How to educate a self-righteous...

[CuAnnan]

TeaDidikai

I don't think people actually want to be wrong, and once they get over the attachment to what they thought they knew, they likely will not only examine what is in front of them, but may even extend it outwards to other areas of interest.

I don't think it's that they want to be wrong, it's that they refuse to acknowledge they're not right. After all, it's beliefs and beliefs can't be wrong.  

[Gho the Girl]

CuAnnan

TeaDidikai

I don't think people actually want to be wrong, and once they get over the attachment to what they thought they knew, they likely will not only examine what is in front of them, but may even extend it outwards to other areas of interest.

I don't think it's that they want to be wrong, it's that they refuse to acknowledge they're not right. After all, it's beliefs and beliefs can't be wrong.

Well, we have this thing in our culture where one who is wrong is one who should be scorned, cajoled, made fun of. Becuase of this, people will do anything they can in order to not need to admit to be being wrong, because if they accept they are wrong, culturally speaking, they're accepting that they are worthy of scorn, cajoling, etc.

Rather, were we to culturally hold those who are wrong in a position of love, as one who is deserving of guidance and understanding, people would be very ready to admit that they might be mistaken.  

[TeaDidikai]

Gho the Girl

Rather, were we to culturally hold those who are wrong in a position of love, as one who is deserving of guidance and understanding, people would be very ready to admit that they might be mistaken.

Alternatively we can positively reinforce critical thinking and hold the individual in a neutral position, by acknowledging People aren't synonymous with their ideas.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

Rather cynical Fiddler.
I don't think people actually want to be wrong, and once they get over the attachment to what they thought they knew, they likely will not only examine what is in front of them, but may even extend it outwards to other areas of interest.

It is a projection based on observation.
The point is that they likely do not know they are wrong. Some are using false givens (popularity of position for one) to determine whether they are wrong our not. Some are not concerned whether they are right or not, so long as they look good publicly. Some are so afraid of being wrong, that they will try to change what is perceived to be right. Some ascribe to a popular consensus paradigm, and maintain that the position of the clear majority is always correct, and that discordant opinions, regardless of givens, are inherently false... this is the point of the Rhetors. That popular consensus defines practical reality. They seem largely ascendant in modern thought.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Sophist

TeaDidikai

Aakosir

I wouldn't get him a book because it would probably end up in the trash or burned or something. I would just type him a paper with facts from the books. I would die if I even had one of my books destroyed. crying

This is why Amazon is love. You can buy books for your library that are already kinda thrashed, so if you give them out and never see them again, it doesn't cut as deep.

directtextbook.com is love.



ninja

Doesn't have the infrastructure last I checked.

question  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

Rather, were we to culturally hold those who are wrong in a position of love, as one who is deserving of guidance and understanding, people would be very ready to admit that they might be mistaken.

Alternatively we can positively reinforce critical thinking and hold the individual in a neutral position, by acknowledging People aren't synonymous with their ideas.

That might be the hardest part Tea. In my limited experience with others and mostly myself, most people, especially those forming and searching for their identity, often cling to whatever ideas they think are fundamental to who they are and to discredit or to show those ideas to be wrong brings about a destruction of the self that they may or may not be ready to undertake.

Since the purpose of this guild is to offer guidance it would seem "safe" to assume that they would be ready or desire such destruction for potential rebuilding, no?  

[Aino Ailill]

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

Rather, were we to culturally hold those who are wrong in a position of love, as one who is deserving of guidance and understanding, people would be very ready to admit that they might be mistaken.

Alternatively we can positively reinforce critical thinking and hold the individual in a neutral position, by acknowledging People aren't synonymous with their ideas.

That might be the hardest part Tea. In my limited experience with others and mostly myself, most people, especially those forming and searching for their identity, often cling to whatever ideas they think are fundamental to who they are and to discredit or to show those ideas to be wrong brings about a destruction of the self that they may or may not be ready to undertake.

Since the purpose of this guild is to offer guidance it would seem "safe" to assume that they would be ready or desire such destruction for potential rebuilding, no?

In many cases, the reality indicates that no, that is not a given.  

[SuperOtaku]

Oh wow, I had no idea I would spark this much conversation. Good for me. whee

Still kind of mad it got agreed upon, but then I thought "Well... whatever. That's what the media's presented as Wicca, so that's what they'll believe. I trust, however, that they will not follow the same for the goth kids."

But, now they know I'm a pagan; we were going around sharing what we'd done and I told them about my altar. She may call me a Wiccan, but hopefully she noticed I never used Wiccan to define myself.

Continue the discussion though, if you please. I like reading all these thoughts. heart  

[rmcdra]

Aino Ailill

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

Rather, were we to culturally hold those who are wrong in a position of love, as one who is deserving of guidance and understanding, people would be very ready to admit that they might be mistaken.

Alternatively we can positively reinforce critical thinking and hold the individual in a neutral position, by acknowledging People aren't synonymous with their ideas.

That might be the hardest part Tea. In my limited experience with others and mostly myself, most people, especially those forming and searching for their identity, often cling to whatever ideas they think are fundamental to who they are and to discredit or to show those ideas to be wrong brings about a destruction of the self that they may or may not be ready to undertake.

Since the purpose of this guild is to offer guidance it would seem "safe" to assume that they would be ready or desire such destruction for potential rebuilding, no?

In many cases, the reality indicates that no, that is not a given.

Wow I kinda forgot what thread I was in lol. I might be needing to head to bed soon.

Well yes of course no when considering all cases. That would be way more trouble than its worth in all cases and potentially create more problems than such a change would worth. So I'm going to limit to the specific case of just this guild, then would you think that my proposed "safe" assumption would be in fact "safe" or not, considering the nature of this guild and why?  

[Aino Ailill]

rmcdra

Aino Ailill

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

Rather, were we to culturally hold those who are wrong in a position of love, as one who is deserving of guidance and understanding, people would be very ready to admit that they might be mistaken.

Alternatively we can positively reinforce critical thinking and hold the individual in a neutral position, by acknowledging People aren't synonymous with their ideas.

That might be the hardest part Tea. In my limited experience with others and mostly myself, most people, especially those forming and searching for their identity, often cling to whatever ideas they think are fundamental to who they are and to discredit or to show those ideas to be wrong brings about a destruction of the self that they may or may not be ready to undertake.

Since the purpose of this guild is to offer guidance it would seem "safe" to assume that they would be ready or desire such destruction for potential rebuilding, no?

In many cases, the reality indicates that no, that is not a given.

Wow I kinda forgot what thread I was in lol. I might be needing to head to bed soon.

Well yes of course no when considering all cases. That would be way more trouble than its worth in all cases and potentially create more problems than such a change would worth. So I'm going to limit to the specific case of just this guild, then would you think that my proposed "safe" assumption would be in fact "safe" or not, considering the nature of this guild and why?

I was referring to this specific guild. Have there not been examples of persons who have entered this guild that have either demonstrated or explicitly stated that they did not enter and expect to be questioned? There are explicit quotes that I can pull up but you'll have to wait. I'm leaving for my test soon.  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

The point is that they likely do not know they are wrong. Some are using false givens (popularity of position for one) to determine whether they are wrong our not. Some are not concerned whether they are right or not, so long as they look good publicly. Some are so afraid of being wrong, that they will try to change what is perceived to be right. Some ascribe to a popular consensus paradigm, and maintain that the position of the clear majority is always correct, and that discordant opinions, regardless of givens, are inherently false... this is the point of the Rhetors. That popular consensus defines practical reality. They seem largely ascendant in modern thought.

They may not know they are wrong, but once the possibility has been brought to their attention, the notion that they would refuse to even consider that they might be wrong is what perpetuates Willful Ignorance.  

[Nines19]

rmcdra

In my limited experience with others and mostly myself, most people, especially those forming and searching for their identity, often cling to whatever ideas they think are fundamental to who they are and to discredit or to show those ideas to be wrong brings about a destruction of the self that they may or may not be ready to undertake.

My speech class text book (for some reason) supports this idea.
Cognative dissonance and self-concept and all that jazz.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

They may not know they are wrong, but once the possibility has been brought to their attention, the notion that they would refuse to even consider that they might be wrong is what perpetuates Willful Ignorance.

Is the possibility that they are wrong more causally apparent than their correctness? Keep in mind, possibility is not always causally likely, and thus is often discarded. For example, it is possible that there is a block of ice in the centre of our sun. However, the line of causal events that necessitate that are considered so improbable based on our current popular understanding, that the notion is often rejected entirely out of hand. Why should a person consider they might be wrong in the assumption that there is no ice in the centre of the sun? Especially when they are reinforced on many sides that their assumption is in fact correct. "Expert" opinions, "common sense", appeal to authority and many other tools are in the hands of the Rhetors. Why should someone voluntarily listen to a discordant minority? Lunatics may be considered oracular, or they may be considered dangerous. Either way, it is in the hands of "experts" to study their ramblings. Hating politics as I do, I also must protest that there are some cases where the very act of doubt is criminalized, or at least it's expression. We cannot observe the person without observing the after-affects of the environments they have been in. In this case, those who champion the Truth of the matter, are asserting that the majority is wrong, which challenges some of the core concepts of modern society. Thus, the burden of proof falls upon us. We must, if we wish to be taken seriously, create an arguement so enlightening that it has more effect than the compelling ones they have already heard.

Personally, I am not a Rhetor, nor am I fond of their position... however, taking the rake to my own view, I am assuming most of my givens by trusting my demonstratively faulty senses. I also must concede that True or not, popular opinion rules the day. Furthermore, I am not able to reliably project my consciousness free of this cosmos and observe it's under-pinnings to see whether popular solipsism has an effect on that level.  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

Is the possibility that they are wrong more causally apparent than their correctness? Keep in mind, possibility is not always causally likely, and thus is often discarded. For example, it is possible that there is a block of ice in the centre of our sun. However, the line of causal events that necessitate that are considered so improbable based on our current popular understanding, that the notion is often rejected entirely out of hand. Why should a person consider they might be wrong in the assumption that there is no ice in the centre of the sun? Especially when they are reinforced on many sides that their assumption is in fact correct. "Expert" opinions, "common sense", appeal to authority and many other tools are in the hands of the Rhetors. Why should someone voluntarily listen to a discordant minority? Lunatics may be considered oracular, or they may be considered dangerous. Either way, it is in the hands of "experts" to study their ramblings. Hating politics as I do, I also must protest that there are some cases where the very act of doubt is criminalized, or at least it's expression. We cannot observe the person without observing the after-affects of the environments they have been in. In this case, those who champion the Truth of the matter, are asserting that the majority is wrong, which challenges some of the core concepts of modern society. Thus, the burden of proof falls upon us. We must, if we wish to be taken seriously, create an arguement so enlightening that it has more effect than the compelling ones they have already heard.

I agree that the arguments someone who is seeking to educate must be crafted and presented in such a compelling way- but we hit a brick wall when we meet the delusional.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

I agree that the arguments someone who is seeking to educate must be crafted and presented in such a compelling way- but we hit a brick wall when we meet the delusional.

The problem I observe, is that the brick wall is being shored up in some cases by popular opinion. Thus, it becomes hard to separate the irrational individual from the quasi-rational lemming. Authority for the voice of Truth must be established, or we cannot expect the casual observer to view the minority as more correct than the majority.