We all want people to see the world the way we do. We think it would be a better place if they did. We may try to improve our ideas, but we still think we already have it together more than most. But the discussion and argumentation that arises from this belief is most important. And the better we participate in it, the better the ideas we produce as a group. I've started to think more about how to participate in that process.
I've always been someone who wanted to convince everyone to change their minds to my position immediately. But I've learned in recent years to shift away from that. I still want to change people's minds, but I can't control the timeline. So I've had to rethink the way I discuss things.
I've realized that further refining my own understanding of something is the first step. The more it becomes refined (and realize that sometimes refinement can objectively look like a 180-degree turn, even though it's a slight shift in understanding), the better I can explain it. But explaining my position only goes so far. I present my side as an alternative to what others already think, but they have no reason to accept it as long as they still believe their story.
I used to attack and belittle ideas that weren't mine. But that's never been very effective. People wrap up their ideas too closely with their person. They take a strong challenge as an insult. So I've been trying something new.
I've found it to be useful to try and figure out why people are so rooted to a particular belief. I presume that they're intelligent, reasonable people, just taking the wrong inference away from a particular phenomena. But if I can expose what that phenomena is, I can connect with them better. I can show them all the implications of their particular response. Expose what they are really arguing for. But I recognize that it will never convince them of anything in that moment. They need it to fester. They need to stew on it. Changing one's mind often takes time for most people.
None of this is to say the process is calm and peaceful. Quite the opposite. Drilling down to the core of why someone believes something, finding out what they are reacting to, is an intense, heated process. But these discussions have more direction and purpose than they used to. It's less an emotional exercise and more a philosophical and intellectual one, even if they only come along kicking and screaming.
I take this strategy in most everything I discuss, particularly in matters of religion and social philosophy. I no longer have to be the one who today converts the atheist or the communist away from their misunderstanding. I'm happy to be a piece in the puzzle. I'm no longer expecting to get the big victory of transition someone entirely to my viewpoint right away. I've learned to be happy with small steps. Even ones that aren't a shift in mindset at all, but just people admitting to themselves what they really stand for. Those are the little victories that give me hope.
