Ordering people to stop being prejudiced makes them more prejudiced

[Bullmoose]

I believe this same article also mentioned the marginalization of the female members of the church who had previously played on important part in the congregations mission. I'm going off memory here so correct me if I'm wrong. Point is she confronted by people who despised her message but bore her no ill will, and in some cases, were amazingly generous when she found herself in need. In a perfect world this is how you kill a bigot.

Click to shrink...

Yup. The rise of one Steve Drain and the running of the church by an all male elder council marked a shift to the church being run in a much more authoritarian way, and many more restrictions on the female members of the church. That coupled with the criticism she had faced from outsiders she was friendly with allowed her to really recognize the long existing and the newer instances of hypocrisy and bigotry in the church.

 

[MJ12 Commando]

From the story of Megan Phelps Roper, the children raised in that church were already taught to view any outside the church with great contempt. As sinners damned to hell for all their blasphemies. They would go to school, and even experience some pop culture, but always with the view that all of it was damned. They lived in a closed off community that greatly valued obedience to the church and family. Regarding responses to outrage and insults, one section in particular seems pretty pertinent.

Spoiler: Responding to hate

She laughed and sang and smiled in the face of angry crowds. "If you were ever upset or even scared, you do not show it, because this is not the time or the place," she said. Phelps-Roper believed that she was engaged in a profound act of love. Leviticus 19:17 commands, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." "When you see someone is backing into traffic, you yell at them," Phelps-Roper said. "You don't mope around and say it's such a good idea."

The article makes clear, that almost from birth, kids like Phelps-Roper were involved in the kind of hateful picketing that is so associated with WBC today. She had dealt with angry, rage filled responses from the get go, and it didn't change her mind. It didn't make her realize she was peddling hate filled insanity. Your tactics didn't work.

It wasn't the hard words of social justice warriors telling her how she and her church were scum and bigots. Empathy was what did. She makes it very clear that developing connections and having conversations with people considered damned by her church through social media was the key factor her(Two key examples being conversations on and offline with a David Abitbol and twitter user @F_K_A). It was conversations like that, with outsiders she grew friendly with, that allowed her to be reached. That is what made her start to question the ideology that had been forced down her throat for years.

Click to shrink...

And yet, Libby Phelps mentions quite explicitly that the tactics which did work involved her being put up against the world, being hated and loathed. And moreover, it was the hard words of 'social justice warriors' which marginalized the church. Kindness and cruelty are both tools with their place in changing someone's mind. Good-cop bad-cop is a powerful tool for a reason. If people were perfectly willing to be nice to the WBC, I doubt empathy would have had any effectiveness. The olive branch worked only because she had a really good list of reasons to take an olive branch.

Fundamentally, what you're suggesting is literally contraindicated by reality. Negative campaigning works. Calling the other party scum works. If it didn't work, the world would be very, very different. I wish it didn't work, but as long as it works, deciding that there will be no negative campaigning is crippling yourself for no reason. The irony is of course how you're even going to enforce no negative campaigning without the exact same 'authoritarian edicts from on high' targeted to your supporters, which of course is even worse than targeting your enemies. Like, yes, empathy is useful for convincing your target, if you target an individual. But if your target isn't changing the minds of an individual, but changing what society deems acceptable or not, you simply do not have the resources to go around finding every single person and empathizing with them. And that's where negative activity is useful and necessary.

Besides, as others have mentioned in this thread. Authoritarian tactics like this can quite easily alienate even others that agree with you. I am liberal on pretty much every social issue, but tactics such as the ones you advocate make it very hard for me to support the more aggressive wings of the social justice movements.

Click to shrink...

The more compassionate wings of social justice movements exist in conjunction with the more aggressive wings. Without one, the other is useless. If you aren't given any reason, positive or negative, to change your views, you have no reason to listen to the compassion of your 'ideological enemies.' Like, fundamentally, a lot of social justice isn't really about changing individuals' minds. It's about changing what is and what isn't acceptable as a culture and the minds of fence-sitters, and we know that negative campaigning and demonizing the opposition are effective when you're trying to do that.

 

[Private Lee O'Malley]

How is this news? We all saw what happened in the "Good on you, Staff!" thread. Some didn't give a shit about the word but then complained because the staff decided to do something abou tit.

 

[MJ12 Commando]

How is this news? We all saw what happened in the "Good on you, Staff!" thread. Some didn't give a shit about the word but then complained because the staff decided to do something abou tit.

Click to shrink...

It's news because negative campaigning definitively works, so there's clearly a disconnect between micro-level and macro-level negative pressure which is an interesting discussion.

Either that or political ad creators are just much, much better at crafting negative statements than the experimenters were.

 

[Dakkaface]

Either that or political ad creators are just much, much better at crafting negative statements than the experimenters were.

Click to shrink...

It's much easier to convince random people 'that guy is a douchebag who wants to take away your X' than it is to tell random people 'stop being a douchebag' and not get a combative response, since the implication is insulting.

 

[Memphet'ran]

I wish it didn't work, but as long as it works, deciding that there will be no negative campaigning is crippling yourself for no reason.

Click to shrink...

Well, there's the argument that we should want people to generally be nice until they can coordinate meanness, for much the same reasons we want people to be generally peaceful until they can coordinate violence.

 

[MJ12 Commando]

It's much easier to convince random people 'that guy is a douchebag who wants to take away your X' than it is to tell random people 'stop being a douchebag' and not get a combative response, since the implication is insulting.

Click to shrink...

I'm aware. Which is why I think the confusion here is whether their advocacy is about convincing people, or trying to change social norms. Both of them are actually very different and require different tactics to be used. "This shit is bad" is an entirely valid way to do the latter but doesn't help with the former. "We understand and sympathize with you" is more effective at doing the former but is impractical to do when dealing with the latter. It's why any effective advocacy for viewpoints requires both. "We understand why you're doing this but our policies will be good for you" and "people who don't like these policies are (figuratively) Satan."

Well, there's the argument that we should want people to generally be nice until they can coordinate meanness, for much the same reasons we want people to be generally peaceful until they can coordinate violence.

Click to shrink...

The thing is if you have a coordinated group that's correct but 'social justice' to bring this back to your OP's context is about as coordinated as a swarm of wet, hungry cats who subscribe to the anarchist manifesto. And that means it's much easier to work with 'meanness' being the default (and thus target society) than 'niceness' (and thus target individuals).

 

[Aaron Peori]

It's much easier to convince random people 'that guy is a douchebag who wants to take away your X' than it is to tell random people 'stop being a douchebag' and not get a combative response, since the implication is insulting.

Click to shrink...

This is the crux of it.

The goal, in political advertising and in social media screeds, is not to persaude the target of your attack.

The goal is to effect everyone else.

If Hillary Clinton airs a campaign ad attacking Donald Trump there is no one who believes that will cause him to vote for her. But it can cause people on the fence to vote for her, or at the very least not to vote for him.

If I post to a website such as this one to call out someone for being hateful or bigoted in some manner I have no intention of changing them. I am aiming to refute their worldview to change the opinion of people who are reading our conversation. And make no mistake, there are a lot more of these fence sitters than you would believe, even on a forum such as this the number of views on a thread far outstrip the number of posts in the thread. Many people are there to read the debate, not be the direct targets of the debate.

The same is true on virtually all social media. And being an audience distances you from the direct debate. Even if you, personally, engage in some of the behaviors a hypothetical piece of social media is calling out people have a natural tendency to distance themselves from things they consider Bad and if the majority of the opinion on the media you consume condemns a certain type of behavior as Bad you will probably begin to consider it Bad as well.

Yeah, some people will double down, others will become enemies. That's unfortunate but unavoidable. If I directly attack you, specifically, you are likely to become my enemy. But if I attack some guy you don't know and have no emotional connection to and all my buddies attack him as well and he becomes a pariah you are more likely to be "Glad I'm not that guy, better not do what he did" than "Fuck those guys!"

 

[Bullmoose]

And yet, Libby Phelps mentions quite explicitly that the tactics which did work involved her being put up against the world, being hated and loathed. And moreover, it was the hard words of 'social justice warriors' which marginalized the church. Kindness and cruelty are both tools with their place in changing someone's mind. Good-cop bad-cop is a powerful tool for a reason. If people were perfectly willing to be nice to the WBC, I doubt empathy would have had any effectiveness.

Fundamentally, what you're suggesting is literally contraindicated by reality. Negative campaigning works. Calling the other party scum works. If it didn't work, the world would be very, very different. I wish it didn't work, but as long as it works, deciding that there will be no negative campaigning is crippling yourself for no reason. The irony is of course how you're even going to enforce no negative campaigning without the exact same 'authoritarian edicts from on high' targeted to your supporters, which of course is even worse than targeting your enemies. Like, yes, empathy is useful for convincing your target, if you target an individual. But if your target isn't changing the minds of an individual, but changing what society deems acceptable or not, you simply do not have the resources to go around finding every single person and empathizing with them. And that's where negative activity is useful and necessary.



The more compassionate wings of social justice movements exist in conjunction with the more aggressive wings. Without one, the other is useless. If you aren't given any reason, positive or negative, to change your views, you have no reason to listen to the compassion of your 'ideological enemies.' Like, fundamentally, a lot of social justice isn't really about changing individuals' minds. It's about changing what is and what isn't acceptable as a culture and the minds of fence-sitters, and we know that negative campaigning and demonizing the opposition are effective when you're trying to do that.

Click to shrink...

I didn't get the sense it worked on Liby Phelps from this article or this one. In fact, she cites on both the efforts to shame her into obedience from within the church as the greater factor that made her leave.

In the case of WBC, how is shaming an already insular group who view all outsiders already as dirty, damned sinners going to do anything to most members except confirm their in-group/out-group world view? As said, people like Liby or Phelps-Roper grew up being hated and spat upon by opponents outside the church(apparently Liby was assaulted twice by counter protestors as child and teen). Where exactly does she cite anything that supports your tactics?

I don't think I said I was going to enforce anything. I just think being sanctimonious and arrogant towards those who don't tow your line not only pushes them not to agree with you, but it alienates all sorts of potential allies, which comes at great cost long term. This isn't saying that people should lie down. This isn't saying that people just be quiet and go about their lives without working towards a better world. I just don't see convincing evidence that going up to an opponent and shouting about how awful they are for not agreeing with you as an effective strategy. It didn't seem to work on the two women above, and according to OP, it doesn't seem to work on most people in general.

As to the point that it is not about convincing opponents, but changing society's views of them, doesn't being an in your face asshole to your opponents make it awfully easy for a whole bunch of people in general society to just roll their eyes and ignore you and your cause? Or even actively support your opponents?

I mean given how much useful ammo anti-feminists have gotten out of someone like this, and how easy it is to mock and belittle feminism with this example, can't you see how such tactics can give your cause an image problem at the very least?

Anyway, I'm pretty tired. I'm going to bed.

 

[Pyrion]

Yeah, some people will double down, others will become enemies. That's unfortunate but unavoidable. If I directly attack you, specifically, you are likely to become my enemy. But if I attack some guy you don't know and have no emotional connection to and all my buddies attack him as well and he becomes a pariah you are more likely to be "Glad I'm not that guy, better not do what he did" than "Fuck those guys!"

Click to shrink...

This is, incidentally, why I find it absolutely imperative to remain civil in debates despite what ensues. Even when getting dogpiled. Getting dogpiled and holding true to one's convictions is considerably less likely to result in the outcome you describe (the reader's own cognitive biases will reinforce their preconceptions if the lone voice on their side remains civil) than getting dogpiled, raging and getting infracted/banned for incivility. It's far easier to paint someone as a pariah when they're the ones doing most of the hard work for you, after all.

It's also why I tend to go straight for getting a rise out of people when posting on news article comment sections. Nothing's more cost-effective for effort than a few words designed to make the target flip their shit. Even if it's not actually defeating their argument, simply getting them to blow a head gasket does most of the work of rendering nearly all of their efforts impotent.

 

[Professor Vesca]

I didn't get the sense it worked on Liby Phelps from this article or this one. In fact, she cites on both the efforts to shame her into obedience from within the church as the greater factor that made her leave.

In the case of WBC, how is shaming an already insular group who view all outsiders already as dirty, damned sinners going to do anything to most members except confirm their in-group/out-group world view? As said, people like Liby or Phelps-Roper grew up being hated and spat upon by opponents outside the church(apparently Liby was assaulted twice by counter protestors as child and teen). Where exactly does she cite anything that supports your tactics?

I don't think I said I was going to enforce anything. I just think being sanctimonious and arrogant towards those who don't tow your line not only pushes them not to agree with you, but it alienates all sorts of potential allies, which comes at great cost long term. This isn't saying that people should lie down. This isn't saying that people just be quiet and go about their lives without working towards a better world. I just don't see convincing evidence that going up to an opponent and shouting about how awful they are for not agreeing with you as an effective strategy. It didn't seem to work on the two women above, and according to OP, it doesn't seem to work on most people in general.

As to the point that it is not about convincing opponents, but changing society's views of them, doesn't being an in your face asshole to your opponents make it awfully easy for a whole bunch of people in general society to just roll their eyes and ignore you and your cause? Or even actively support your opponents?

I mean given how much useful ammo anti-feminists have gotten out of someone like this, and how easy it is to mock and belittle feminism with this example, can't you see how such tactics can give your cause an image problem at the very least?

Anyway, I'm pretty tired. I'm going to bed.

Click to shrink...

Besides, isnt it a false dichotomy that saying that changing social norms and changing peoples minds are two different things?

Society is made up of people, if you change peoples minds, you eventually reach critical mass and begin to change social norms. Society doesnt spring from the ether to impose its divine and unknowable will upon us. It is made up of all the people that associate with it, and it is made of all the ways its members associate with each other. The tone of society is set by the tone of the people, and one of the best and easiest ways to change society is to change the minds of the people.

 

[MJ12 Commando]

Besides, isnt it a false dichotomy that saying that changing social norms and changing peoples minds are two different things?

Society is made up of people, if you change peoples minds, you eventually reach critical mass and begin to change social norms. Society doesnt spring from the ether to impose its divine and unknowable will upon us. It is made up of all the people that associate with it, and it is made of all the ways its members associate with each other. The tone of society is set by the tone of the people, and one of the best and easiest ways to change society is to change the minds of the people.

Click to shrink...

The method you suggest is actually nearly impossible to do in the short term, unless you can lock them in a room with you for several hours and torture them. Like, that's the one semi-reliable method we have actually found to change someone's mind-literal brainwashing. Like, the LaCour scandal is related to exactly this. "Being nice to people will actually allow you to change the beliefs of society" would be, quite literally, an absolutely revolutionary discovery. The scientific consensus is that basically nothing you do, short of locking someone up with you for years and torturing them, can reliably create any sort of long-term change in someone's beliefs. It is extraordinarily hard to change someone's mind. Notably, the corollary which people seem to want this article to be saying-"you can get more flies with honey than vinegar" was the biggest academic scandal of history because people desperately wanted it to be true but it turned out not to be.

"If you change people's minds" is basically like saying "if you had the ability to literally do wizard magic." It's ludicrously hard to change made-up minds, it's much easier to make a certain set of viewpoints unacceptable and starve an ideology of new converts.

EDIT: Actually I overstate. There is apparently one other way to reliably change people's minds on something, and that's to make it the new status quo (i.e. the something like ~40% chance in approval ratings for bombing Cambodia the day before and the day after the US started bombing Cambodia).

 

[Professor Vesca]

The method you suggest is actually nearly impossible to do in the short term, unless you can lock them in a room with you for several hours and torture them. Like, that's the one semi-reliable method we have actually found to change someone's mind-literal brainwashing. Like, the LaCour scandal is related to exactly this. "Being nice to people will actually allow you to change the beliefs of society" would be, quite literally, an absolutely revolutionary discovery. The scientific consensus is that basically nothing you do, short of locking someone up with you for years and torturing them, can reliably create any sort of long-term change in someone's beliefs. It is extraordinarily hard to change someone's mind. Notably, the corollary which people seem to want this article to be saying-"you can get more flies with honey than vinegar" was the biggest academic scandal of history because people desperately wanted it to be true but it turned out not to be.

"If you change people's minds" is basically like saying "if you had the ability to literally do wizard magic." It's ludicrously hard to change made-up minds, it's much easier to make a certain set of viewpoints unacceptable and starve an ideology of new converts.

EDIT: Actually I overstate. There is apparently one other way to reliably change people's minds on something, and that's to make it the new status quo (i.e. the something like ~40% chance in approval ratings for bombing Cambodia the day before and the day after the US started bombing Cambodia).

Click to shrink...

I am sorry MJ, but you are wrong.

Daryl Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is not wizard magic, and you claiming that one of the most basic ways of changing peoples minds is tantamount to magic is frankly insulting and you have no idea what you are talking about. I would even go so far as to say that what you claim to be wizard magic is actually something that you just suck at.

 

[MJ12 Commando]

I am sorry MJ, but you are wrong.

Daryl Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is not wizard magic, and you claiming that one of the most basic ways of changing peoples minds is tantamount to magic is frankly insulting and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Click to shrink...

There are two methods of changing people's minds which have been studied in-depth and have been found to possess consistent effectiveness. One of them involves being isolated for extended periods of time and having the viewpoint beaten into you via brainwashing. The other involves presenting society a fait accompli-the Cambodia example.

The Daryl Davis example you cite is one of these methods which has been studied in depth and found to be unreliable at best, ineffective at worst. In fact, your post demonstrates exactly what I mean. Merely suggesting you examine your viewpoints in light of evidence, something my post does and something you claim to be incredibly effective at changing minds, has not actually changed your mind, but made you double down on bad evidence and get offended. It kind of proves my point-"discussing" things to change people's minds literally doesn't work, the mildest possible disagreement is enough to make you flip out and insult people.

Notice that Davis claims to have been instrumental in disassembling the KKK and yet the only source for that is his own claims with no corroboration. We want to believe that we can just talk our opponents into understanding we're right, but that basically never works.

I would even go so far as to say that what you claim to be wizard magic is actually something that you just suck at.

Click to shrink...

There is something immensely hilarious watching the defender of the idea that ~kindness will get people to agree with you~ start throwing around random unprovoked insults when faced with an entirely civil challenge to his viewpoint.

And this isn't the kind of "you're a bad person" challenge that's been suggested as counterproductive. This is quite literally the mildest "this is a nice thought but I don't think it works" type of challenge you can make.

 

[Professor Vesca]

There are two methods of changing people's minds which have been studied in-depth and have been found to possess consistent effectiveness. One of them involves being isolated for extended periods of time and having the viewpoint beaten into you via brainwashing. The other involves presenting society a fait accompli-the Cambodia example.

The Daryl Davis example you cite is one of these methods which has been studied in depth and found to be unreliable at best, ineffective at worst. In fact, your post demonstrates exactly what I mean. Merely suggesting you examine your viewpoints in light of evidence, something my post does and something you claim to be incredibly effective at changing minds, has not actually changed your mind, but made you double down on bad evidence. Notice that Davis claims to have been instrumental in disassembling the KKK and the only source for that is his own claims. We want to believe that we can just talk our opponents into understanding we're right, but that never works.



There is something immensely hilarious watching the defender of the idea that ~kindness will get people to agree with you~ start throwing around random unprovoked insults when faced with an entirely civil challenge to his viewpoint.

And this isn't the kind of "you're a bad person" challenge that's been suggested as counterproductive. This is quite literally the mildest "this is a nice thought but I don't think it works" type of challenge you can make.

Click to shrink...

The thing is im not necessarily interested in trying to change your mind, im just here to prove you wrong. You are more educated then I am, more often you are factually correct and logically consistent, and yet I cant think of a single instance where anything you have said has prompted me to reexamine any of my beliefs or opinions, or caused me to take a look at a subject with fresh eyes. Other people certainly have, but not you. I find your tone to be far too aggressive and blunt, even if technically you are correct. From your position of academic superiority, there is nothing I could say that could hope to challenge your help opinions, nor am I interested in befriending you, getting to know you, and then manipulating you into changing your views.

Often what happens instead, is I acknowledge that you make sense and promptly return to my old ways as soon as the instance of acknowledgement passes from my memory. This also happens to be unusual behavior as most people just dig in their heels and either double down or leave to associate with other like minded individuals rather than talk to you. This is a trait I find in some of my other highly educated friends.

No, befriending people and then using your new relationship with the individual to then manipulate their opinions and slowly get them to change is very effective. It is just that not everyone is actually good at it, most people prefer to just be aggressive about their opinions rather than actually try to convert people.

That it also happens to be something I myself am not good at certainly doesnt do me any favors.

So yeah, you just suck at it.

 

[Bullmoose]

There are two methods of changing people's minds which have been studied in-depth and have been found to possess consistent effectiveness. One of them involves being isolated for extended periods of time and having the viewpoint beaten into you via brainwashing. The other involves presenting society a fait accompli-the Cambodia example.

The Daryl Davis example you cite is one of these methods which has been studied in depth and found to be unreliable at best, ineffective at worst. In fact, your post demonstrates exactly what I mean. Merely suggesting you examine your viewpoints in light of evidence, something my post does and something you claim to be incredibly effective at changing minds, has not actually changed your mind, but made you double down on bad evidence and get offended. It kind of proves my point-"discussing" things to change people's minds literally doesn't work, the mildest possible disagreement is enough to make you flip out and insult people.

Notice that Davis claims to have been instrumental in disassembling the KKK and the only source for that is his own claims. We want to believe that we can just talk our opponents into understanding we're right, but that never works.



There is something immensely hilarious watching the defender of the idea that ~kindness will get people to agree with you~ start throwing around random unprovoked insults when faced with an entirely civil challenge to his viewpoint.

And this isn't the kind of "you're a bad person" challenge that's been suggested as counterproductive. This is quite literally the mildest "this is a nice thought but I don't think it works" type of challenge you can make.

Click to shrink...

Can you post studies that support your position then? Any studies that show that being befriended by those you hate just doesn't work( despite contrary examples)? That would actually be convincing evidence. So far you're not convincing me because your argument isn't great. Op posted a study that showed being a total dick as a tactic certainly doesn't work. You've been given several examples of where harcore true believers did indeed have their mind changed by being befriended by those they despised. And I've pointed out how being an asshole can harm you're movement long term rather thank help it. You've failed to actually prove your point, despite insisting that's it's true.

 

[Professor Vesca]

Can you post studies that support your position then? Any studies that show that being befriended by those you hate just doesn't work( despite contrary examples)? That would actually be convincing evidence. So far you're not convincing me because your argument isn't great. Op posted a study that showed being a total dick as a tactic certainly doesn't work. You've been given several examples of where harcore true believers did indeed have their mind changed by being befriended by those they despised. And I've pointed out how being an asshole can harm you're movement long term rather thank help it. You've failed to actually prove your point, despite insisting that's it's true.

Click to shrink...

What you present is important, but how you present it matters more!

BEHOLD

5 Ways to Change Someone's Mind

 

[The Lone Taco]

You know, for people calling for more kindness and understanding some of you guys are acting like the self-righteous pricks you think you're so above.

 

[Professor Vesca]

You know, for people calling for more kindness and understanding some of you guys are acting like the self-righteous pricks you think you're so above.

Click to shrink...

I am not interested in being kind, and I am certainly not interested in winning any converts as I myself suck at it. I am merely noting that it is an effective way to get people to do and act in ways they wouldnt otherwise. I am especially not going to be nice to MJ12 because I have higher standards for him on account of his higher educating to mine.

 

[MJ12 Commando]

The thing is im not necessarily interested in trying to change your mind, im just here to prove you wrong. You are more educated then I am, more often you are factually correct and logically consistent, and yet I cant think of a single instance where anything you have said has prompted me to reexamine any of my beliefs or opinions, or caused me to take a look at a subject with fresh eyes. Other people certainly have, but not you. I find your tone to be far too aggressive and blunt, even if technically you are correct. From your position of academic superiority, there is nothing I could say that could hope to challenge your help opinions, nor am I interested in befriending you, getting to know you, and then manipulating you into changing your views.

Often what happens instead, is I acknowledge that you make sense and promptly return to my old ways as soon as the instance of acknowledgement passes from my memory. This also happens to be unusual behavior as most people just dig in their heels and either double down or leave to associate with other like minded individuals rather than talk to you. This is a trait I find common in some of my other highly educated friends.

No, befriending people and then using your new relationship with the individual to then manipulate their opinions and slowly get them to change is very effective. It is just that not everyone is actually good at it, most people prefer to just be aggressive about their opinions rather than actually try to convert people.

That it also happens to be something I myself am not good at certainly doesnt do me any favors.

So yeah, you just suck at it.

Click to shrink...

So you're explicitly interested in proving me wrong, yet your argument is basically "I'm going to violate every single tenet of what I say in an attempt to do exactly that because... I'm not interested in proving you wrong." If this strategy is so fragile, so resource-intensive, that even people who believe it's effective won't use it in favor of throwing around cheap shots... I think far from proving me wrong, you're demonstrating my point in spades. "Changing people's minds" via friendship is impractical and unreliable. It doesn't matter what the reason is for that-your very argument supports my point.

Especially because I actually work in an industry which is about resolving disputes. Guess how they tend to get resolved? FYI: It doesn't actually involve people getting into a hug-out. Like, most cases settle, sure, but these settlements are almost never amiable. They tend to be basically "shit we're going to lose, let's save some money" sorts of settlements.

Can you post studies that support your position then? That would actually be convincing evidence. So far you're not convincing me because your argument isn't great. Op posted a study that showed being a total dick as a tactic certainly doesn't work. You've been given several examples of where harcore true believers did indeed have their mind changed by being befriended by those they despised. And I've pointed out how being an asshole can harm you're movement long term rather thank help it. You've failed to actually prove your point, despite insisting that's it's true.

Click to shrink...

And you give another great example to prove my point. I posted, in fact, a direct link to a rebuttal of your examples. When LaCour created a study suggesting that "being befriended by those they despised" worked to change people's minds, this was basically the biggest sensation in psychology. People didn't believe it was possible, but LaCour had cracked the holy grail-finding a way to convince people which wasn't horrible on its face. In fact, his conclusion was basically the same as the one you and Vesca want to draw-"befriending people works reliably to change people's minds."

Except for the small detail that it was a complete fabrication, and the scientific consensus is still "it is basically impossible to change someone's mind on a subject once it is made up." In fact, your examples are interesting because you ignore parts of them to get to your conclusion. You ignore Ms. Phelps talking about how her doubts were in part because the entire US seemed to be against them to focus on the rebellion-which you assume must have been motivated by some outside friendship rather than internal issues. You ignore how simply because aggressive tactics are unconvincing doesn't mean that non-aggressive ones aren't. And you ignore how impractical these tactics are, to the point where apparently any level of past or present 'bluntness' can lead them to completely backfire.

 

[firefossil]

While we're on the subject of tactics, I'd suggest looking at the words of MLK:






It is painfully obvious that MLK and his CRM were the SJWs of their time in every respect. That they used all the same tactics, and got hit by all the same arguments. Much like gay marriage has seen the same points as interracial marriage be raised, it is history repeating. It is only with a half century of hindsight and rose-tinted glasses that we remember MLK as a great crusader for good, but see SJWs as disruptive rabble-rousers. The reality is that MLK was also labeled a disruptive rabble-rouser in his day, that people saw his fiery language as disturbing and threatening, that they argued he was provoking more violence and hostility from his opponents as well as his allies, that moderates agreed with his ends but not with his means. Nothing has changed. If anything the SJWs are kind of weaksauce compared to how far MLK and company were willing to go.

 

[Mutton]

So you're explicitly interested in proving me wrong, yet your argument is basically "I'm going to violate every single tenet of what I say in an attempt to do exactly that because... I'm not interested in proving you wrong." If this strategy is so fragile, so resource-intensive, that even people who believe it's effective won't use it in favor of throwing around cheap shots... I think far from proving me wrong, you're demonstrating my point in spades. "Changing people's minds" via friendship is impractical and unreliable. It doesn't matter what the reason is for that-your very argument supports my point.

Especially because I actually work in an industry which is about resolving disputes. Guess how they tend to get resolved? FYI: It doesn't actually involve people getting into a hug-out. Like, most cases settle, sure, but these settlements are almost never amiable. They tend to be basically "shit we're going to lose, let's save some money" sorts of settlements.



And you give another great example to prove my point. I posted, in fact, a direct link to a rebuttal of your examples. When LaCour created a study suggesting that "being befriended by those they despised" worked to change people's minds, this was basically the biggest sensation in psychology. People didn't believe it was possible, but LaCour had cracked the holy grail-finding a way to convince people which wasn't horrible on its face. In fact, his conclusion was basically the same as the one you and Vesca want to draw-"befriending people works reliably to change people's minds."

Except for the small detail that it was a complete fabrication, and the scientific consensus is still "it is basically impossible to change someone's mind on a subject once it is made up." In fact, your examples are interesting because you ignore parts of them to get to your conclusion. You ignore Ms. Phelps talking about how her doubts were in part because the entire US seemed to be against them to focus on the rebellion-which you assume must have been motivated by some outside friendship rather than internal issues. You ignore how simply because aggressive tactics are unconvincing doesn't mean that non-aggressive ones aren't. And you ignore how impractical these tactics are, to the point where apparently any level of past or present 'bluntness' can lead them to completely backfire.

Click to shrink...

The guys who found the LaCour study to be fake reran it and discovered that the conclusions actually held up though

 

[Professor Vesca]

What you present is important, but how you present it matters more!

BEHOLD

5 Ways to Change Someone's Mind

Click to shrink...

BEHOLD! ~echo echo echo...

So you're explicitly interested in proving me wrong, yet your argument is basically "I'm going to violate every single tenet of what I say in an attempt to do exactly that because... I'm not interested in proving you wrong." If this strategy is so fragile, so resource-intensive, that even people who believe it's effective won't use it in favor of throwing around cheap shots... I think far from proving me wrong, you're demonstrating my point in spades. "Changing people's minds" via friendship is impractical and unreliable. It doesn't matter what the reason is for that-your very argument supports my point.

Especially because I actually work in an industry which is about resolving disputes. Guess how they tend to get resolved? FYI: It doesn't actually involve people getting into a hug-out. Like, most cases settle, sure, but these settlements are almost never amiable.



And you give another great example to prove my point. I posted, in fact, a direct link to a rebuttal of your 'examples.' When LaCour created a study suggesting that "being befriended by those they despised" worked to change people's minds, this was basically the biggest sensation in psychology. People didn't believe it was possible, but LaCour had cracked the holy grail-finding a way to convince people which wasn't horrible on its face. In fact, his conclusion was basically the same as the one you and Vesca want to draw-"befriending people works reliably to change people's minds."

Except for the small detail that it was a complete fabrication, and the scientific consensus is still "it is basically impossible to change someone's mind on a subject once it is made up." In fact, your examples are interesting because you ignore parts of them to get to your conclusion. You ignore Ms. Phelps talking about how her doubts were in part because the entire US seemed to be against them to focus on the rebellion-which you assume must have been motivated by some outside friendship rather than internal issues. You ignore how simply because aggressive tactics are unconvincing doesn't mean that non-aggressive ones aren't. And you ignore how impractical these tactics are, to the point where apparently any level of past or present 'bluntness' can lead them to completely backfire.

Click to shrink...

I am here to prove you wrong, not convince you that I am right.

I already told you, I suck at it, for reasons that are none of your business. So I dont even try. Its not something I am proficient in. Come on MJ12, actually read my posts!

I didnt say that it was easy, I said it was the most effective. I said I wasnt here to convince you that I am right, I am here to merely prove you wrong. I didnt say to whom but the implication is to anyone reading this thread who isnt you, as I dont care what you think about me or my argument.

And no, you are a lawyer, you argue in a setting that is highly formal, with explicit sets of rules and behavior, and expected levels of debate and proficiency. Your audience, with the sole exception of the Jury, is the judge. An individual who is your professional colleague, who as same or similar levels of education, in a setting where the explicit stated goal is to determine the facts of whatever case you happen to be arguing.

Convincing a layperson to change their minds is a completely different ballgame, one that you suck, and boy do you suck at it. People dont respond to highly legalistic and technical rules of debate and discourse.

While we're on the subject of tactics, I'd suggest looking at the words of MLK:






It is painfully obvious that MLK and his CRM were the SJWs of their time in every respect. That they used all the same tactics, and got hit by all the same arguments. Much like gay marriage has seen the same points as interracial marriage be raised, it is history repeating. It is only with a half century of hindsight and rose-tinted glasses that we remember MLK as a great crusader for good, but see SJWs as disruptive rabble-rousers. The reality is that MLK was also labeled a disruptive rabble-rouser in his day, that people saw his fiery language as disturbing and threatening, that they argued he was provoking more violence and hostility from his opponents as well as his allies, that moderates agreed with his ends but not with his means. Nothing has changed. If anything the SJWs are kind of weaksauce compared to how far MLK and company were willing to go.

Click to shrink...

MLK was more interested in changing the laws of segregation, changing peoples minds came afterward, when the legal barriers that kept white people and black people separate were torn down. It is much harder for two groups to empathize with each other when there are legal boundaries to their fraternization and mingling, and much easier to simply turn them into the 'other'. Once the laws are repealed, people wont have the law to fall back on as their excuse for their opinions and beliefs, and will have to work harder to justify and rationalize them when questioned.

His goal wasnt changing peoples minds, it was removing the legal boundaries that were placed infront of the advancement of black people everywhere, and one of the final major relics of the institution of slavery. That he wanted people to also join together in brotherhood was a fringe benefit to his primary, concrete, goal.

 

[Bullmoose]

You know, for people calling for more kindness and understanding some of you guys are acting like the self-righteous pricks you think you're so above.

Click to shrink...

I don't think I'm being an asshole by asking for more than evidence here. Besides this is an Internet forum where mostly complete strangers communicate by walls of text, and I don't think most of us are fanatically tied to our positions. Plain old argument with evidence can still work and has on me before.

So you're explicitly interested in proving me wrong, yet your argument is basically "I'm going to violate every single tenet of what I say in an attempt to do exactly that because... I'm not interested in proving you wrong." If this strategy is so fragile, so resource-intensive, that even people who believe it's effective won't use it in favor of throwing around cheap shots... I think far from proving me wrong, you're demonstrating my point in spades. "Changing people's minds" via friendship is impractical and unreliable. It doesn't matter what the reason is for that-your very argument supports my point.

Especially because I actually work in an industry which is about resolving disputes. Guess how they tend to get resolved? FYI: It doesn't actually involve people getting into a hug-out. Like, most cases settle, sure, but these settlements are almost never amiable. They tend to be basically "shit we're going to lose, let's save some money" sorts of settlements.



And you give another great example to prove my point. I posted, in fact, a direct link to a rebuttal of your examples. When LaCour created a study suggesting that "being befriended by those they despised" worked to change people's minds, this was basically the biggest sensation in psychology. People didn't believe it was possible, but LaCour had cracked the holy grail-finding a way to convince people which wasn't horrible on its face. In fact, his conclusion was basically the same as the one you and Vesca want to draw-"befriending people works reliably to change people's minds."

Except for the small detail that it was a complete fabrication, and the scientific consensus is still "it is basically impossible to change someone's mind on a subject once it is made up." In fact, your examples are interesting because you ignore parts of them to get to your conclusion. You ignore Ms. Phelps talking about how her doubts were in part because the entire US seemed to be against them to focus on the rebellion-which you assume must have been motivated by some outside friendship rather than internal issues. You ignore how simply because aggressive tactics are unconvincing doesn't mean that non-aggressive ones aren't. And you ignore how impractical these tactics are, to the point where apparently any level of past or present 'bluntness' can lead them to completely backfire.

Click to shrink...

I actually never stated that Libby phelps was primarily persuaded by outsiders befriending her, and if i did i was mistaken. I only said that she doesn't seem to put as much emphasis on society's consensus as you do. And given that she grew in an insular community that looked down upon, and was hated by by pretty much everyone from the get go, it doesn't seem likely that hatred from the outside was key in that instance.

I'll agree that perceived popular opinion can indeed effect at least someone's desire to fit in, but one, I still see how agressive tactics can actually negatively impact popular opinion towards your side. And two, the example of the faked study doesn't disprove my point, or the examples provided. I'm more looking for studies that establish that befriending a staunch opponent has no effect on their opinion( specifically, I think it definitely can work on opponents who think you are inferior or damned or some other untouchable status).

Also, just to clarify, are you saying that aggressive tactics are not effective either?

 

[MJ12 Commando]

While we're on the subject of tactics, I'd suggest looking at the words of MLK:

It is painfully obvious that MLK and his CRM were the SJWs of their time. That they used all the same tactics, and got hit by all the same arguments. Much like gay marriage has seen the same points as interracial marriage be raised, it is a repetition. It is only with a half century of hindsight and rose-tinted glasses that we remember MLK as a great crusader for good, but see SJWs as disruptive rabble-rousers. The reality is that MLK was also labeled a disruptive rabble-rouser, that people saw his fiery language as disturbing and threatening, that he was provoking more violence and hostility from his opponents as well as his allies, that moderates agreed with his ends but not with his means. Nothing has changed. If anything the SJWs are kind of weaksauce compared to how far MLK and company were willing to go.

Click to shrink...

MLK's arguments actually get into what does change people's minds. There's a really interesting Yale project about cultural cognition:

cultural cognition project - home

Basically they assert that people's viewpoints will tend to slowly converge towards what cultural group they feel most closely represents them. If you think of yourself as a 'SJW' you'll end up slowly reasoning yourself into agreeing with 'SJW' arguments, if you think of yourself as a "brogressive" (or whatever they call themselves) you'll do the same with those, if you think of yourself as a Republican you'll tend to slowly move towards Republican ones. It explains the success stories of the 'befriending' paradigm better than the "people befriend someone and change their views slowly" much better I think.

The guys who found the LaCour study to be fake reran it and discovered that the conclusions actually held up though

Click to shrink...

Not quite-they suggest a very specific method of asking people to empathize with people works, not just generally 'being nice' and it's not clear how aggressive they were. They also found that attack ads worked (just not quite as well as their specific technique). They also found that the effects weren't particularly dramatic. A fraction of a standard deviation, more or less-and if I'm reading the graphs right they were actually much more inclined to be positive towards trans people than the mean population (including the placebo respondents). So I'm going to still suggest that this is not an incredibly reliable method of changing people's minds-but then again, very little is so... you're part right. It can work. It's just that it's incredibly resource intensive and I'd want to see if it works on people who aren't already inclined towards you first.

Because that's not the problem-I don't think the social justice advocates are having a huge problem getting people already on their side to agree with them. The problem is convincing the people who aren't inclined towards you.

It's an interesting finding but it still suggests "this might be better" instead of "this is better than stoking up your base and being all kinds of mad against people."

BEHOLD! ~echo echo echo...

I am here to prove you wrong, not convince you that I am right.

I already told you, I suck at it, for reasons that are none of your business. So I dont even try. Its not something I am proficient in. Come on MJ12, actually read my posts!

I didnt say that it was easy, I said it was the most effective. I said I wasnt here to convince you that I am right, I am here to merely prove you wrong. I didnt say to whom but the implication is to anyone reading this thread who isnt you, as I dont care what you think about me or my argument.

And no, you are a lawyer, you argue in a setting that is highly formal, with explicit sets of rules and behavior, and expected levels of debate and proficiency. Your audience, with the sole exception of the Jury, is the judge. An individual who is your professional colleague, who as same or similar levels of education, in a setting where the explicit stated goal is to determine the facts of whatever case you happen to be arguing.

Convincing a layperson to change their minds is a completely different ballgame, one that you suck, and boy do you suck at it. People dont respond to highly legalistic and technical rules of debate and discourse.

Click to shrink...

So you've decided that the most effective way to prove me wrong is to... target people who aren't already inclined to disagree with you because targeting someone to change their mind is very very hard. However, my argument has been that attempting to change the minds of neutral observers and fence-sitters is more efficient, and attacks on your target are actually a good way to do that. So you're trying to disprove my argument... by literally using the exact tactics my argument suggests.

Also, just to clarify, are you saying that aggressive tactics are not effective either?

Click to shrink...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Aggressive tactics aren't meant to change people's minds, they're meant to fire up your base and convince fence-sitters. If you heard "X person is like Hitler" and had no evidence or opinion for or against, you'd probably be more inclined to agree that X person is like Hitler. That's the kind of stuff 'attack ads' target, they're not going to convince someone who already has an opinion. Most of modern advertisement and opinion-shifting is based on either firing up the base, or getting people who are on the fence to lean towards you, not convince people who already dislike you.

What I believe is actually effective at changing someone's mind when it's already made up is the kind of pressure you get when there aren't many fence-sitters and the majority of people are in your camp already-i.e. anti-smoking campaigns.