Comments on: How To Talk to a Believer

By: PharmD28

PharmD28 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:59:11 +0000

this continues to be a challenge for me within the ranks of our local meetups (“atheists”, or “evolutionists”) here that have some varying views on such topics, sometimes very much up the alt med road.

My initial conversations with the believer, were nearly a total failure on my part (at least based on what I think my goals are). I was so originally surprised to meet the alt med folks in these ranks, that when I did, and we began to debate…my tone was too much for them…and I angered a couple of these folks….

I had thought that people in such groups all enjoyed straight forward no nonsense debate…but you know what they say about assumptions…

I still am feeling out when I should be more straight forward and pounce, when to just work a bit on the foundation, or just ignore….

By: elmer mccurdy

elmer mccurdy — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:08:03 +0000

You know, I’ve stated my disagreements with Dr. Novella a few times, and they’re few and I suppose mostly pretty minor, and they’re topics he touches on only very occasionally. I’ve reached a point where there doesn’t seem to be much point in trying to think of clever ways to restate them, aside from the fact that my interests have drifted elsewhere. And, of course, there’s a person – well, I recently did something in a fit of pique to piss him off, foolishly, as he has done so many times to me, but now I would just like to go back to avoiding him. It’s long been obvious that what is driving him is a general desire to show his superiority to me, and this is part of a pattern of behavior that I observed long before he became aware of my existence, and which I found amusing before I became his target, but now… ew. Unfortunately, it’s much harder on the internet to avoid unpleasant humans, just as it’s harder to have conversations without them becoming part of your permanent record. But I do what I can. Anyway, ta ta.

By: Greggorey

Greggorey — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:50:21 +0000

Great post, Dr. Novella. I recently created a similar entry on my blog. I was wondering if my thoughts inspired you or if it was just a coincidence.

http://scienceskepticism.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-argue-with-non-skeptice-without.html

take care,

Greg

By: Jared Olsen

Jared Olsen — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:17:14 +0000

I wonder if the Believer’s have a similar blog somewhere titled “How To Talk To A Skeptic”?
The biggest hurdle I find in these situations is convincing the other person of the fallibility of human perception and thought. In my experience, most people are totally unaware of how we can be fooled by our own hardware and software. If they give an anecdote as evidence (let’s face it, that’s how most ‘evidence’ is presented in everyday conversation), and you question, say, their memory of the event, then it’s perceived as a personal attack.
Maybe I should carry around optical illusions…

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 00:33:05 +0000

Bill Openthalt-

write the reply but don’t send it off for a couple of hours, and re-read it before hitting “Submit”. When I do this, I notice that most of the time I decide it’s better not to reply at all.

I laughed when I read this,as I have done this many times on Facebook.I type so slowly,and then second guess my source,and then re-edit,and by the time I get done,I just say “Aw screw it!” ,and delete the post before I submit it. It’s still a kind of catharsis though

By: Hamilton

Hamilton — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:59:21 +0000

Albert Einstein said “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe.”

Talking to people about the beliefs they hold dear is like wrestling a bone from the mouth of a hungry dog, they’re never gonna let go. I always try to remember the above quote, and just leave them to it.

By: Bill Openthalt

Bill Openthalt — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:58:16 +0000

@SARA:

The circuits that evaluate others operate outside of consciousness. The results of the evaluation are perceived as the desire to argue with them, the dislike of their point of view.

It is true that because of our origins, these circuits assume we are living in small tribes, and that those who do not belong to the tribe are potentially dangerous. I agree they are not tuned for the much larger societies we live in. Unfortunately, the conscious mind cannot reprogram these unconscious modules, but has to re-target the feelings and impulses generated by them. This is difficult, slow, and quite unreliable.

The hierarchy of the modules in the brain is based on the assumption that when it comes to safety, the conscious part of the mind cannot be relied upon. This means the conscious part cannot (easily) influence behaviour when the safety of the person is at stake. The only possibility is to try and influence the parameters used by the social evaluation circuits when the situation is safe.

I don’t have a recipe for this, but I think the kind of reflections you posted do, albeit slowly, influence the outcome of the evaluation if they occur often enough. Once you know the impulse to react comes from this rather rigid social evaluation part of your mind, you can choose to reply “virtually” — write the reply but don’t send it off for a couple of hours, and re-read it before hitting “Submit”. When I do this, I notice that most of the time I decide it’s better not to reply at all.

Unfortunately, the media we use today favour immediate reactions…

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:48:20 +0000

Lots of good comments on this thread. Much food for thought. Keep it coming.

By: SARA

SARA — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:56:49 +0000

@ Bill Openthalt
Ensuring cohesion and coherence in the community is an interesting way to look at it. But the underlying assumption is that someone who is not necessarily in alignment with our group is somehow “other” and not be trusted.

And that is troubling to me. While it may be true that we debate aggressively to protect that cohesion, it is not necessarily a good motivation.

The tribal outlook doesn’t fit into the current world. It’s the source on a large scale of most of our societal conflicts.

On a small scale, like the interactions we have with people about skeptical subjects, it creates the problem of communication walls rather than bridges.

Even within the group, the assumption that someone whose opinion doesn’t jive with the majority is somehow not to be trusted seems like a fallacy. Trust implies a lack of threat. I can hold a belief different than the skeptical movement, and not threaten you or the movement in any real way.

An action must be taken to create a threat. For example, attempts to create laws to teach creationism in schools is an action. A belief in creationism is not.

By: Kevin Dugan

Kevin Dugan — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:01:50 +0000

I like to share excitement about what cognitive science shows us about how the brain works. This usually draws their attention in an uncritical way. Then I can talk about examples of hindsight or confirmation bias, about perception errors, about Type1 and Type2 errors and their evolutionary basis, about how the brain is all about the body and preserving it physically and socially.

It’s also useful to share a story about how you’re perceptions have changed about an issue, or where you read this really neat study and what was discovered. In doing so, you encourage them to think of science and reason as obtainable by the average person, and how complexity underlies most subjects, and how you can trust things with error bars far more than things without.

I’ve come to believe that most folks hold firm beliefs from fear rather than faith. They’re afraid of what it will mean if they don’t believe it. Talking to them about their fear stories and helping them see alternative endings to these stories can help ease them out of firmly held positions.