It has long been my belief that you could not convince anyone online of anything. That’s extreme, the sort of rule that admits a lot of little trivial exceptions, but in general it holds. The rise of the popular use of online communication and of the political blogosphere pretends to threaten my theory, and frankly, I don’t know its real status — but from what I see things are unchanged and I suspect they will remain so for it is not a feature just of the net.
A great philosopher once made the point that he could not, in fact, really enlighten his readers, for the readers would not understand anything he said except that which they had already more or less formed in themselves. If he spoke an idea that made a reader think, “aha! yes!”, that was a matter of him having expressed something such that the reader recognized his own belief.
But this is not to say that people don’t change as a result of their reading and conversation, not at all, it’s to put the emphasis on how and why they change and who does the changing, people change themselves.
“People never change” is a popular cliche, and yet, people do nothing but change, the actual truism is “people never stay the same”, and what is really meant by “people never change” is, “I couldn’t change her” and similar.
If we are open to changing ourselves then the information we get from others, their facts and opinions, their arguments and refusals all inform that process of change. You may owe someone thanks, but not for changing you, rather for helping you change yourself. If it seems a subtle difference, think again, there is a world of difference between doing something for someone and helping them do it for themselves.
I believe if we all knew it was really the latter that we were doing online, it would change our approach because building a house and expecting someone to move into it is different from helping them build their own house.
(also posted at MLW)
aren’t you limiting your premise by “online”? shouldn’t you say “what’s the point of conversation?
although i was tempted not to comment, thus leaving no conversation on your diary (j/k!)
except no, I don’t leave it out… it’s about all conversation, and it relates to all manipulations…
Bingo. The reason I participate in arguments isn’t to change the opinion of the person I’m arguing with. Though I have managed that a couple of times, they’re usually as firm in their position as I am in mine. It’s to articulate my position to those that happen to be reading the discussion. This is why argument in a private forum is pointless and counterproductive, and why flaming is stupid.
that people never change their thinking based on what other people say – either online or in “real world” conversation.
Think. Think back. Haven’t people said things to you that helped you to see something in a new way, or gave you information you hadn’t had before?
If not, then I would argue that you are not open enough to learning new things from other people.
That aside – finding others who agree with you is also a legitimate function of conversation and community. Your post seems to indicate this is of little or no value, but that also is not the case.
It is true that it is difficult, if not impossible, to shape and form other people’s opinions for them. I think the way you put it, showing them how to change themselves, makes a lot of sense.
you havn’t seen the point of my diary.
my point is that people change themselves, even if they use information you have given them to do so.
and I don’t think it’s of little value at all! It’s of great value.
I’m online to find ideas, your ideas, and use them to change myself.
Then I think you’re saying the same thing I am saying. In the first part of your diary it sounded as if you were saying the opposite.
You are right though, you cannot change anyone’s mind for them.
Too often I encounter people who think they can do nothing, they have no power to change the world. What they do not realize is that they can talk to their friends and neighbors, who talk to their friends and neighbors… and change ripples ever outward. If we are diligent.
I do that.
in fact, I found I often (attempt to) demonstrate something, (attempt to) demonstrate its opposite and its weakness, then in conclusion there is no final assertion.
All that remains is the type of analysis, the formula used during the argument.
I think I do this automatically after years with the philosophy we are discussing, you see, my arguments don’t need a final compelling point because I’m not trying to compell you… I’m happy to give a system of idea and relationships, elements of analysis and try to display what I think is real, and let it affect you or not according to your own plans for yourself.
yes, I think we agree, actually.
Oh yes, one other thing… I think there are times when we do change people’s minds through conversation, when they are convinced by what we say. But they just won’t admit it to us at that time and place because it is embarrassing to do so. It’s like saying you were wrong, and to save face they’ll say “Maybe you have a point” and change the subject. But they were actually convinced.
it’s true, that does happen.
Conversations have myriad purposes, to me, both online and off.
But much of the primary reason why I participate in online debates about political causes that are important to me — gay equality, for example — is that, while I recognize and agree that people can only change themselves, I also recognize that we all can have an impact on one another’s views to varying degrees. Sometimes something I say has no effect on a homophobe, but other times it plants a seed. And maybe the hundredth time they hear the same thing, maybe that’s the time the light bulb finally pops, but that hundredth time won’t ever come without the first time, and every other time in between.
I think all socio-political movements have this component to them, whether online or off. Whatever has been “normalized” resists change, but nothing’s impervious to the various transformations of time.
And fwiw, pyrrho, I quite like your house-building analogy.
combination of reasons.
I agree – there can be multiple reasons for conversations.
Sometimes you’re justifying your own opinions against challenges that bring up doubt in your own mind.
Sometimes you’ve got doubts or uncertainties, and someone else’s viewpoint can help crystallize your thinking into the new pattern/viewpoint that you have been seeking. (I think this is what people are getting at with the saying “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”)
Sometimes you’re communicating new information and exploring the implications of it, without really trying to change your own or another’s mind.
I agree with the point of the diary for the majority (maybe vast majority?) of conversations, but I do not rule out the possibility of someone having a radical change of mind, It’s uncommon, though, and you may be able to count on one hand the number of times it happens to you in a lifetime. But those also tend to be the events that radically transform a person: falling in love for the first time after thinking love would never come your way; changing your religion; Scrooge on Christmas morning; “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
Or maybe that’s a romantic notion of mine that I don’t want to drop completely, so the diary’s words are only partially effective on me. I am aware, re-reading my comment, that to some it will have a bit of the magical or “God of the gaps” feel about it, but that is where “my gut feeling” is at today.
;-D
Know what you mean re: crystallizing thoughts. Also agree w/you re: the possbility of a radical change of mind. As for personal growth, transformation, when it is going to happen, it is going to happen, if, in fact it is meant to. Also, IMO, online conversations can be motivating/informative, that is they do often (at least for me) bring me to the point of the righteous anger that has been building up inside for so long. Just writing about it and realizing that there are others who may/do feel the same way is one of the things that keeps me sane!
What an excellent idea — a god of the gaps.
“I agree with the point of the diary for the majority (maybe vast majority?) of conversations, but I do not rule out the possibility of someone having a radical change of mind, It’s uncommon, though, and you may be able to count on one hand the number of times it happens to you in a lifetime.”
I agree, but I give credit to that individual for being open minded and making that change…
PS: “Mi biosphere es su biosphere.” <— genius, I love it.
I have always contended that nothing I or anyone else says on a message board is going to change anybody’s mind.
And I still stand by that, in the sense that I do not think, for example, that even the most thrilling rhetoric or purplest prose will change the core beliefs of an imperialist/exceptionalist/colonialist whatever ist they wish to be called these days.
However, you make some very good points about how even these people may themselves change, not so much because of what someone says, but as one of the options in your poll says, expose and inform.
Now sticklers will be right if they point out that echoing a news story is not technically exposing, the news org did that, but if you post that story, you are exposing someone else to it, and giving them the chance to become informed, and therein lies the chance that someone may be made to think, which I have frequently cited as the reason for bothering in the first place.
And of course the ultimate hope is that the thinking may cause some change, which could save a life.
of this discussion by Gilgamesh a couple months ago.
Thought I’d provide the link for people who missed it…pretty good stuff! And if you don’t feel like following the link, here’s my answer to his question (very similar to yours, pyrrho):
Whatever happened to Gilgamesh, anyway? I miss those constant trips to the dictionary when trying to understand what he was talking about…
You make an excellent point about people changing themselves — I agree that it’s close to impossible to change someone else. That said, I don’t really argue with the intent of changing. I usually argue with people who I think really agree with me, they just don’t know it yet — I’m almost always pointing out that we are the same.
that thing about arguing with people you agree with (to prove you agree)… I have that feeling all the time!
in fact, I believe one always agrees on “some level” and therefore, you have to seek that level and then work back into the disagreements from there, especially if everyone really is open to personal progress.
Framing?
not really, frames are like skeletons of ideas, you apply them to a situation to understand the situation with respect to this epitome, the frame is supposed to be a near fit, but they’re very flexible and can easly be misapplied, given no frame people just make stuff up like religious frames.
Framing to me is finding the strongest metaphors because as a poet by nature I appreciate that metaphors are more than they appear. Cognitive scientists happen to agree, it’s purely opportunism, revenge of poetry, metaphors are actually bundles of ideas that are intended to be reapplied.
Frame relate in that we have many frames, and yes, we all have some frames in common. That is one way to put it. We all have some common ideas. We are far more alike than different, even if we include every simian in our group for which we check differences. By DNA I’ve read 98% similarity. What appear as huge difference to us are magnified because the differences are the points of conflict and are magnified by the focus of our attention, these conflicts are one of the things I suppose our minds have evolved to apprehend.
The whole framing debate is a classic, “are poets liars? or do they tell the truth?”
I should have added a 🙂 after framing because, in part, I was teasing you. I was thinking, too, of how a house needs framing, as well as, thinking about seeking common ground and stating things a different way so as to be understood by someone in conversation.
A fascinating book I have been reading is called, “Thinking in Pictures: And Other Reports from My Life with Autism.” It is by Temple Grandin, who has autistism. She describes how she thinks and how her mind works. I have found it very inciteful. If you are not familiar with it, I would highly recommend it.
In a fictional book by Mark Haddon, who worked with people with autistism, “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time,” the main character, a teenaged boy with autism, spoke of metaphors as lies. They made no logical sense to him. So he rejected them.
No doubt he would consider poets as “liars.”
As if you need more things to read!
I appreciate readiang recommendations, I have not read either and I think I have heard of Thinking in Pictures. That sounds very interesting.
Another appeal for the idea that we have to understand the world in metaphors is the idea that you cannot truly aprehend the “thing-in-itself”. For centuries philosophers have explained and reexplained “how we see things as they really are” and “how we gain knowledge”, it is all about how we learn, and more or less failed to have as compelling an argument as is desired, something as compelling as our feelings of certainty have been.
Fact is the feeling of certainty will be the thing that has to go in the long run, however well it has served us biologically so far, the truth, once understood, has to be assented to, but not because “certainty” has anything to do with it.
Now is a picture a metaphor? Is thinking in pictures a metaphorical process? I think it is but it also defines literal thinking insofar as it’s about as literal as you could get, and its margin of error can be very low. “Show me” is a way to get less traditionally poetic and more “literal”.
But pictures are memories (or imaginations, similar in kind to memories), they are not perfect, and even if they are, they are incomplete, just one of the infinite angles of perspective at just one of the uncountable moments in time, and they are related to models that fill them out. If you see one side of a house, your mind fills in the existence of the other side. You’ll say “there was a house there” though you might have been fooled by a faccade or the house might be wrecked on the other side.
Bravo — so tell me, have you been a union organiser?
other than that, no.
it’s a joke, but I don’t get it… mind explaining?
Not a joke really, it’s just that your diary reminded me of things I learned while organising — that you can’t change people’s mind and that they have to do that for themselves — and I just wondered if you’d come to that through the smae context.
Great diary BTW
There is not one day that goes by, that I do not learn something new. Sometimes it changes my onlook of said topic, but usually adds to it. I love conversation whether it is online or in snail mail. Everything nowadays is more so online, so one has to judge what one is meaning and if not to repeat back to be sure it is what one is meaning. Sometimes this is a good thing to do in a real conversation face to face in real life too…..just to make for sure one is getting the point made, or listening correctly
“When a student is ready…
A teacher will appear.”
Anyone know who said that? I use it a lot in my life, but have never really known where it came from.
and Shirl appeared to me ;o)
Wonderful observation!
What you are describing, IMO, requires really listening to others and checking in with them to clarify understanding and intentions.
This requires time and energy, sometimes (often?), in short supply. What seems to be valued, at least in the mainstream, are the quips and comebacks – one liners, 30 sec. ads. Scoring points. Sports run amok.
Whew – the emphasis on being “right!” Sometime in the late spring or early summer, “Andrew C. White” wrote a marvelous diary about how getting caught up in “being right” was so narrow and limiting, yet recognizing how “sweet” it feels to be “right,” sort of empty calories for the ego.
Thanks for the image of helping someone build a house – I find it very vivid and helpful.
a witty line is great but what you’re mentioning is this combat idea of being compelling in argument.
What is really going on 99 times in 100, imo, in “convincing” is really one person backing off, essentially intimidated by the signaling for power going on in a conversation taken as a kind of battle where the winner compels agreement. Like a ritual, the group decide on is right, but that doesn’t mean the arguments “loser” really gives up his idea, and almost never gives up most of it, at best change is slow.
What you write about is very thought-provoking, often leading me to more questions.
You wrote: “Another appeal for the idea that we have to understand the world in metaphors is the idea that you cannot truly apprehend the “thing-in-itself”.”
In what way does it matter whether we “apprehend the ‘thing-in-itself'” or not? There is no disparagement intended in my question.
And you wrote: “Fact is the feeling of certainty will be the thing that has to go in the long run, however well it has served us biologically so far, the truth, once understood, has to be assented to, but not because “certainty” has anything to do with it.”
What is this “truth” you write about?
What value does this “certainty” have to survival? Is it “certainty” or “habit” or “pattern” or our attempt to “make sense?” If “certainty” has served us biologically, can we let it go? Has our biology changed?
BTW, I was thinking of moments that provide us with examples of how we change over time. Rereading books, particularly books that in the first reading made an impact and left a noticeable impact, one can find that the book “reads” differently. Recently friends reread “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.” They each commented on how they understood it now as compared to when they read it 30+ years ago.
Thanks for your responses.
In what way does it matter whether we “apprehend the ‘thing-in-itself'” or not?
from my philosophical position, it doens’t matter, that is… we don’t have to apprehend fully the thing-in-itself. My philosophy emphasizes and accepts all apprehension in incomplete, all statement approximate, something I inherit from both skeptisism and relativism and just naturally tend to believe… it appeals to me.
but in general it does and has mattered historically. The history of philosophy is also a history of ideas, both popular and technical. From antiquity we came to consider philosophy with some assumption recieved from the long dark history of manking (millions of years, sure, but also thousands of unwritten history during which man was much as today in terms of basic biology and ability), and one such ancient idea was that we saw and knew the world.
The assumption was we were certain, and western philosophers generally accepted the question of “how do we come to be certain?” as a valid question, but one which would have an answer of “this is how”. The stoics argue the mind somehow reaches out and apprehends the subject of consideration, traps it, and knows it. Each such argument since has basically argued for an aproximate understanding of the thing, then done some hand waving to make the final leap to certainty. For Descartes it was “well, God wouldn’t lie to me like this, that wouldn’t make sense”, and so on.
my position is we don’t need certainty, and we can’t even know OURSELVES and we, theoretically, are the things itself in our own case.
What is this “truth” you write about?
ahah! this is why that thing in itself issue is so important. What is “truth” if you remove the “certainty”… it’s approximation. Is that good enough? Well, we must invoke relativity and criteria, “good enough for what?”
Do we know the sun will come up tomorrow? Hume addresses this question in a famous line of argument, showing of course we don’t, we cannot know the future, however certain it seems to be. And we know the sun will some day blow up, that some day for some reason, “it won’t come up”… and the point is not that we can live as though it was certain… we can also live knowing it is not certain. Why? Because the odds are great, it’s a good bet. Truth is knowledge we don’t question for practical reasons… we OUGHT to question it now and then, but in a pinch, we use that truth and don’t question it, we plan on doing something tomorrow, we don’t say “I’ll wait to see if the sun comes up first, so I can be certain”. We deal with the unknown all the time… in our actions we are skeptical and relativistic and humble about knowledge, but in our writing and philosophy, for thousands of years, we’ve insisted that isn’t acceptable, that certainty must be proved, by faith, by argument, by whatever means necessarry. It’s compulsive.
What value does this “certainty” have to survival? Is it “certainty” or “habit” or “pattern” or our attempt to “make sense?” If “certainty” has served us biologically, can we let it go? Has our biology changed?
take the sun example… to assume certainty for something of high priority is good for survival, because it’s more efficient than having to wonder and rethink, especially if the odds are so good that such extra considerations are costly and could interfere with survival.
If you are threatened, it can work well to assume your enemy is possessed by evil, and to work yourself up to a violent frenzy on the thought, and fight your fight fully… rather than question that.
Our biology has not changed much, but our minds have, our culture has, and there are thresholds where animals need to alter their approach, when new options have become available. I believe we are in such a time in terms of the human worldview… “certainty” is now a liability, our decisions are more subtle, we need the new information that uncertainty principles provide, our decisions invovle details that are affected on that subtle scale. For one, without “absolute certainty” there could be less war, remembering, of course, there will still be “relative certainty” and the fight for survival.
You wrote: “The history of philosophy is also a history of ideas, both popular and technical…and one such ancient idea was that we saw and knew the world.”
I wonder if the ancients WERE so certain. The rise of religions that worshipped the sun. The creation of totems of creatures needed for survival.
To me the deification of elements/animals/etc. and the creation of rituals, offerings and sacrifices, songs and dances, etc. seem to me to be an attempt to influence or control the environment – a way to deal with uncertainty. Then there is the use of these beliefs and practices to control the populace.
You wrote: “The assumption was we were certain, and western philosophers generally accepted the question of “how do we come to be certain?” as a valid question, but one which would have an answer of “this is how…Each such argument since has basically argued for an aproximate understanding of the thing, then done some hand waving to make the final leap to certainty.”
This is very Western, isn’t it? As you noted earlier, philosophy is a history of the technical. But it is also affected by scientific understandings. Our scientific understandings pre-1900 were very “mechanistic” with a certainty that humans could “know everything.”
But then we enter the 20th century with Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle.” Quite a shift! And we also began to get more exposure to Eastern philosophy – very different.
You wrote: “What is “truth” if you remove the “certainty”… it’s approximation. Is that good enough?
This has a flavoring of a tautology. “Truth” is “a kind of knowing?”
“We deal with the unknown all the time… in our actions we are skeptical and relativistic and humble about knowledge, but in our writing and philosophy, for thousands of years, we’ve insisted that isn’t acceptable, that certainty must be proved, by faith, by argument, by whatever means necessary. It’s compulsive.”
I wonder if this is an ego-type need for being “right?” I can see why people use the language of mathematics, seeking both clarity of communication and “certainty!” Alas, it is not a language I can understand.
Is mathematics a “metaphor?”
“I believe we are in such a time in terms of the human worldview… “certainty” is now a liability, our decisions are more subtle, we need the new information that uncertainty principles provide, our decisions involve details that are affected on that subtle scale.”
I see “certainty” reflected in our arrogance toward the environment and our classifications of people and their value – beliefs, attitudes, behaviors.
I value your thinking and greatly appreciate your time in responding.
thank you for the compliment tompopo and I appreciate your time as well.
a couple things…
first, it’s interesting about the idea of certainties in the past which were so wrong. That’s my problem with certainty, people that hate to give it up are always pressing, “but how will we know what we know we know?!?!” But really, certainty promises that but like all false promises, it can’t deliver, and thus, leads to something else, and that is, certainty in falsehoods… in approximations so bad they are not even approximations.
Mind you, I’m not against mystical explanations, they are still aproximations, and sometimes strike really well when taking human emotion into account… for one, assigning gods to natural events is a way of using this very well developed understanding we have of other humans and trying to get some work out of it in general… when we presume the weather has a personality, we are able to apply the framework of humankind onto something, and we have lots of tools there, some of which actually are helpful. If the sea is angry, head for land, etc, still, they do suck as scientific ideas and as “certainties”.
“But then we enter the 20th century with Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle.” Quite a shift! And we also began to get more exposure to Eastern philosophy – very different.”
my handle is from Pyrrho of Ellis, an ancient skeptic living about 300 BCE, and he is said to have gotten his skepticism from trips to the orient, and it’s funny, because buddhists always recognize ideas I take from Pyrrho as buddhist in nature. And that seems to be historically likely. So the way I see it, this modern turn is also a return… skepticism was derided for a long time but did not go away, and now it’s rising again, and will be good for mankind I think, in it’s true form.
Knowledge without certainty is the only knowledge possible, I say we take what we can get in that respect.
cheers.
one other thing, this reminds me of how animal’s vision increases, and you have to react to the new visualization.
Consider an extreme case.
Single celled life forms have no eyes… however, when light strikes them there is an affect… to be simple I’ll say it heats up the cell, as it will do in general.
If a cell gets too hot, it can’t steer, in general, it can wave it’s little hairs and just move.
Such a creature doesn’t have to know it’s in a 3 dimensional space, from it’s point of view it’s in a unidirectional one dimensional space, that is, it can move “forward”. If it’s getting hot, it can “move forward”, and that might be toward OR away from the source of the heat, all it can do is move and hople.
But as it develops eyes, or the precursor of eyes, which can detect the light, it’s direction, it’s wavelength, it gains a perspective to increase it’s odds, suddenlty “I’m hot, move” isn’t good enough. It may learn how to eat certain wavelengths and trave toward them, it may learn which direction the heat is coming from and evolve an ability to move willfully in 3 dimensions.
By the time you are us, you just don’t want to be blind, we base a lot of our survival techniques in a realm that for single celled organisms is a subtle point… the whole world of 3d visual information is not of much importance to them, but once you go along the route of using this information, you don’t want to give it up, you have much more power and control.
This is what I think has happened to “absolute certainty”… we just don’t need it. We did survive using it, but now we know more, we have eyes, we want to take the truth into account and get to the next level. It’s of dire importance because right now humans are at a crossroads where we have more power than we have the wisdom to use, and will destroy ourselves unless we get to this next level at which we can percieve our own self interests once again.
thanks for the provocative questions.
This was a very good description of an evolutionary change.
“This is what I think has happened to “absolute certainty”… we just don’t need it. We did survive using it…”,
I don’t know if this craving for “certainty” has served us very well at all, ever. I am not sure if it helped with survival or not. It seems to have been used to gain a sense of control and a sense of security. Then used to control people. I’m thinking of the “certainty” of religious groups with their hierarchies and extrapolating to religious beliefs supporting the status quo of societies, particular maintaining those in positions of power.
“…but now we know more, we have eyes, we want to take the truth into account and get to the next level.”
This seems to reflect our changed scientific understandings. And our expanding communication ability distance and speed. Our notions of community and connection with others are changing.
“It’s of dire importance because right now humans are at a crossroads where we have more power than we have the wisdom to use, and will destroy ourselves unless we get to this next level at which we can percieve our own self interests once again.”
Now that is a “truth” I agree with “certainty!”
We only have this one planet – we share the water and air. China’s air pollution is my air pollution as one example of our interconnectedness.
I consider an “organic” type model to be so valuable – interconnection, integration, symbiosis, etc. Not sure where “truth” fits in. Actually, I am in the process of letting go of the notion of “truth” – at least, truth in the sense of monolithic structure. It is becoming much more ephemeral – whispers, flashes, alternately experienced from the periphery or deep in the core – a dissolving of boundaries.
Oh the thoughts one can think!
Thanks again for your comments and explanations. I don’t have anyone in my immediate world who shares my interest in such thoughts or questions. This has been a delight.