from another source, which can help to break down internal barriers/dissociation.
I will add that it also helps to continue the conversation as though you are on the fence or in general agreement long enough to find the specific point on which you want to disagree. Disagreeing globally to an argument, without focusing on the specific nuance, can lead to shutting down the conversation prematurely. Start with "yes, that's a good point" and move on to "and also I understand it this way" when you find the nuance you want to poke at.
Or you realize they don’t actually understand their own point and are just repeating back phrases that have been told to them, and they can’t think any further or differently than those exact phrases.
Whether or not their argument is sound is--except in debate club, perhaps--*not really the point of discussion*. By repeating what the other person said before, you're taking a breath to check if you understand the problem correctly. Whether or not their argument is perfect, this is one of the only direct ways to communicate that you have been listening. When you communicate that you have been listening, they not only relax (whew, she understands me!) but also know that you're on the same page. When that has been established, it's easy for their mind to move onto the points of your argument.
If you don't establish that you're on the same page--I'm not sure why, but we humans do tend to be imperfect--the person you're talking to will have a harder time listening to *you* ("did you hear me correctly?" they may wonder).
Can happen. But there's at least a path forward if you can work through their argument statement by statement, and see where they think you're not getting it /wrong.
Usually due to a disagreement on a more fundamental principle.
Or being stuck in "defensive" mode.
> A useful dialogue skill is repeating what the other person said before adding your disagreement. This gives a backhannel to them that you did listen
according to this research, this seemingly would not be enough - it sounds like it may be helpful to agree with as much as you can in addition to repeating back what was said. it's probably the case that most of the time two reasonable people who disagree even deeply over something would nonetheless agree on 90% of the facts, and doing so explicitly may help establish mutual attention to one another.
Absolutely. Over the last few years, maybe cuz of covid maybe cuz I'm late 30s or maybe cuz of both, I've learned to understand and exercise "Agree to Disagree"
It really is a beautiful strategy, and will save sooo much brain capacity for more important things in *your* life. Because at the end of the day, someone else's opinion simply isn't that important
I disagree.
In a democratic society, other people's opinions can be *very* important and impactful.
The political power they exercise can and *will* affect you and your loved ones.
As such, I feel we have a moral obligation to dispute opinions we believe to be harmful, even if the people who hold them are intransigent. Leaving them to their echo chambers only emboldens them and reinforces ignorance.
Though it may seem didactic or condescending, if you hold any earnest convictions, you *must* argue them.
And on that same note, you must VOTE!
My experience is unless they are willing to listen to a differing opinion most arguments do nothing. I won't say that I don't say anything to people who I fundamentally disagree with but I don't expect to "win" and how far I push things really depends on how much future social interaction I am gonna have with them.
Some times it is just not worth it. (always worth it to vote though)
I agree with a caveat.
Argue the wrong way (the more other people would associate it with the word "argue" is a good heuristic for it being the wrong way) and you can make people even more resistant to changing their opinions. Express your opinions politely and respectfully with no implied expectation that the other party must change their views or else face your condemnation. Since people argue in such a way so commonly it's best to make it clear that you won't condemn them if they don't change their views. Even if their views are very harmful then it is even more important. You're not going to increase your odds of success by condemning them or making them feel belittled or stigmatized for their views. Reactance is a big thing in human psychology. You don't want to trigger it, you want them to feel invited to make a choice to change their opinion not pressured or demanded.
You also have to be ready to fully and enthusiastically accept people who changed their opinion no matter how harmful their old opinion may have been. Otherwise the person faces the pressure of not having a tribe if they change their opinion. Make a show of loving your converts and you'll get more of them. Celebrate people who changed their views and more people will change.
In my experience as a controlling person who argued with everybody, you can only really influence the opinions of the people closest to you. Maybe a tiny minority of very open minded strangers. But arguing creates division, so arguing when there is no possible winning outcome is detrimental to society.
> But arguing creates division, so arguing when there is no possible winning outcome is detrimental to society.
We already tried not arguing. It lead to the holocaust. So, that leaves us with no winning move.
I was extremely agree to disagree in my youth, but after all the insanity done by antivaxxers pre-covid (blaming autism and everything else on vaccines) that really cemented that sometimes some people just have no right to say anything on a subject because they're too unhinged. People worried about vaccines who don't quite understand them is one thing that's solved by more education, the people who don't believe in germ theory and think vaccines and the rest is all lies and 5g chip injections on the other hand are dangerously unhinged.
I feel like most disagreements are a premise issue. If you both have the same premises, the conclusions will follow. Most of the time you'll find this person is looking at the world from a completely different lens. This makes agreeing to disagree a TON easier. Arguing about conclusions is silly and unfortunately the norm.
This is usually what I jump to immediately in any discussion/debate. “Do we agree on a basis of reality for this issue?” If the answer is no, there is no point in talking about anything else. You will not have any meaningful discussion if you both don’t agree on reality.
I like your explanation. But yea, I find this issue is why communication is actually so bad. People aren’t even talking the real differences they have, they’re arguing outcomes from those differences 2-3 layers past that will not yield any productive outcomes.
I remember watching the presidential debates in 2004 as it was my first election I could vote for president. It was frustrating as hell.
Moderator: I want to ask about issue X.
A: Well the thing about issue X is this, so we should do A.
B: Actually the thing about issue X is not this, it's that, so we should do B.
A: No, I'm right.
Moderator: ok moving on to the next topic...
There was no shared reality. Global warming is and isn't real, tax breaks both pay for themselves and don't, and trickle down and don't.
It's one thing to have different values and perspectives as to the role of government, but you can't just ignore decades of evidence.
"I make the sun rise and sun set and the sun is going to go down on you. I brought you into this world and I can take you out" and other rants my father yelled at my face when I was zoning out.
This was a bad study that doesn’t actually show anything interesting, but regardless, in situations like the one you’re describing you just need to re-state the other person’s position back to them and they will see you understand it.
My favorite moment last week was when two coworkers were going back and forth on a topic, with one of them not quite understanding. After a different explanation, the one who wasn’t understanding at first said “oh, so what you are saying is I need to listen with my fucking ears”. I almost died laughing.
"Nah, you're not listening!"
You tend to only hear it from certain people, and usually when they're less trying to explain a point and more trying to force their opinion.
It's pretty common on reddit.
"A!"
"No, not A because B. Also, C because B."
"You're not getting it! A!!!" *links to article claiming A*
"No, not A." *links to article showing A is wrong because B, and C is correct.*
"You're not listening!" *links to youtube video of some random guy ignoring B and pushing A*
"No... Not A, B disproves A so C is right." *links to another article saying A is not true because B*
"You've actually proved MY point!"
Someone once said to me: “There are 2 types of listening. Listening to respond and listening to understand.”
Might be the wisest things I’ve heard in the past 10 years.
Right and just because you're "listening quite attentively" doesn't mean you're listening to understand. Tons of doctors for instance will listen to everything you say and genuinely hear it, despite having already decided their position way earlier in the conversation.
Ngl, I feel like I don't know or do "Listening to respond" much ever -- always "Listening to understand". And I see exactly how this models human behavior. It's been very confusing and often frustrating how heavily others tend to "Listen to respond", just driven by a narrow purpose or motivation instead of for open communication, growth, and understanding. It's a bit disheartening feeling like people don't even want to try to understand much of the time (or realize their approach has incompleteness).
Unfortunately, some people’s idea of “listening to understand” is “listening and therefore understanding that I’m right.” And if you don’t agree after they say what they say, they accuse you of listening to respond.
The problem with that is the implied judgement if you're not listening to understand. There are some arguments that I refuse to "understand". I'm not going to listen to understand with bigots. They're just plain wrong, it's not a both sides issue and we don't need to find a common ground where we only do half a racism or half a genocide or whatever.
This is why it's always best practice to paraphrase back to them what they said. Both ensures you understood correct, and makes them feel understood. Then you can go on to say what you need to say.
Yes but according to this study that still may not be enough. It is very much an uphill battle and most of my life experience agrees with this. There are people who can listen to disagreement acceptably but most cannot.
This definitely doesn’t work a lot of the time. Unless you just repeat back what they said word for word and nod like you agree with them (which would be entirely performative and disingenuous), they will get upset that you are putting words in their mouth or twisting their words. The way you rephrased it or restated it, it put in more objective and clear language, will not fit what they “feel” they are saying. So they will take it as further evidence that you aren’t listening to them.
As someone whose ADHD sometimes makes me go into a "garbage grammar coming out of mouth" mode, my first assumption is always that I'm not explaining things well enough :p
You’re probably explaining yourself well enough but your “bad grammar” is reason enough for them to justify that “your opinion must be wrong too”.
Humans cling to any little straw that can make them “win” an argument in their heads. Unless you’re a perfect orator, it’s pretty hard to convince someone who’s close minded. It’s a binary situation: either you have a perfect explanation or it doesn’t even matter how good it actually was.
That means that your ADHD grammar is good enough, precisely because nothing besides perfection is good enough for someone who does not want to agree.
> Humans cling to any little straw that can make them “win” an argument in their heads. Unless you’re a perfect orator, it’s pretty hard to convince someone who’s close minded.
Even that isn't necessarily enough, people looking for an excuse to dismiss will find one. Perfect argument? "You don't have enough credentials". Enough credentials? "You have too many connections and are biased". Not connected to the topic "Easy for you to say with no skin in the game, you can say those awful things because you're not affected by it"
People rarely articulate their understanding when they disagree. They usually just launch into strawmen and red herrings. This leads one to believe there must be a fundamental lack of understanding. *The coherency of the original argument is irreverent*.
One cannot disagree properly with something they do not understand. In any disagreement, it's best to steelman an interlocutor's position as the disagreement is laid out.
There are many places where the communication process can break down. But sometimes the listener is simply a moron. I have come to this conclusion based on how some people misunderstand films, essays, etc.
Does concluding that the other party is just stupid ever lead you to be more patient with them, if otherwise you might have thought they were acting in bad faith?
I would say that when I come to that conclusion I do in fact have more patience for them. I would stop trying to explain my reasoning since it would not work.
At that moment I would listen to their explanation, not respond, but simply nod and smile and try to disengage from the topic.
This is why when it comes up and I want to engage I tend to go with "So what you're saying is because X and Y therefore Z, right?"
"So what if I showed you that X wasn't true, would you still think Z is true?"
If your goal is to convince the person who is sharing their view that they're wrong - which isn't necessarily worth it in almost any case - the best bet is to convince them you understand their view first. Which means asking them more about it.
> "So what you're saying is because X and Y therefore Z, right?"
>
> "So what if I showed you that X wasn't true, would you still think Z is true?"
If you can bring your listener through that many degrees of abstraction then either you're an above average communicator (even beyond just the fact that you had this plan in the first place) or you have an above average audience.
Yeah, I couldn't imagine trying that with some of the people I have to work with. I don't for a second believe they would be able to understand that, and would lead to them just glitching for half of a second then ignoring it and repeating what they said. There's just no way.
IRL thats a pretty basic way to talk to someone in conversation about a topic.
It doesn't work on the internet because what happens online usually aren't real conversations, they're performances of debates or arguments where the goal is ultimately to "convince" an audience, not really to talk to the other person. They're also too impersonal and cluttered with others interruptions to work in the same way.
If you want to change someone’s mind let them talk and don’t disagree with them (at least not at first).
Sometimes realization comes from asking questions. Other time’s simply asking “had you considered?”
But someone with their guard up isn’t going to change their mind until you work them down slowly.
Because they need to validate the other person ( = showing understanding) before giving them opposite opinion / view. It is an issue of lack of communication skills.
Or someone is trying to use a convoluted hint and the other is too autistic (or too neurotypical in some cases) to catch the real implied meaning.
Or someone may be bipolar, experiencing many cognitive distortions such as mind-reading, catastrophizing, dichotomous thinking, blaming, emotional reasoning, inability to disconfirm, etc, and they're living in a completely different reality full of artifacts their own mind has inserted into reality.
>experiencing many cognitive distortions such as mind-reading, catastrophizing, dichotomous thinking, blaming, emotional reasoning, inability to disconfirm, etc, and they're living in a completely different reality full of artifacts their own mind has inserted into reality.
That sounds like something I'd like to know more about - do you have a book recommendation perchance?
Many of these are "cognitive distortions" or "thinking traps" which you can learn about in cognitive-behavioral therapy.
There are so, so many books about it, but give those terms a Google search.
If you want somebody to understand you and they don't, it is incumbent upon you to package the information in a way the listener can receive it.
You are the one with the information and the objective, so you have to package it in a way to be received so you can meet your goal of having the information be understood.
A lot of people are really stubborn and only see things from their perspective. If you disagree with them they just think you’re stupid.
The political system atm is a prime example of this. Just name calling at this point and I hate it.
This is a bad study that doesn’t really show anything interesting because the listener wasn’t actually agreeing or disagreeing, they were just saying one or the other as actors in a simulation. If you put forward good, well thought out points and the other person just disagrees with no reasoning of course you’re going to assume they weren’t really “listening” (or rather, understanding) what you were saying.
I feel like this really is often the case.
Most disagreements are based on past experiences with the topic, you come to the table with an idea already formed about what the other persons argument means, even when you are open to hearing what they have to say and are trying to understand and listen.
And it takes a pretty significant back and fourth for that to break down, and to move from your starting point idea of what their idea and argument is about.
You're going to feel misunderstood, especially in a world where engagement becomes more and more shallow, and doesn't allow for moving past that initial point. And also as rhetoric style fueled by social media and the like normalizes reductive reasoning, it helps make those arguments which don't listen to others points of view well very familiar and easy to fall into.
This is an evergreen online argument:
"Pie is the best food."
"I think cake is the best food."
"What I'm saying is, if you had to pick the best food it would be pie."
"Yes. I understand. I just disagree."
"Well then you've obviously never had pie before!!"
Yeah this actually happens with my fiancé and her best friend (almost always when intoxicated of course). They always think the other just didn’t understand them or listen to them properly, when instead they WERE listening they just disagree
After explaining it twelve different ways, with pictures, and causality chains, if they still don’t understand, it’s because they have the intellectual ability of a potted plant.
They often aren’t listening well either and are switch-tracking. Hearing something in a different context than the speaker intended. Which is also a sign of the speaker not listening back and seeing there is a context conflict.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
"The researchers suggest that this conflation of agreement with listening quality arises because speakers believe their views are correct, leading them to infer that a disagreeing listener must not have been listening very well. This aligns with the theory of naive realism, which holds that people usually feel that their views are objective and correct."
Aumann's Agreement Theorem says that two people acting rationally and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree. The idea is, someone needs to be wrong about *something* for the disagreement to exist in the first place. Either have a fact wrong, or be making an incorrect conclusion from the facts. And rational actors should want to know if they're wrong. Second, I think it's actually pretty trivial that people feel their views are correct. Why would you hold a view you felt was incorrect? So when someone walks away without being convinced, it must be because they don't have all the facts, right? And since you were giving them the facts, it must mean they didn't listen. Except, humans of course aren't rational actors. Philosophy always misses how messy human interactions are.
(I'm disagreeing here with Aumann, not you...) > The idea is, someone needs to be wrong about *something* for the disagreement to exist in the first place. Either have a fact wrong, or be making an incorrect conclusion from the facts. And rational actors should want to know if they're wrong. When it comes to discussing what's true, then yes. That doesn't take into account being in disagreement over the best course of action to take (perhaps disagreeing over what to optomise for, rather than how to optimise for it), or when it comes to discussing less objective subjects such as art, having different opinions, preferences, focuses, or needs. Different subjective experiences also tend to combine with people talking at crossed purposes a lot because they don't *realise* different people have different experiences. If one of the people talking is, say, colourblind and doesn't realise, or has much more sensitive hearing than the other one and doesn't realise, it's easy for them to get into a disagreement about what's clearly distinguishable or too loud. Which admittedly is another case of missing information, but what they're wrong about isn't really what's being discussed so much as whether the two people having the discussion can even both perceive the thing being discussed in the same manner if at all. (Kind of like the whole "Is my sense of 'red' the same as your sense of 'red'?" thing, only you can objectively prove it isn't in such cases.) > So when someone walks away without being convinced, it must be because they don't have all the facts, right? > > Except, humans of course aren't rational actors. I spent far too long expecting people to be rational. It turns out a lot of what people do is caused by emotions, and that includes not wanting to learn new information, or have to admit being wrong about anything (especially with sunken time/cost/effort/etc). It sounds like what this particular philosopher was overlooking was that people have emotions and are often not merely influenced but even actively led by them. It turns out a lot of people do *not* want to know if they're wrong, as being wrong might be emotionally shielding them from an uncomfortable truth they'd rather avoid. Being corrected about that is something they'll actively resist as a personal attack. And that's just emotions, before even considering being tired or hungry, and so thinking at a diminished capacity. Also, it turns out neurotypical people tend to want to optimise their social interactions for group cohesion rather than factual accuracy. This seems to be quite advantageous for most people most of the time, although it can lead to quite bad project failures. You're right, human interactions are messy. Oh, also people lie! And say things in order to assert propaganda or rhetoric rather than to try to share the truth. Which I guess can be a rational action for them to perform, although it will make for speech with logical inconsistencies. Very messy.
For what it's worth, I think Aumann's correct given his stated assumptions. Just, those assumptions describe a scenario so narrow, it's likely never actually occurred.
From a cursory glance, it looks like these hypothetical agents are the kind of people I like talking with, but I gather I’m in a steep minority. 😅 Also, knowing people more knowledgeable than me, I do spend an awful lot of time being corrected, heh.
You’re describing the is-ought gap, yes. Something like, >We can agree on what is the case but disagree on what should be done about it. However, it’s not that simple. 1. Our “is” (empirical) conclusions are also grounded in normative (ought) assumptions. That is because, 2. The concept of rationality is normative. It is emblematic of the “epistemic norms” presupposed for doing science. 3. Even reasons are normative constructs. 4. As such, if reality is something we can ascertain (if science is legitimate), then there are standards for the acquisition of truth. 5. These standards are paradigmatic of rationality. 6. Therefore, two rational agents cannot disagree about situations wherein all the facts are known. Aumann is correct because the alternative doesn’t just undermine moral claims about the badness of suffering, it undermines all science.
I don't think it's trivial that people feel their views are correct. Obviously I don't think they're incorrect, but I hold many views that I am at best 95% confident in, and the remaining 5% is out of my reach at the moment. Not every knowledge claim (even a rational one) is purely objective — most involve some degree of inference, extrapolation, value judgment, or other form of fuzziness. That leaves plenty of room for some disagreement where the other person's position is still respectable.
I consider that there's something wrong in that theorem, at least in the way it was phrased in the 2 first paragraphs. Mostly, I consider that there are many cases where 2 people will rationally share all of their knowledge and still disagree at the end, not because one is wrong, or being irrational. It's simply because in every argument, both parties lack some information. Nobody has ALL the information on any topic, an d most meaningful positions are actually based on predictions towards the future, which are intrinsically non-factual and somewhat subjective. As a very simplified example, I think that the best way to deal with this particular patient is giving him no meds and only psychotherapy. A fellow doctor thinks that it's better to start with meds first, because this doctor thinks that in this case we need a quick intervention to keep them safe. Even if we share all of the information, we will disagree, because the way we weight probabilities for our predictions is different, since none of us has full information on the workings of this patient's mind.
It's simple, people just don't know why they think every little thing they think. So you cannot ever fully share all thoughts or feelings with someone else! Also, people just aren't rational machines that process logic, hard as one might try. In the end, admitting to being wrong also just sucks - more so if you dislike the other person. And we shouldn't forget that some things just take time and a lot of effort to grasp, even if given the relevant facts. What might be an obvious conclusion to one person could be difficult for someone else - or else there wouldn't be any disagreements in science ;)
I agree with what you said, but I can't fully connect that with my comment. Can you please explain a bit more how your paragraph is related to mine? I'm interested in understanding further
I don't understand how this leaves any room for judgment, preference, and morality. we can't agree to disagree about how many sides a square has, but what about how to raise a kid? there is no "correct" answer to a lot of questions until you pick a value system to judge it by. we can agree to disagree on the value system, and we can both be right.
That's just because "how to raise a kid" Is not a well-formed question. If you and I have different value systems, we can each learn each other's value systems without adopting them. In that case we will agree on the answers to both these questions "how to raise a kid to make you happy" and "how to raise a kid to make me happy" and there will be no disagreement.
so Aumann would say that there is not, in fact, more than one way to skin a cat?
"how to skin a cat to make the cat happy" and "how to skin a cat to make me happy".
It's not a value system I pick to judge whether doing stuff certain ways would be wise or right/wrong/whatever so much as I'm deciding what'd be desirable and how to get there. Mostly I defer to past judgement on deeper questions of values without feeling the need to even think about it. When it comes to ethics unless our starting point is to assume we'd all be better off aspiring to the same general purpose or notion of paradise we'd lack for any objective critique as to why someone else would be doing it wrong to the extent they'd be doing it right given their different purpose. Like for example if only humans matter maybe our politics and economics should look one way but if all thinking feeling beings matter they should look another. If we'd disagree whether everyone should matter we're going to disagree about lots of other stuff too. The reason to decide everyone matters is to make our laws and norms other than instruments of organized selfishness because if we'd see them that way we'd lack for a reason not to try to bend them to our own special interests. Ultimately logical consistency and fairness in laws requires the spirit of the law be magnanimous.
>There is no "correct" answer to a lot of questions until you pick a value system to judge it by There are some particularly hard-nosed logicians who would simply say that all such statements are false. For the record I'm not one of them, but I respect the commitment to the bit, and I think there's a strong possibility that they might be right.
People can just have different priorities too.
> Why would you hold a view you felt was incorrect? This is one of the biggest issues. Go through list of biases and ask yourself which ones you're currently falling for with your beliefs. If you approach this in good faith, you'll find it's *really really* hard. People who know their mistakes (and actually genuinely care about not making mistakes and aren't at least consciously willing to lie) fix them. Part of the issue too is how much research out there suggests that people change what arguments and evidence they accept based off their prior existing beliefs. So attempts to research and correct yourself could end up with you being even *more* incorrect. The only solution I've ever found is just to try my absolute hardest to always listen and consider ideas and viewpoints I don't like and practice devils advocacy more, and I'm probably still massively under correcting.
The problem with this theorem is that a truly rational actor would also understand and be conflicted by the fact that they are never, ever 100% correct. Given enough nuance, there should nearly always be an instance, at some point in time, where the argument no longer holds.
> rational actors should want to know if they're wrong i think it depends what their goals are - the enlightenment idea of people as truth-seeking robots is demonstrably false, even in common experience. when people are debating, they could have as their actual goal: * status-seeking or -defense * group identification * management of their emotional state/cognitive dissonance * political ends and these are reasonable goals to have, and in all seriousness, people in real practice often or even typically rank these goals higher than an indifferent pursuit of a factual model of reality.
> Why would you hold a view you felt was incorrect? For fun. And thought experiments.
We can keep digging through the mess of human interaction and explain the math behind it. To wit: People tend to have different preferences over future states. When they're too different, persuasion is impossible, and when they're similar enough, you are better off being completely honest, but inbetween, there's a regime in which something called Bayesian persuasion works, and it's optimal (for both sender and receiver) to lie (and buy the lie) some of the time.
I feel like there's some linguistic conflation happening where people use words like "listen" and "hear" in part to refer to comprehension and understanding. E.g.: "Yeah, I hear you" is often used to mean "Yes, I understand" instead of literally "I heard the sounds that you made." Maybe this is some Sapir-Whorf territory, though. I just don't believe that anyone uses language in the strictly empirical sense that studies like these seem to presume.
Have you read ‘the metaphors we live by’? If you’re interested in the intersection between figurative language and cognition, you’ll love it!
10/10 book. Also regarding the book, it should be clear a different culture or childhood experience might greatly affect individuals' syntax and meaning, leading to different meanings of "I hear you".
This is accounted for. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/09567976241239935 The language they use is unambiguous, and in the free-form comments example "hear" is even used as "understand", as is clear in the context.
I feel the opposite of this and it leads to anxious rambling if I am not careful. Rather than assuming the other person isn't listening well enough I turn it around and feel like its my fault, that I am not explaining it well enough.
>that I am not explaining it well enough. This doesn't sound quite like the opposite since you still think the other person would agree with you with more information.
Exactly. "I know I'm right, but I just don't know how to explain that I'm right!"
"I must not have explained it well" "No no it was perfectly clear, I just disagree with you completely" "OK. Let me start again" - a biweekly exchange in my house.
My favorite is "I saw it on tiktok, they're putting in a bill that (massively hyperbolic statement)" *shows pdf of bill* where in the bill does it say this? It even has a section specifically stating it won't do that "I don't want to argue about this"
"It's not an argument if you just acknowledge you were incorrect. It happens."
Agreed. I see why they said opposite though. "Opposite" in the sense that they don't place the blame on the listener, but on themselves.
Everyone thinks they are right. I still listen to what the other person has told me and I've changed my position plenty of times. I have a feeling that if I continue *this* conversation that I am going to make myself look stupid, so Ill bow out. I do see what your saying and I can't argue with that either.
No, in some cases it is *exactly* like that person is describing. The difference is we’re placing blame on *ourselves*, not the other person. I have done this to myself my entire life because of the fact that I have ADHD/autism. I truly often worry I’m not explaining things well enough, whether someone is agreeing or disagreeing on a certain topic, simply because of the way my brain works. Sometimes it is also because most people have never taken me very seriously growing up due to my differences. It’s definitely not always because of some underlying “tactic” used to excuse ignorance regarding a topic/conversation between two or more people. It might come across as a bit difficult to understand if you don’t have these types of issues, but it’s for real.
This could be a touch of the trauma response, fawn
Can you explain how it could be a trauma response? My childhood was a rollercoaster but my adult life hasn't been a picnic either.
Yeah so trauma response can be fight flight or freeze or fawn - when we placate to those around us at our own expense it can sometimes be fawn - like for me, if I am arguing and keep convincing or trying to convince someone of something, I’m highly likely lapsing into fawn. Or when I am hurt by someone but I feel I need to help them feel better first so I hold space even when I’m hurting - that’s fawn. What you described seemed a lil similar!
Thanks for the explanation. I have PTSD from a few different things from childhood through adulthood. I definitely fawn I just wasn't familiar with the term. My counselor sucks but she is better than most at the community health center.. I have gotten better at not doing it though as I know it just creates more and other problems.
That’s awesome you realize it!! If you search YouTube for it there are some great creators like crappy childhood fairy and Patrick tehan - I hope learning more helps you get more control over when you fawn!
Yeah, of course people believe their views are correct. Who holds views that they believe are incorrect? That makes no sense. If you put forth a thoughtful perspective and the other person just flatly disagrees, with no reasoning, you’re going to assume they either weren’t listening or didn’t understand what you said or didn’t care about it anyway.
Believing you are correct is different than outright assuming you are correct and that you can’t realistically be wrong. A better way to put it might be “you are not willing to consider that just because it makes sense to you, that does t necessarily make it true.”
That is a fair point that I agree with completely.
How often have we all heard "No, you clearly don't get it - go back and read my post again" on this very website?
To be fair, a lot of people do respond without having actually read or thought about the comment they're responding to. But there is a mix.
yeah a couple of times I have said "finish the whole sentence before responding", because I was saying something along the lines of "...I thought dreams are real alternate dimensions, but then I woke up and realized that was all a dream". like they see the comma and stop reading. Then they respond with "you idiot dreams can't be alternate dimensions, you are so stupid and i hate you for writing that and now i am turning off comment response to protect myself from your stupidity". I'm like... OK? in another weird thing, many times someone would be talking about how "not all people dream" or some other random fact, and i would respond with a cited article stating "49% of people don't dream", then the person would get super defensive and argue back, and i have to respond, "Dude I was **agreeing with you**. I provided a source for the **same argument you were making**" Comment Threads don't have to be antagonistic, but some people see any cited response as an attack.
Like a lot of things it's a two way street. People who don't read the original comment properly, but also people who don't read the reply to them properly.
without having read the article at all I came here to sarcastically say >well if you were listening you'd agree with me, because I'm right
It’s makes total sense. If you don’t agree with me then I’m clearly not explaining my position adequately.
> speakers believe their views are correct I've often said that bigots (as one example) do not believe they are bigots, they believe they are *correct.*
Obviously they think they’re correct. Everyone thinks they’re correct. No one holds a view they believe is incorrect, that makes no sense.
But a person can hold a view but have doubts.
Sure, but there’s a big difference between “I think this is probably true but I’m not 100% sure” and “I think this is incorrect but believe it anyway.”
True. Logically the latter statement is an oxymoron. You can't think something is wrong and also believe it. You can go between thinking one thing and another but you'd still believe the one and not the other at any given moment perhaps hopefully with some moments in between where your position is that you don't know (and hopefully the information you are processing is such to justify changing your mind so much in a short period of time). Of course a person can think something is incorrect but lie about their actual opinions in public, but that's not thinking it's incorrect but believing it anyway, that's pretending to believe.
The point of my comment is to remind ones self of that obvious fact when engaging with such people. I see countless arguments on Reddit that go nowhere because both parties fail to remember that the other thinks their opinion is indisputable fact.
Distinction between 'correct' and 'exclusively correct.' I have views that I think may be correct (-ish) but also think that are lots of other perspectives that may also be substantive. The issue seems to arise when exclusion or categorical absolutism comes into play. Which seems to be, often.
>The issue seems to arise when exclusion or categorical absolutism comes into play. Which seems to be, often. 100% agreed there.
I've definitely gotten into pseudo arguments trying to explain that I don't have a strong opinion about something because I don't know enough about it. Sometimes people demand that you stick to a strong viewpoint for some reason. If I don't feel confident in knowing something, I try to account for that. I do not have a strong opinion about some things.
That strange listener translation from 'I don't know enough' to 'You're indecisive.'
I think mfs just love arguments even if they know they aren't changing the other person's mind.
Fair enough. Definitely the biggest problem is when people think their opinion is a fact.
Correction: bigots "know" they are correct, they believe people who argue against their bigotry are lying.
Agreed, it's the difference between "fact" and "truth" that people get caught up in. Difficult to argue against a belief.
Anecdotally, I get this a lot with disagreements with my husband where he'll act like I'm not listening or not understanding. If it gets heated I have to forcefully make it clear that I heard and understood and still disagree. It's tiresome. But well, looks like he's just being a human.
how about people who disagree just not explaining themselves well? as a natural peace keeper, I feel like I do a lot of explaining for people in social situations because two people are arguing without understanding that they don't necessarily disagree. neither one is doing a good job of explaining their point of view and they just end up talking past each other, instead of clearly communicating their position and finding the common ground.
God, do I know this first hand from arguing with people…
A useful dialogue skill is repeating what the other person said before adding your disagreement. This gives a backhannel to them that you did listen, allows them to clarify if you did indeed misunderstand, and then you can move on to your disagreement. Usually couches the rejection as well.
This is part of "active listening" and it's a key way to keep the other person from feeling like you're not hearing them. It also forces their brain to re-interpret their own words as though from another source, which can help to break down internal barriers/dissociation. I will add that it also helps to continue the conversation as though you are on the fence or in general agreement long enough to find the specific point on which you want to disagree. Disagreeing globally to an argument, without focusing on the specific nuance, can lead to shutting down the conversation prematurely. Start with "yes, that's a good point" and move on to "and also I understand it this way" when you find the nuance you want to poke at.
Or you realize they don’t actually understand their own point and are just repeating back phrases that have been told to them, and they can’t think any further or differently than those exact phrases.
It's polite, don't overthink it.
Don’t think you understood my comment.
Whether or not their argument is sound is--except in debate club, perhaps--*not really the point of discussion*. By repeating what the other person said before, you're taking a breath to check if you understand the problem correctly. Whether or not their argument is perfect, this is one of the only direct ways to communicate that you have been listening. When you communicate that you have been listening, they not only relax (whew, she understands me!) but also know that you're on the same page. When that has been established, it's easy for their mind to move onto the points of your argument. If you don't establish that you're on the same page--I'm not sure why, but we humans do tend to be imperfect--the person you're talking to will have a harder time listening to *you* ("did you hear me correctly?" they may wonder).
Then they go into cognitive dissonance and get hyper defensive when they realize their argument doesnt work when turned around
Can happen. But there's at least a path forward if you can work through their argument statement by statement, and see where they think you're not getting it /wrong. Usually due to a disagreement on a more fundamental principle. Or being stuck in "defensive" mode.
> A useful dialogue skill is repeating what the other person said before adding your disagreement. This gives a backhannel to them that you did listen according to this research, this seemingly would not be enough - it sounds like it may be helpful to agree with as much as you can in addition to repeating back what was said. it's probably the case that most of the time two reasonable people who disagree even deeply over something would nonetheless agree on 90% of the facts, and doing so explicitly may help establish mutual attention to one another.
"No but you don't understand..." I do understand- I just don't agree
It’s very easy to miss acknowledging the other persons point of view when you disagree with what they’re saying.
Often goes hand-in-hand with commandeering the discussion. Unspeakingly steering things in your direction over theirs seems a lot like not listening.
Absolutely. Over the last few years, maybe cuz of covid maybe cuz I'm late 30s or maybe cuz of both, I've learned to understand and exercise "Agree to Disagree" It really is a beautiful strategy, and will save sooo much brain capacity for more important things in *your* life. Because at the end of the day, someone else's opinion simply isn't that important
I disagree. In a democratic society, other people's opinions can be *very* important and impactful. The political power they exercise can and *will* affect you and your loved ones. As such, I feel we have a moral obligation to dispute opinions we believe to be harmful, even if the people who hold them are intransigent. Leaving them to their echo chambers only emboldens them and reinforces ignorance. Though it may seem didactic or condescending, if you hold any earnest convictions, you *must* argue them. And on that same note, you must VOTE!
My experience is unless they are willing to listen to a differing opinion most arguments do nothing. I won't say that I don't say anything to people who I fundamentally disagree with but I don't expect to "win" and how far I push things really depends on how much future social interaction I am gonna have with them. Some times it is just not worth it. (always worth it to vote though)
I agree with a caveat. Argue the wrong way (the more other people would associate it with the word "argue" is a good heuristic for it being the wrong way) and you can make people even more resistant to changing their opinions. Express your opinions politely and respectfully with no implied expectation that the other party must change their views or else face your condemnation. Since people argue in such a way so commonly it's best to make it clear that you won't condemn them if they don't change their views. Even if their views are very harmful then it is even more important. You're not going to increase your odds of success by condemning them or making them feel belittled or stigmatized for their views. Reactance is a big thing in human psychology. You don't want to trigger it, you want them to feel invited to make a choice to change their opinion not pressured or demanded. You also have to be ready to fully and enthusiastically accept people who changed their opinion no matter how harmful their old opinion may have been. Otherwise the person faces the pressure of not having a tribe if they change their opinion. Make a show of loving your converts and you'll get more of them. Celebrate people who changed their views and more people will change.
In my experience as a controlling person who argued with everybody, you can only really influence the opinions of the people closest to you. Maybe a tiny minority of very open minded strangers. But arguing creates division, so arguing when there is no possible winning outcome is detrimental to society.
> But arguing creates division, so arguing when there is no possible winning outcome is detrimental to society. We already tried not arguing. It lead to the holocaust. So, that leaves us with no winning move.
I was extremely agree to disagree in my youth, but after all the insanity done by antivaxxers pre-covid (blaming autism and everything else on vaccines) that really cemented that sometimes some people just have no right to say anything on a subject because they're too unhinged. People worried about vaccines who don't quite understand them is one thing that's solved by more education, the people who don't believe in germ theory and think vaccines and the rest is all lies and 5g chip injections on the other hand are dangerously unhinged.
Yeh stay far away from those ppl
There is also an aspect of "live and let die from their own dumb decisions".
I feel like most disagreements are a premise issue. If you both have the same premises, the conclusions will follow. Most of the time you'll find this person is looking at the world from a completely different lens. This makes agreeing to disagree a TON easier. Arguing about conclusions is silly and unfortunately the norm.
This is usually what I jump to immediately in any discussion/debate. “Do we agree on a basis of reality for this issue?” If the answer is no, there is no point in talking about anything else. You will not have any meaningful discussion if you both don’t agree on reality.
That's a much better way to say it :)
I like your explanation. But yea, I find this issue is why communication is actually so bad. People aren’t even talking the real differences they have, they’re arguing outcomes from those differences 2-3 layers past that will not yield any productive outcomes.
I remember watching the presidential debates in 2004 as it was my first election I could vote for president. It was frustrating as hell. Moderator: I want to ask about issue X. A: Well the thing about issue X is this, so we should do A. B: Actually the thing about issue X is not this, it's that, so we should do B. A: No, I'm right. Moderator: ok moving on to the next topic... There was no shared reality. Global warming is and isn't real, tax breaks both pay for themselves and don't, and trickle down and don't. It's one thing to have different values and perspectives as to the role of government, but you can't just ignore decades of evidence.
[удалено]
Or the Reddit version: "Clearly, you didn't read my comment." No, I read your comment. It was just a grotesquely stupid comment.
"I make the sun rise and sun set and the sun is going to go down on you. I brought you into this world and I can take you out" and other rants my father yelled at my face when I was zoning out.
This was a bad study that doesn’t actually show anything interesting, but regardless, in situations like the one you’re describing you just need to re-state the other person’s position back to them and they will see you understand it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
My favorite moment last week was when two coworkers were going back and forth on a topic, with one of them not quite understanding. After a different explanation, the one who wasn’t understanding at first said “oh, so what you are saying is I need to listen with my fucking ears”. I almost died laughing.
"Nah, you're not listening!" You tend to only hear it from certain people, and usually when they're less trying to explain a point and more trying to force their opinion.
That's exactly what I was going to write. Some people view all conversations like a arguments to win.
It's pretty common on reddit. "A!" "No, not A because B. Also, C because B." "You're not getting it! A!!!" *links to article claiming A* "No, not A." *links to article showing A is wrong because B, and C is correct.* "You're not listening!" *links to youtube video of some random guy ignoring B and pushing A* "No... Not A, B disproves A so C is right." *links to another article saying A is not true because B* "You've actually proved MY point!"
Exactly. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an association between this and which side of the partisan divide someone is on.
Someone once said to me: “There are 2 types of listening. Listening to respond and listening to understand.” Might be the wisest things I’ve heard in the past 10 years.
Right and just because you're "listening quite attentively" doesn't mean you're listening to understand. Tons of doctors for instance will listen to everything you say and genuinely hear it, despite having already decided their position way earlier in the conversation.
Ngl, I feel like I don't know or do "Listening to respond" much ever -- always "Listening to understand". And I see exactly how this models human behavior. It's been very confusing and often frustrating how heavily others tend to "Listen to respond", just driven by a narrow purpose or motivation instead of for open communication, growth, and understanding. It's a bit disheartening feeling like people don't even want to try to understand much of the time (or realize their approach has incompleteness).
Unfortunately, some people’s idea of “listening to understand” is “listening and therefore understanding that I’m right.” And if you don’t agree after they say what they say, they accuse you of listening to respond.
The problem with that is the implied judgement if you're not listening to understand. There are some arguments that I refuse to "understand". I'm not going to listen to understand with bigots. They're just plain wrong, it's not a both sides issue and we don't need to find a common ground where we only do half a racism or half a genocide or whatever.
This is why it's always best practice to paraphrase back to them what they said. Both ensures you understood correct, and makes them feel understood. Then you can go on to say what you need to say.
Yes but according to this study that still may not be enough. It is very much an uphill battle and most of my life experience agrees with this. There are people who can listen to disagreement acceptably but most cannot.
This definitely doesn’t work a lot of the time. Unless you just repeat back what they said word for word and nod like you agree with them (which would be entirely performative and disingenuous), they will get upset that you are putting words in their mouth or twisting their words. The way you rephrased it or restated it, it put in more objective and clear language, will not fit what they “feel” they are saying. So they will take it as further evidence that you aren’t listening to them.
As someone whose ADHD sometimes makes me go into a "garbage grammar coming out of mouth" mode, my first assumption is always that I'm not explaining things well enough :p
You’re probably explaining yourself well enough but your “bad grammar” is reason enough for them to justify that “your opinion must be wrong too”. Humans cling to any little straw that can make them “win” an argument in their heads. Unless you’re a perfect orator, it’s pretty hard to convince someone who’s close minded. It’s a binary situation: either you have a perfect explanation or it doesn’t even matter how good it actually was. That means that your ADHD grammar is good enough, precisely because nothing besides perfection is good enough for someone who does not want to agree.
> Humans cling to any little straw that can make them “win” an argument in their heads. Unless you’re a perfect orator, it’s pretty hard to convince someone who’s close minded. Even that isn't necessarily enough, people looking for an excuse to dismiss will find one. Perfect argument? "You don't have enough credentials". Enough credentials? "You have too many connections and are biased". Not connected to the topic "Easy for you to say with no skin in the game, you can say those awful things because you're not affected by it"
Same here. Totally understand.
Another huge issue is that people mix fact and opinion.
Wrong
People rarely articulate their understanding when they disagree. They usually just launch into strawmen and red herrings. This leads one to believe there must be a fundamental lack of understanding. *The coherency of the original argument is irreverent*. One cannot disagree properly with something they do not understand. In any disagreement, it's best to steelman an interlocutor's position as the disagreement is laid out.
There are many places where the communication process can break down. But sometimes the listener is simply a moron. I have come to this conclusion based on how some people misunderstand films, essays, etc.
Does concluding that the other party is just stupid ever lead you to be more patient with them, if otherwise you might have thought they were acting in bad faith?
Yes
I would say that when I come to that conclusion I do in fact have more patience for them. I would stop trying to explain my reasoning since it would not work. At that moment I would listen to their explanation, not respond, but simply nod and smile and try to disengage from the topic.
This is why when it comes up and I want to engage I tend to go with "So what you're saying is because X and Y therefore Z, right?" "So what if I showed you that X wasn't true, would you still think Z is true?" If your goal is to convince the person who is sharing their view that they're wrong - which isn't necessarily worth it in almost any case - the best bet is to convince them you understand their view first. Which means asking them more about it.
> "So what you're saying is because X and Y therefore Z, right?" > > "So what if I showed you that X wasn't true, would you still think Z is true?" If you can bring your listener through that many degrees of abstraction then either you're an above average communicator (even beyond just the fact that you had this plan in the first place) or you have an above average audience.
Obviously I wouldn't say X, Y, and Z. So it's not really that abstract. It's just like one logical step.
Yeah, I couldn't imagine trying that with some of the people I have to work with. I don't for a second believe they would be able to understand that, and would lead to them just glitching for half of a second then ignoring it and repeating what they said. There's just no way.
IRL thats a pretty basic way to talk to someone in conversation about a topic. It doesn't work on the internet because what happens online usually aren't real conversations, they're performances of debates or arguments where the goal is ultimately to "convince" an audience, not really to talk to the other person. They're also too impersonal and cluttered with others interruptions to work in the same way.
If you want to change someone’s mind let them talk and don’t disagree with them (at least not at first). Sometimes realization comes from asking questions. Other time’s simply asking “had you considered?” But someone with their guard up isn’t going to change their mind until you work them down slowly.
I think semantics may play into this question. Listening versus comprehending, are not the same thing.
Because they need to validate the other person ( = showing understanding) before giving them opposite opinion / view. It is an issue of lack of communication skills.
Or someone is trying to use a convoluted hint and the other is too autistic (or too neurotypical in some cases) to catch the real implied meaning. Or someone may be bipolar, experiencing many cognitive distortions such as mind-reading, catastrophizing, dichotomous thinking, blaming, emotional reasoning, inability to disconfirm, etc, and they're living in a completely different reality full of artifacts their own mind has inserted into reality.
>experiencing many cognitive distortions such as mind-reading, catastrophizing, dichotomous thinking, blaming, emotional reasoning, inability to disconfirm, etc, and they're living in a completely different reality full of artifacts their own mind has inserted into reality. That sounds like something I'd like to know more about - do you have a book recommendation perchance?
I dont 😔 sorry. But google probably does.
Many of these are "cognitive distortions" or "thinking traps" which you can learn about in cognitive-behavioral therapy. There are so, so many books about it, but give those terms a Google search.
If you want somebody to understand you and they don't, it is incumbent upon you to package the information in a way the listener can receive it. You are the one with the information and the objective, so you have to package it in a way to be received so you can meet your goal of having the information be understood.
Yeah, but you can't deliver a package if no one's home.
Let’s face it. Most people rate the intelligence of others by how much they agree with their beliefs/statements/opinions. So yeah. Not surprised.
A healthy sense of self doubt/self skepticism is so rare it’s insane.
A lot of people are really stubborn and only see things from their perspective. If you disagree with them they just think you’re stupid. The political system atm is a prime example of this. Just name calling at this point and I hate it.
What percent takes ownership of the perceived lack of communication and says they did not explain it correctly?
This is a bad study that doesn’t really show anything interesting because the listener wasn’t actually agreeing or disagreeing, they were just saying one or the other as actors in a simulation. If you put forward good, well thought out points and the other person just disagrees with no reasoning of course you’re going to assume they weren’t really “listening” (or rather, understanding) what you were saying.
Are they sure the people weren't saying "they aren't hearing me"?
It's called Validation
I can remember my sister screaming at me, "you're not hearing me" over and over. I hear just fine dear.
I feel like this really is often the case. Most disagreements are based on past experiences with the topic, you come to the table with an idea already formed about what the other persons argument means, even when you are open to hearing what they have to say and are trying to understand and listen. And it takes a pretty significant back and fourth for that to break down, and to move from your starting point idea of what their idea and argument is about. You're going to feel misunderstood, especially in a world where engagement becomes more and more shallow, and doesn't allow for moving past that initial point. And also as rhetoric style fueled by social media and the like normalizes reductive reasoning, it helps make those arguments which don't listen to others points of view well very familiar and easy to fall into.
Did they study my spouse?
This is an evergreen online argument: "Pie is the best food." "I think cake is the best food." "What I'm saying is, if you had to pick the best food it would be pie." "Yes. I understand. I just disagree." "Well then you've obviously never had pie before!!"
Yea i kno they listenin’ but they ain’t f*ckin’ hearin’ me
That and people who don’t agree don’t engage to try to exit the convo as quickly as possible
Yeah this actually happens with my fiancé and her best friend (almost always when intoxicated of course). They always think the other just didn’t understand them or listen to them properly, when instead they WERE listening they just disagree
After explaining it twelve different ways, with pictures, and causality chains, if they still don’t understand, it’s because they have the intellectual ability of a potted plant.
When you say they don’t understand, do you mean that they’re still disagreeing with you?
They often aren’t listening well either and are switch-tracking. Hearing something in a different context than the speaker intended. Which is also a sign of the speaker not listening back and seeing there is a context conflict.
Could also be that the speaker was not articulating accurately
Makes sense