RE: Effective Dialog?
February 21, 2018 at 10:36 am
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2018 at 10:42 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
IMHO the only way to change someones mind is to get to know them personally, show that you sincerely care about them, and actively listen to what they have to say. One they can see that you are a reasonable person, then, and only then is there a chance they might listen to what you have to say and give it serious consideration. My wife's family is a prime example. While they are very liberal, but I was able to reach them by showing them that I respected their fundamental values and helping them understand what would actually be required to implement those values and the problems / unintended consequences.
As a libertarian leaning person, I am open to the idea of minimal restrictions on the movements of people in the name of liberty. So they could see that we shared that as a value. And I also acknowledged that even a die-hard free-market advocate like Milton Friedman was not opposed to a social safety net provided it was done without strings attached as a means for social engineering. So basically, there were points of agreement. After that it took a while but they now understand that open borders and a generous social safety net are incompatible goals. At the same time, I learned a few things myself.
IMHO the anonymity of social media make it the least likely place to achieve any kind of mutual respect and agreement on just about anything. People cannot see your face or all the non-verbal cues that indicate sincerity. Text based communication is more likely than not to be interpreted with the least favorable tone. How many of use look at the religious views of new members before deciding how to respond? Why? It's only human to at least notice even if one is self aware enough to try and remain objective.
As a libertarian leaning person, I am open to the idea of minimal restrictions on the movements of people in the name of liberty. So they could see that we shared that as a value. And I also acknowledged that even a die-hard free-market advocate like Milton Friedman was not opposed to a social safety net provided it was done without strings attached as a means for social engineering. So basically, there were points of agreement. After that it took a while but they now understand that open borders and a generous social safety net are incompatible goals. At the same time, I learned a few things myself.
IMHO the anonymity of social media make it the least likely place to achieve any kind of mutual respect and agreement on just about anything. People cannot see your face or all the non-verbal cues that indicate sincerity. Text based communication is more likely than not to be interpreted with the least favorable tone. How many of use look at the religious views of new members before deciding how to respond? Why? It's only human to at least notice even if one is self aware enough to try and remain objective.
