Understanding the motivation of people you disagree with | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Understanding the motivation of people you disagree with

Do you try to limit the kinds of political viewpoints you expose yourself to?

  • No—I will read anything and everything as long as doing so doesn't get me arrested

    Votes: 4 44.4%
  • I compartmentalize—I have certain spaces for political debate and other spaces for just socializing

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • Yes—There are some ideas that are so offensive that I do not want to read about them ever

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Other—I will respond in the comments

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • Total voters
    9
The flat earth scene is a good example because a few months ago I was reading through some of their web sites. I got to wondering if I could actually refute what they were saying from first principles, and then it suddenly dawned on me that I couldn't. All I can do is appeal to scientific and navigational authority because I don't have easy access to the actual physical proof that the earth is round - I have to trust that the science I believe in is correct, but in practical terms cannot directly verify it for myself.
The reason you cannot refute what they're saying isn't because you don't have access to physical proof - you do, lunar eclipses are there for everyone to see - but because whatever proof you come up with will be hand waved away. Even if we could launch a bunch of them into space, they still wouldn't believe they weren't being tricked.
 
It seems to be a process question for most flat earthers. The thing is, many of the succeeding developments of the world that worked with a round earth proved more efficient but yeah much of what we perceive of the world is solely a belief system.

Round moon above orbiting the earth, showing earth as it circles the sun: solar system and stars turning above us; survival and protecting one's own herd didn't need to even study that. Sitting on the ocean watching another ship go over the horizon was all there for anyone pondering the earth. It was obvious, and how majestic.
300px-Horizons.svg.png


We learned a lot when the owners of sea vessels dropped their fears.

Hard to say it wasn't a simple observation, though it was. Ever stare out at the ocean? The farthest point you can see is about 3 miles out. 6 miles: hard to believe the human race didn't send a probe out just to observe the circle.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but without the other content, there are some political views I do find distasteful. Why open my mind to another's in the gutter?

Had anyone told me the earth was flat, curious George here would have observed the evidence and told them they were wrong. The answers are all around us for those seeking them.

calnorth.gif


Every month, except on occasion.
 
Last edited:
At the onset of cell phones and computers, some of us older folk had to engage just to keep up. Funny thing, though:

We were told to hide our passwords somewhere nobody could find them. Our cell phones' information was private. Voting changed. We were all riding along for the ride, then we were taken for one.

I cannot check my email without giving them, over the www, my phone number. Look what has happened! Don't give out your banking information, right? I cannot have my water turned on without my personal account number emailed to them over the www and can't talk to them. We are getting rid of people's jobs. Order online. Pay online. Make reservations online. Still no email. What has happened to our privacy? Order a pizza, and you are sent an email to verify it. Go to pay for the order you called in and drove to get, and the receipt has 10, 20, 30, or 40 percent squares to tip the person that is getting paid to take the order and prepare it. Drive and get gas for $5 or more a gallon, and have to go ask for a receipt. I'll take the good old days.

We have no privacy. Someone sees me on this website over the last 15 or more years, not hidden, and now someone else is telling them what I say. Trust? Honesty? Integrity? Stabbed in the back again. They write it down.

"They" know where we are, what we are doing, where we go, where we live, our address, and bank info, email and passwords to most all of it. What a ride. Anyone ask where we are heading? What they do not know is how spiritual we are.
"Whom shall We send, and who shall go for Us?" Send me, Lord. No questions. No fears. Yet, "they" are curious now. They may send someone to hint you are on a bad path. Try to talk you away from their worries. Let them talk to God. At least I can see where I'm going with the Light I have been given.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jexocuha
The reason you cannot refute what they're saying isn't because you don't have access to physical proof - you do, lunar eclipses are there for everyone to see - but because whatever proof you come up with will be hand waved away. Even if we could launch a bunch of them into space, they still wouldn't believe they weren't being tricked.
Well of course turning a lunar eclipse into a spherical earth is not a trivial exercise. I can’t just go and see because they aren’t made to order and the last few happened on cloudy nights where I live. So I have to depend on memory and what others report. But then how do I go from the projection of a shadow to the shape of the object casting it? It involves a knowledge of the moon’s shape, and there are more than one sorts of object that can cast the same shadow. How do I even know it really is caused by the earth casting a shadow? These are really all the sort of things that I accept as part of collective wisdom but they would be a lot harder for me to pursue to first principles myself. Even more so if I was arguing against the weight of public opinion rather than for it, as would have been likely several hundred years ago.

The observation that ships drop below the horizon has similar problems. I can see the way the atmosphere bends light and creates optical illusions so it takes some care thinking this one through too. I’ve never actually observed it personally either and usually the atmosphere is too hazy to actually see clearly out to the horizon with confidence- and I don’t usually have binoculars or a telescope with me so that makes a confident observation tricky.

Again, it’s easy to appeal to these sort of evidences when we are confident that we have the right answer already because we trust what we have been told. Actually using them to fully verify the truth independently for ourselves is pretty hard.

This is why I feel so strongly about the problem that @ultrauber raises. Of course the world is round - everyone knows that because evidence. But when I start to appeal to that evidence directly myself I realise that in practical terms I have to rely to a great extent on what I have been told and what is accepted socially. I don’t have easily available means to do it myself. I can verify that what I believe is plausible using the sort of evidence you mention but that’s not the same as proof.

Now this is an extreme case to highlight the issue. It’s much more challenging when the dispute is over different perspectives that are much less clearly defined socially as well as physically. Usually the arguments are over a priori values rather than an analysis of their consequences and the support for those values is an unholy mess of opinion, mixed up with facts that are almost impossible to verify independently.

I think there is great value in being able to see things from the opposing viewpoints rather than just shutting them out. That’s not the same as agreeing with them, but the door does have to be left open by suspending belief in order to really hear what the others are saying. Socially this isn’t easy to do though because, as has been pointed out, folks can all too easily assume if you are not for them you are against them and treat you as an enemy rather than an enquirer. I think so much is lost with a rush to judgement, socially just as much as in terms of truth.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jexocuha and Wyote
I just looked at the poll here.
Can reading something really get a person arrested :thonking:
 
I recently had an experience where someone posted on social media, essentially, "What the fuck is up with people who believe X? Do they really think that ABC?" And I responded saying, "Although I don't believe X, I think their reasoning is more about DEF than ABC." Then this person accused me of defending group X and blocked me.

This was a very disheartening experience, and after mulling it over for a few days, I realized that my predominant feeling is one of shame. In the mind of the person who blocked me, it is sinful for me to even know about X-believers, even though I am not one, and this person regards with suspicion merely because I am capable of describing the logic behind their beliefs. I feel ashamed, but I do not think the shame is justified: rather, I was shamed for having what I think is a healthy, even necessary level of intellectual curiosity.

-----

I have noticed that many people try to "sanitize" their media diet, to some extent or another. A common statement is, "It is exhausting to constantly be reminded about X, and I don't want to poison my brain with those ideas." I know arguing in circles about an issue you have already made up your mind about is exhausting, and I forgive people who want to carve out a space where their ideas can go unchallenged. But to me this is a very insecure statement: I believe the things that I believe because they are correct, and I am not going to be seduced into believing in some offensive and horrible ideology just because someone charismatic or beautiful posts about it on social media.

I know arguing in circles about an issue you have already made up your mind about is exhausting, and I forgive people who want to carve out a space where their ideas can go unchallenged. But I think it is dangerous to spend too much time in this sort of bubble. If I am going to hold a strong position on a political issue, then I think I have an ethical obligation to engage on a regular basis with arguments from the opposite side. There are several reasons for this:
  • It reminds me of why I disagree with these ideas and favor my own view
  • It ensures that I hold my own view because it is correct, not because it is popular among people in my bubble
  • It gives me the opportunity to win people over to my view
Also, it is funny to laugh at idiots online, but this is a matter of personal taste.

Do you have any limits on the kind of media that you consume? How do you strike a balance between engaging with a diverse spectrum of viewpoints and not getting burned out by pointless debate? How do you decide which ideas are "so offensive that I refuse to even consider them" and which ideas are "wrong but I am willing to hear them out"?
I easily comprehend most people's ideas, theories, preferences, beliefs, etc. But I won't spend time on trying to enter into their psychology, in regards to why they may like, prefer, etc to hold their position. In that sense, I can be very dismissive of other's points of view (more so than what I'd idealise as being sufficiently polite).

Some examples of viewpoints I understand, but find zero value in holding include: gender theory, atheism, religious fundamentalism, communism, anarchism, moral relativism, utilitarianism, etc.

If someone constantly harps on about topics I'm not interested in, I'll mostly ignore them.
 
I'm also not convinced that debating on its own is even all that helpful. It can be, when you both respect the other person first, and then seriously consider their opinions and beliefs. But that respect is born from recognizing the humanity in the other person, and that recognition doesn't arise from debating. It arises from connecting with the other person, through relaxation, socialization and play, and that is essential to coming to some sort of understanding.

This is a tremendous insight, as evidenced by the fact that I audibly said huh at my phone. I grew up in a family and community that prizes intellectual debate. We would argue about politics over the dinner table as a kind of sport. So it comes naturally for me to talk about ideas in the abstract without associating them with people or pathologizing someone for holding a view that I consider flawed. But the circumstances of my childhood are ultimately what equipped me to do this kind of compartmentalization.

I think I need to get in the habit of reminding myself that other people may need a longer period of connection before they can engage in this kind of brainy scrimmage. That these people have a more "emphathy-inflected" way of moving through the world shouldn't be regarded as a weakness—while it may make it harder for them to separate people from the ideas they espouse, it comes with other sorts of social and emotional benefits. And we need diverse personalities in a healthy and free society.

The person doing this guilt by association nonsense should feel ashamed instead.

Well, yes and no. Part of the reason my shame is so acute is that this person is someone whom I have always admired for being both empathetic as well as logical. In fact, one of the things that drew me into this person's circle was reading how incisively they write about shame as a social phenomenon, and how shame prevents people from achieving their potential. It would be one thing to be blocked by just "some guy," but it's another to be blocked by someone who I am pretty sure wouldn't do it without a good reason.

It's OK: I don't need to be morally in the right here. While obviously I wrote the OP in a way that makes myself look like the party in the right, I am sure that this person could (if pressed for specifics) explain where I crossed the line in my communication style and should have known better. Unfortunately, I do not have the opportunity to receive that kind of feedback from them, but perhaps in a few months I will revisit the issue and see if I can achieve any fresh insights.

Even if I decide, later on, that I was in the right, I still want to learn to communicate in a way that doesn't make others angry. It's frustrating that some people get angry for no reason, but there are lots of people like that, and as a human being in the world, you have to have a strategy for dealing with them.
 
I easily comprehend most people's ideas, theories, preferences, beliefs, etc. But I won't spend time on trying to enter into their psychology.
Yes, I suppose this is an important distinction: it is one thing to be able to summarize the arguments made by flat-earthers (and hopefully, explain why they are flawed) and another to be able to empathize with their belief choices because they probably were lonely and wanted to feel like that had a community of their own, etc... The latter kind of psychological exercise can come across as "flat-earther apologetics" above and beyond a mere summary of their beliefs, and I could see myself getting annoyed if someone tried to tell me that I should soften my hard towards a group I find offensive on the grounds of some flimsy psychodynamic theory.

But then: everything we believe ultimately does come down to psychology, doesn't it? You can have all sorts of great logical tools and epistemic filters, but ultimately the thing that holds your belief is your brain, and if your brain decides (whether with or without your permission) that it is going to turn off the logic when it comes to Terran topology—because the feel-good chemicals associated with your flat-earther girlfriend are more important—then that's the way you will split.

This matters because if flat-earthers can be vulnerable to hormones, then so can you. So, if you don't engage in the mental practice of thinking about the flat-earther's psychology and the emotional circumstances that led them there, how could you have any hope of knowing when you eventually fall prey to a similar trap?
 
I try to learn about all political ideas and understand where they come from. Independently, I also have my own political ideas, but I do change them based on new evidence. I guess I'm one of the few people on FB/Twitter whose mind can be changed (in political discussion) if a person brings forth valid evidence. LOL. (<--- I mean, I defy the old joke that you can't change anyone's mind on social media.)

The best way to solve a problem is by understanding it. We need to understand why those with differing views have those views. It is healthy to discuss why X people believe ABC. That said, I often find people who play Devil's Advocate are using the argument as a mask for a point of view they aren't ready to be outspoken about.

Sometimes people have the same problem but arrive at different solutions for various reasons, including outside factors, propaganda, and information they've been exposed to. If we can start by discussing the problem we agree on, it is easier to arrive at a solution.

I block people on social media for a few reasons. The number one reason is disrespect. We can disagree, but if you stop treating me with respect our friendship is over. I don't allow bullying, name-calling, or crossing (verbally specified or otherwise obvious) boundaries. I sometimes unfriend/unfollow people whose political views are vastly different from my own if I don't know them well and they don't add anything positive to my life, or if they seem so brainwashed there is no hope.

I do keep acquaintances whose views are far different from my own and I let them voice those views in discussions. We have open discussions. They always know what I think and feel, too, though.
 
Reading something can and most offer will push your cracked door wide open.
Man gave me three old, large books on witchcraft back in the eighties. He insisted, so I placed them on a shelf mostly hidden. I spoke with my mentor, who warned me of opening the door. He explained to let all power and knowledge come from God
I cast the books away three years later while moving. Started to open one some day, but closed it before it was open. My decision came from facts from the Bible that warned about it.

Asked a lady reading Tarot cards one evening, "You act like you don't even need the cards." She quietly agreed. She had a gift and was giving the gift to the cards.
 
I recently had an experience where someone posted on social media, essentially, "What the fuck is up with people who believe X? Do they really think that ABC?" And I responded saying, "Although I don't believe X, I think their reasoning is more about DEF than ABC." Then this person accused me of defending group X and blocked me.

This was a very disheartening experience, and after mulling it over for a few days, I realized that my predominant feeling is one of shame. In the mind of the person who blocked me, it is sinful for me to even know about X-believers, even though I am not one, and this person regards me with suspicion merely because I am capable of describing the logic behind their beliefs. I feel ashamed, but I do not think the shame is justified: rather, I was shamed for having what I think is a healthy, even necessary level of intellectual curiosity.

-----

I have noticed that many people try to "sanitize" their media diet, to some extent or another. A common statement is, "It is exhausting to constantly be reminded about X, and I don't want to poison my brain with those ideas." To me this is a very insecure statement: I believe the things that I believe because they are correct, and I am not going to be seduced into believing in some offensive and horrible ideology just because someone charismatic or beautiful posts about it on social media.

I know arguing in circles about an issue you have already made up your mind about is exhausting, and I forgive people who want to carve out a space where their ideas can go unchallenged. But I think it is dangerous to spend too much time in this sort of bubble. If I am going to hold a strong position on a political issue, then I think I have an ethical obligation to engage on a regular basis with arguments from the opposite side. There are several reasons for this:
  • It reminds me of why I disagree with these ideas and favor my own view
  • It ensures that I hold my own view because it is correct, not because it is popular among people in my bubble
  • It gives me the opportunity to win people over to my view
Also, it is funny to laugh at idiots online, but this is a matter of personal taste.

Do you have any limits on the kind of media that you consume? How do you strike a balance between engaging with a diverse spectrum of viewpoints and not getting burned out by pointless debate? How do you decide which ideas are "so offensive that I refuse to even consider them" and which ideas are "wrong but I am willing to hear them out"?
I view media in a compartmentalized way as a categorization of how and why I am consuming information. It also must serve a purpose of either utility or interest.

Entertainment- limited in my preferenced tastes. Typically the mode is film, art, or music.

Learning- chosen and parsed out based on several criterion varied from interest to validity. The mode tends to be texts, with some videos on YouTube, or local on the ground journalists. The latter, I am finding more veracity with common people who happen to be passionate about freedom of information and aren't benefitting from the sharing of it in any way other than placating their personally held obligation to the pursuit of truth. I like any information, as long as it is interesting, and has as close to accurate reporting as possible. The only way to know if you've consumed the truth is to eat every variety until you can cohesively make sense of the patterns before you.
 
The only way to know if you've consumed the truth is to eat every variety until you can cohesively make sense of the patterns before you.

Eating until you puke is ill-advised
Good point though
 
B Wyote,

Haha. Needs to be a Disclaimer:
"We at INFJs.com do not condone compulsory media bulimia. Consume at your own risk."
Although, with "we are what we eat" being a pervasive line of thought, something tells me the disclaimer might fall on quite a few deaf ears. Hopefully, not the case here.