You just need to dig up the legendary 911 thread to see people you throught were rational needing to believe in conspiracy theories.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
When do people change their minds.
- Thread starter RoarEmotion
- Start date
You just need to dig up the legendary 911 thread to see people you throught were rational needing to believe in conspiracy theories.
Is disco still around?
I honestly reckon neurologists will make a link between facebook hours and cognitive decline sometime in the not too distant future
Like most people I tacitly accepted the global warming narrative. Was busy and not into politics - was once tricked into voting Greens in a state election by a work colleague after admitting I didn’t know who to vote for. Started reading up on the scientific fundamentals and examining cases for and against. Around this time, Climategate occurred and I wondered why, if the evidence was so clear-cut, these people needed to conspire to pervert science in order to sustain their mantra. The dodgy foundations of over-simplified and inaccurate modelling combined with the politics at research level shifted me to the side of the skeptics, perhaps permanently. The ‘emergency’ narrative has since been spruiked with increasing vigour while the incidence of natural disasters over 10+ years has defied the forecasts of doomsayers. The planet is, generally speaking, in rude health for human habitation.
A Golden Shower of Guests
Dave and Tamler celebrate their 75th episode by welcoming six BFFs of the podcast and asking them to share the biggest thing they've changed their minds about in their professional careers.
www.verybadwizards.com
I came across a pod series that is exactly about this topic. This is an amazing story of a black man who has convinced even an imperial wizard to leave the KKK. Implore everyone to listen and draw your own conclusions. I found it quite inspiring.
Listening to A Slight Change of Plans (A Black Musician Takes on the KKK)
<p>When a Black jazz musician meets a Klansman at a bar, his life takes a sudden turn. He ends up inspiring hundreds of people to leave white supremacist groups.</p><p> </p> Learn more about your ad-choices at <a href="https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com">https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com</a>
https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirec...phone.fm/HSW7786529253.mp3?updated=1621387683
Listening to A Slight Change of Plans (A Black Musician Takes on the KKK)
<p>When a Black jazz musician meets a Klansman at a bar, his life takes a sudden turn. He ends up inspiring hundreds of people to leave white supremacist groups.</p><p> </p> Learn more about your ad-choices at <a href="https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com">https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com</a>
https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirec...phone.fm/HSW7786529253.mp3?updated=1621387683
Last week, I read a column in The Age by Amanda Vanstone. It was poorly written, clumsily argued and ideologically driven—pretty standard fare from her. That's OK—everyone knows Vanstone's colours and background.
I read the comments on The Age's website, and also on Facebook, where The Age had posted a link to the column. Every other comment threatened to revoke their subscription to the paper, indignant that it would print seemingly one-eyed conservative dogma.
So, it's not enough to read an article that challenges our beliefs and make up our own minds whether it's valid or otherwise; apparently, we only want to read and hear stuff that reinforces our existing worldview.
It seems a lot of us have become so blindly binary in our outlook that our blinkered behaviours make change impossible.
Reading and listening to stuff that doesn't accord with my current worldview can help to fortify my beliefs, but also opens me up to other ideas. I reckon it's a sad state of affairs if you actively choose not to grow and evolve as a human being.
Kudos to those who can embrace a range of ideas and are comfortable enough in their own skins to admit they didn't always have a good grip on things.
Great thread, @RoarEmotion. Some awesome contributions.
I read the comments on The Age's website, and also on Facebook, where The Age had posted a link to the column. Every other comment threatened to revoke their subscription to the paper, indignant that it would print seemingly one-eyed conservative dogma.
So, it's not enough to read an article that challenges our beliefs and make up our own minds whether it's valid or otherwise; apparently, we only want to read and hear stuff that reinforces our existing worldview.
It seems a lot of us have become so blindly binary in our outlook that our blinkered behaviours make change impossible.
Reading and listening to stuff that doesn't accord with my current worldview can help to fortify my beliefs, but also opens me up to other ideas. I reckon it's a sad state of affairs if you actively choose not to grow and evolve as a human being.
Kudos to those who can embrace a range of ideas and are comfortable enough in their own skins to admit they didn't always have a good grip on things.
Great thread, @RoarEmotion. Some awesome contributions.
Some interesting stuff towards the back end of this pod about being open to change your mind
People I (Mostly) Admire - 35. David Epstein Knows Something About Almost Everything
<p>He’s been an Arctic scientist, a sports journalist, and is now a best-selling author of science books. His latest, <em>Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World</em>, makes the argument that early specialization does not give you a head start in life. David and Steve talk about why frustration is a good sign, and why the 10,000-hour rule is definitely not a rule. </p>
https://omny.fm/shows/people-i-mostly-admire/david-epstein-knows-something-about-almost-everyth
People I (Mostly) Admire - 35. David Epstein Knows Something About Almost Everything
<p>He’s been an Arctic scientist, a sports journalist, and is now a best-selling author of science books. His latest, <em>Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World</em>, makes the argument that early specialization does not give you a head start in life. David and Steve talk about why frustration is a good sign, and why the 10,000-hour rule is definitely not a rule. </p>
https://omny.fm/shows/people-i-mostly-admire/david-epstein-knows-something-about-almost-everyth
That certainly happens when you start reading an article that argues the "other" case and makes flagrantly wrong claims in its opening gambit. You just can't be arsed reading the rest because it's a waste of your time. Like this piece arguing the veracity of Al Gore's An Incovenient Truth - an audacious undertaking in itself given many of its predictions have not been borne out or have been discredited.
What Al Gore got right – and wrong – in An Inconvenient Truth (paywalled)
That's definitely part of it, Lee, but the other part is just listening.
I'm from the school that believes you have two ears and one mouth, so listen twice as much as you talk, even if the 'other' side isn't making what you or I might deem to be sense.
People who feel they're not being heard can make some weird choices. They need to be engaged and understood, not dismissed.
The Vanstone article shows a lack of foresight, is unhelpfully partisan and contains unnecessary hyperbole, but even if the only insight I get from it is a better understanding of the conservative mode of thought and how the political game works, I find it useful.
I guess it's about being secure enough to remain curious for life.
Yeah, a diversity of opinion is always a good thing.
Plus, I'm a give 'em enough rope kind of guy
If I hear e.g. a shark researcher say sharks don't eat people I feel like reeling off a list of cases where witnesses watched the shark consume everything. I dunno, if they state something as fact that I know to be incorrect, I lose confidence in that person. It can be innocent error but often there is an agenda behind it. Stating a few points as inarguable fact tends to get the uninitiated on side.
Bit different if it's a subject I know nothing about. More misinformation flies around in hi-fi than any other topic I've gotten into. And when you're new, you can be prey to salespeople. Most people don't have time to get into things in much detail, so they accept the glib generalisations that abound on social media etc. It's an age of misinformation as well as information. It's how e.g. Chris Scott can call for shorter quarters and say he doesn't want to see players run out of the game at 30 and get away with it. He has an agenda and he's posing a spurious argument to support it which might sound credible if you don't have the data that blows it out of the water.
That Gore article linked to above is an awful, awful piece of strawman trickery about which the author should know better.
I have seen a ghost. I was in a room with three other teenagers and there it was one night. We all looked at each other, a couple screamed, and we ran out of that room as fast as possible. The next day we had a chat and we all saw the same thing.
Still remember it to this day.
And Lee completely unironically proves how impossible it is for him to change his mind by citing two examples that he'll never change his mind about.
It's the internet / social media echo chamber that's driving a wedge in many societies. Not only do people steer towards news, groups etc with similar beliefs to their own, but the internet tracking and targeting delivers more of the same messages, because they are receptive, and drives them to more extreme content.
Even here on PRE we've seen people put threads on ignore because they feel the discussion is to focused in a direction they don't agree with.
Last edited:
So the Nazi's were the good guys in WW2 eh? With their gas chambers and horrible racially-motivated treatment and killing of 6 million Jews. Or perhaps you don't believe all that really happened?
I don't like to be misled. If I see a Hendrix biography claiming he put LSD in his headband and absorbed it through a cut in his forehead, it doesn't get bought. Once you have a bit of a grounding, it's relatively easy to separate the trashy sources from the credible ones.
Reckon those extreme belief groups are more of a social phenomenon, people needing a sense of belonging etc. rather than seeking knowledge.
The one that did intrigue me was a decorated army brigadier who claimed Martin Bryant couldn't have been the sole shooter at Port Arthur. He wrote with a lot of authority in justifying his claim and it carried extra weight because of his distinguished reputation and knowledge of firearms training. While I remained skeptical, it was a troubling account. Years later I played cricket with a relative who'd also served in the armed forces and asked about his uncle. His explanation was that he "developed some funny ideas" in old age.
Spot on. Re-targeting is the not-so-secret weapon in the marketer's online advertising war chest ... and it's brutally effective, unfortunately.
Apple is on the right track by allowing people to increase their browsing privacy in its latest operating systems. It should make for a more balanced / less skewed online experience. I believe Google is heading down this path, too.
I can understand people don't always have the time to construct longwinded rebuttals and engage in lengthy online conversations but I do find this a shame. Respecting and trying to understand alternative viewpoints seems to be a lost art.
