Hacker News Reader

Comment by afarrell | Hacker News Reader

There is a danger in taking this too far. If you assume that facts don’t change people’s minds, you fail to build the skill of arranging facts clearly in a way that helps people think most clearly and allows them to decide to change their mind. Without that skill, you cannot have influence with people who value making clear-eyed fact-based decisions enough to overcome their tribalism.

If you expect people to not make fact-based decisions, you will associate with people who frequently fail to make fact-based decisions. Do that too much, and your life will be at the whims of people who do not even aspire to manage their emotions wisely.

———

Seek out the scout mindset in everyone you meet.

Expect and bring out the best in those around you.

View on HN

If X really assumed «facts don’t change people's minds», X would live in a false and defeatist world image.

If X assumed that 'facts do change people's minds', again X would fool himself and need more accurate representation and tools.

Incidentally: the article (also) fails to point out clearly, "some people do not actually care about changing their mind (irregardless of facts, and even of tribe)" - inner statuses are so important to them, that not even tribalism shakes them.

Of course the point is with defeatism, and its absiological and practical consequences: if one gave up (consequences), or resorted to paternalism (other bad consequences)...

But do not forget the pars construens of TFA: "to change people's minds, there can be better strategies".

Are you sure about that? Even in your own life? Why did you eat the dinner you had last night? Was it because the caloric intake was the proper amount you needed for life? Or were there other reasons? You liked the taste? Just felt like it?

many decisions we make are shortcuts in life. Maybe at one point something was a rational data decisions. But you can turn that into a 'gut feel' very quickly with little thought.

Changing someone's opinion with facts almost rarely works. Unless they do not care about the outcome. Then you can easily change their minds. Something like 1+1=3 'hey you got that wrong' 'oh yeah you are right its 2'. That sort of fact decision is easy to 'fix'. But which steakhouse is the best one on the market? You will get lots of opinions and anecdotes. But there are known and sometimes manipulative methods to change someone's opinion on those things. Edward Bernays methods are usually manipulative and use extensively in politics and marketing campaigns. I usually personally use a more questioning methodology. You also have to get past the idea of 'right vs wrong' also, and be willing to change your own opinions. If not fact methodology usually makes people dig in and ignore you.

I think both you and the guy you replied to are right. It is just 2 aspects of life.

What matters is how do we want to live life ? Do you want to accept that everything is pre-decided, and that we are puppets to our own biases, or do we want to believe that the power of our destiny is in our hands, that we change in every fleeting moment, and we can decide to change for the better version of ourselves ?

Because what you believe influences deeply what you become.

You’ll see these questions more clearly once you start applying Hume’s Guilloine:

Some questions are “is” questions: objective truths about the world and how causality operates within it.

Some questions are “ought” questions: choices about what we enjoy, want, or consider unjust.

I ate dinner last night because my biology is such that I feel sluggish and distracted if I forget to eat and I ought take care of myself to keep from feeling sluggish and distracted.

Facts won’t change people’s minds on “ought” questions. Only stories can do that. But if people aren’t muddling their is-oughts then facts can change their minds on “is” questions. If they couldn’t, then science and engineering would make no progress.

> Why did you eat the dinner you had last night?

Is this really relevant? This is only a pertinent question if there was some fact that challenged his dinner decision and he decided to ignore it. Why would think that's the case?

I do usually choose what to eat based on proper caloric intake, nutritional value, and my mental model of human health based on research that I've done. Most people do. Most people fret all the time about what they're putting in their bodies. If I "cheat" and eat something I know is bad for me, that's not a case of a fact failing to change my mind -- my mental model is still correct. I know that the sugary treat is bad for me, and I am correct. Never in this situation has any clear fact been rejected. Never has an incorrect mental model been used when a better model was readily available.

> There is a danger in taking this too far.

Already done- many, many times

"Diamonds are forever", "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day", "Bacon for Breakfast" etc etc.

The "humble" origins began here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Informatio...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com