🙃 I used to have this disease.
Now I have the disease where I try to present appropriate data and POVs, knowing full well that most people are in no emotional position to accept anything that threatens a pre-existing worldview--but also that there are other people despairing over how little facts seem to matter to most; and that they seem to despair a bit less when they know they're not alone.
So, I present arguments for them.
I call it "pragmatic futility", & I'm definitely in a late stage.
@MLClark I’ll see you at the PFA support group. Being a dog with typing skills I’ll share this sweeping generalization insight about human psychology. Most humans make decisions emotionally and rationalize them later. Emotional appeals are unfortunately more effective than a premise followed by a litany of facts and a conclusion. And bonus points if you confirm or validate people’s biases!
Woof.
Good dog, CP.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The biggest challenge I find is with people who sincerely believe that *they* are purely rational thinkers. It offends them mightily even to have someone try to affirm the emotional underpinnings of their argument, because they refuse to believe that those exist.
It's an impressive self-delusion, though! I can't remember the last time I had a strong conviction that I didn't immediately side-eye as too forceful to be driven by data alone. 😅
@MLClark and data sets change (technology, time, contradictions, unintended consequences, …).
And then there is objective facts that don’t fit preconceived skepticism. Or as I refer to it knee jerk skepticism; prima facia foolishness.
"Prima facia foolishness" is a glorious description! Thank you for that wording.
@MLClark
Prima facia foolishness©️2024 @CanisPundit
@MLClark I have it now. 😀
@MLClark
Pragmatic futility©
@MLClark The issue has been delved into in lengthy academic articles on the psychology involved. But the most concise description I have ever heard was by ICU doctor on IG.
The bridge too far is when ideology moves into identity. So they are no longer evaluating information. He said, "It is like arguing with someone about their own favorite color."
It is baffling to people like me who dramatically changed positions over time with new information.
I'm the same: new info can change my views as abruptly as necessary.
But I embrace constructive dissent and the idea of holding multiple views in tension, which is *not* what most are trained to do.
As you note, the conflation of position with ID is the culprit - and it not only makes folks resistant to change; it makes arguing more likely to entrench them in their initial POV.
So after learning that... my whole approach to argument flipped.
😉 As it should with new data, right?
@MLClark Related, it reminds me of a pet peeve on that stupid Churchill quote we hear so much.
Churchill was far from an all-knowing wise philosopher though he was the right guy for a specific time in history.
I changed from conservative (default settings from my upbringing and environment) over time precisely because I have brains. I am data driven and far from a wide-eyed idealist only using my heart.
Churchill was wrong, about this and other things. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767
@MLClark Well, knowing you have a problem is the first step! 😂