Learn Street Epistemology to Deal with Difficult People at Work
codecapsule.com
codecapsule.com
To my mind a better kind of "street epistemology" (in that it gets down to the more important human truths rather than theoretical relativism about unfalsifiable "experiences" or a pissing contest about "facts"), is George Thompson's "verbal judo" which is predicated on the leverage of respecting the other person's "ego ground to stand on". Sure, the aim is to move the opponents position, but also to both walk away with a win-win outcome.
My oppositional opponent with authority still makes what I regard as crass shortsighted decisions, on faulty interpretations of shallow evidence, and he rightly maintains I fail to demonstrate corporate acceptance of my radical alternatives and we've been both happier since we arrived here.
Interestingly we also both prefer to caucus for our views sometimes, recognising that playing devils advocate is a shallow version of seeking an alternative point of view on a given problem.
Precisely. People can and will disagree with others. They just will. So many who are young, are certain they have attained great wisdom and must somehow, by hook or by crook, sway others to their view of what is wise and correct, never stopping to consider that they might just be a naive pup that is simply overfull with the preening pride of presumed intellect. As Mark Twain wrote (I paraphrase from memory) "When I was 14 I couldn't believe how ignorant my old man was. And when I was 21, I couldn't believe how much he'd learned in just seven short years." Maybe just chill and accept that not everyone shares the same perception of reality, or of the causes of the effects thereof.
That said, there are plenty of times when a thing simply must be sorted out to move forward.
Consider carefully whether you want to attempt to change the views of someone on matters that may not matter. My cousin just retired from a major firm in the aircraft industry. He designed components for sophisticated aircraft that most of you would instantly recognize. That he was deeply religious and did not accept the theory of evolution, seemed to have zero effect on his status or effectiveness as a senior engineer with that firm.
My father was fond of saying, "A man convinced against his will, Is a man of the same opinion still." --source unknown
That's true indeed. So often people just seem to want to get your assent, as if verbally agreeing with them creates some kind of legal contract and victory for them. It's a point of power-play and irrelevant to everything else. This often happens around "policy" when insecure authoritarians take issue over some minor point. But, as you say, anyone who is cajoled, bullied and browbeaten into passive, or tacit agreement, remains unchanged. For some people, they are now bitter and resentful, and out to embarrass or trip up their opponent on the slightest error of fact. I've seen this a lot in academia, where "being right all the time" is the currency of the hierarchy.