Interesting, but the tone of this seems to set out with an a-priori
intent to "debunk" someones beliefs to "obtain buy-in". It's a bit
disingenuous to call that Socratic. An epistemic mission one sets off
on in the spirit of Socrates is dangerous in that, if sincere, one
risks ones own beliefs (and given the trouble that relentless inquiry
provokes, the risk of drinking hemlock for sowing seeds of doubt in
the polis). Such radical openness does not start from the position of
"dealing with difficult people".
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.
Learning to tolerate differences of strongly held opinion and recognise authority to decide or autonomy to differ helped my workplace antipathies more than "this one trick will help you convince people to agree with you"
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
> 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.
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.