Comment on YSK about the different “ways of knowing”
moistclump@lemmy.world 11 months agoIt’s not alternative facts, or accepting that anything someone is saying is True. But maybe trying to start from a place of “this is true for them and I wonder why that is, because it’s so far from what I know to be true.”
The separate knower might say “hydrochloroquine is not as good as science.” They’d be right and could absolutely leave it at that.
In my opinion though, the connected knower actually has a chance to change their stance through empathy and curiosity, recognizing the way that under education and economic strife has disillusioned this person from trusting science and being curious about whether or not a path exists for this person back to truth and science.
Makes me think of this wonderful man, Daryl Davis: npr.org/…/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-…
Compassion is not the same as blind acceptance of what they’re saying or rejection of science and truth. It’s bringing in a human element and choosing connection and curiosity.
richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 11 months ago
“True for them” is the wrong way to put it. “X is something they believe, even in the face of contrary evidence” is a better way.
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
I can tell you’re a very separate knower.
richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 11 months ago
And now in a human language, please.
ttmrichter@lemmy.world 11 months ago
In human language: You are completely and absolutely devoid of any degree of empathy or compassion and thus your own worst enemy when it comes to persuading others. You are far more likely to damage any cause you espouse than to promulgate it.
Human enough for you? If you’d rather have it in binary bits, let me know which ISA you are programmed in and I’ll write the program that explains it to you.