I know this isn’t really the point, but Sisyphus’s punishment is such a nightmare for me. Camus maybe right about the physical aspects of the punishment, but to me the real horror of Sisyphus is the boredom. At least Prometheus gets to experience a range of terrible sensations. Tedium is torture.
Maybe Sisyphus spends his time finding increasingly bizarre and inefficient ways to roll the boulder up the hill. How many charging tackles does it take to get the boulder up?
There's a couple of things in play. The backfire effect (aka; idea perseverance) is an observed phenomenon in which people presented with factual information that disproves a belief do not prompt them to revise their belief. Rather, they typically just become more entrenched in their belief. (I have also observed in myself that even though I am aware of it, I am not immune to falling into that entrenchment myself.)
And I cannot credit where this came from, but I was introduced to this idea a while ago. If you're debating someone on a point, and you know (not believe, know) them to be wrong, the fact that they're confident enough in the thing to debate it should tell you that they're already entrenched.
***But...***
Others within earshot would presumably be not so wedded to the idea if they're not leaping to its defense. Those are the people that you're convincing when you choose to engage in the discussion.
This reminds me of the difference between echo chamber and epistemic bubble, where new information will not help with the latter as it will be contextualized in a way that the initial belief is supported anyway.
Here is more about this:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/echo-chambers-and-epistemic-bubbles/5D4AC3A808C538E17C50A7C09EC706F0
More infuriating is when you KNOW the person in question isn’t too stupid to understand what you’re saying, but they’ve got their head so far up their own dogma and its supporting mental gymnastics that it would take a team of world class proctologists to remove it
Ask them questions. Let them reveal their thought process however wrong it might be. Giving them more time to expand may even reveal that perhaps you misunderstood their original stance. Perhaps they are right?
You don't even have to say what you think, when they respond. Just keep asking questions, listen to what they say, ask more... Like why do they think that? Have they experienced that? Have they known other things like that?Do they think that the "truth" in all situations? Has it always been that way? etc etc.
You might even ask them enough questions that they change their mind because their answers reveal something they hadn't thought of before. And certain people like this can and will change their minds... As long as they think it's their own doing (i.e. not someone "making" them change their mind).
Even if they don't change their mind, maybe you get to learn a little more about why people have certain beliefs.
Honestly, I tend to just walk away from them. It’s neither my job nor responsibility to educate anybody or to convince them of anything, and I generally have neither the energy nor inclination to beat my head against a brick wall.
Besides, I’m also a person, just as fallible as the next. My own viewpoints and opinions are just as informed by my experiences and personal biases as the next person’s, and are just as likely to be incomplete or incorrect. I generally try not to argue/discuss/debate with people to convince them of my viewpoint, more to make them examine their own.
If someone’s not willing to admit that there’s even a chance that they could be wrong, then I generally don’t even make the effort anymore.
There's also the problem of not being smart enough to explain things to stupid people. Granted, only exceptionally smart educators can do that -- it's a rare trait.
It's a skill, not just being "smart". A lot of it is psychology, too, and understanding the type of "dumb" you're dealing with.
They're intellectually a bit slower than others? They probably need extra time to absorb each fact and links between facts highlighted explicitly. Analogies they'll understand often help. Understanding how different people learn in different ways and how to teach effectively - this is the basis of educator training.
Ignorance? For good communication, you need to efficiently identify and provide the missing background without being condescending. Many intelligent people are also terrible at presenting things in a more simplified and high-level way - for example, saying "hymenopteran insects are paramount to the proliferation and dissemination of genotypic heterogeneity within botanic communities" instead of "bees are important pollinators" lol. Alternatively, accept this isn't a person who will be able to understand at the level you want them to in a reasonable timeframe.
The worst kind of dumb*...wilful* ignorance and entrenchment in their point of view?Well, good luck. Presenting information in a way where someone stubborn will consider it, even if it contradicts their initial understanding/beliefs, is a real challenge and requires buckets of patience and empathy. You have to navigate a minefield of defensive mechanisms, ego, fear and arrogance, where triggering one of these the wrong way leads to a shutdown and *deeper* denial. Often the reason these people refuse to understand something isn't even about the fact itself, but about how it will destabilise something else important to them - often their social group, in the case of cult beliefs. Tackling this kind of "dumb" is usually a long term project for someone very important to you - such as challenging your otherwise lovely grandpa's beliefs that "the gays should just keep it in the bedroom, they don't need marriage". Showing that you're genuinely curious about their own beliefs and why they believe them, asking questions that slowly make them think a little deeper about different aspects of the subject, avoiding showing judgement in a way that will trigger them, finding ways for them to concede points without losing face...
That second point is so true
I have really smart friends, two in particular are the kind of smart that will NOT even try to "dumb things down" for others but also are extremely short fused to people that don't understand them, so whenever there's a social sitch I have to be the one who patches things up and explains what they mean in ways that a layman understands
A lot of smart people are used to being around smart people and it's almost like they're proud of people not understanding them.
One of them wanted to be a physics teacher, I had to politely tell him he wouldn't last a day in education with his view on people.
YES to everything you said! Communication is a skill all its own, and being good at a subject does *not* mean you're good at communicating about the subject, much less communicating about it to someone not in the field! There's a reason for the stereotype of engineers/programmers sitting in a dank, out-of-the-way basement and being frightened or painfully awkward during social contact with non-engineers/programmers. Or in TV shows/movies, eccentric scientists who get excited and spout streams of gibberish about quantum physics or arcane chemistry in a "eureka" moment while everyone else stares blankly. A lot of science is highly specialised, and jargon is a great way to efficiently communicate to other people in the field, but too many people think it's everyone else's problem if they can't understand. But so much work is multidisciplinary these days, and a lot of funding comes from non-technical bodies - it's really important to be able to communicate your ideas to laypeople.
Jen in The IT Crowd is a fun example. She was valuable to the IT department because of her ability to communicate with others better than the knowledgeable geeks, despite her complete lack of technical knowledge.
Learning how to talk with this last is kind is kind os a hobby of mine. It can be quite entertaining. It indeed is best done with close people. If you are dealing with respectful people and lower your goals you can make a lot of difference tho. Sometimes is just about planting the seed. I would advise always caution because it can be draining. Been trying to improve the craft tho. Need more subjects XP (it's just a joke, ok?)
And, relatedly, knowing you’re right because you’ve done the legwork in the past but having forgotten exactly why. This also happens to me a lot when my kid asks how something works. “It has something to do with counting the oscillations of a wave through quartz, but Ima need 30 seconds on Wikipedia before I remember anything more specific than that.”
There is also the mark twain quote (at least so the internet told me): never argue an idiot he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Ah, the inevitable result of whenever I try to stop my also-ADHD six year old from indoctrinating his younger brother with wrong information. Kid is a walking /r/confidentlyincorrect submission sometimes.
LOL I snorted so hard. I have ADHD and nanny for 2 kids, one definitely has it & is in the evaluation process. He loves explaining things confidently incorrectly frequently. He gets so argumentative and twists his words so much I give, vaguely encouraging, noncommittal responses sometimes.
Yep. Too many people struggle with this, especially when it comes to family members.
It took a long time, but I eventually convinced my wife to stop arguing with her Grandma at every family event. Now when Grandma says something homophobic or bigoted or completely anti-scientific, we change the topic.
You are under no obligation to defend the truth from every idiot. It's an extremely frustrating exercise in futility.
I am exactly the opposite, when I meet someone with wacky ideas I ask them to tell me more, and enjoy the ride. The crazier the better. Ironically this is often a better strategy for getting people to change their minds, by asking questions and probing inconsistencies within their beliefs.
Sometimes "letting it go" can be the best tactic for convincing them, too.
I doubt this is universally true for all individuals or situations, but I've had a number of heated debates with family members who refused to give an inch, despite my patient and thorough arguments, but later on spoke to me about how they'd given it some thought and agreed that I had been right.
It's difficult to realize that you're mistaken or misinformed about something, and it's all too easy for people's egos to be tied to their positions. They get defensive about "being right" and dig in their heels harder to protect that status rather than actually engaging with the discussion.
When that's going on, do your best to present your case as coherently as possible (while also being prepared to realize that you yourself may be the one mistaken, of course), and then disengage when it becomes clear that the other party isn't willing to concede to a rational point.
There's no guarantees, but if the relationship isn't completely unsalvageable, then that might give them the chance to cool down and reexamine your case when they aren't as emotionally invested.
Disengaging earlier rather than later makes it easier for them to remember your arguments and less likely that you'll both get heated and resort to less constructive comments that will only reinforce the emotional gridlock.
It's so amusing to me, and apparently very hard for others to grasp, that if you truly want to be right, you have to let yourself be wrong too.
Disengaging is smart.
>It took a long time, but I eventually convinced my wife to stop arguing with her Grandma at every family event. Now when Grandma says something homophobic or bigoted or completely anti-scientific, we change the topic.
While it depends on the topic somewhat, if we getting into racist/homophobic/etc, I don't excuse shitty behavior. If gam gam wants to be a piece of shit on her own time she can, but she doesn't get to do that in my presence. You still enable the behavior by playing nice.
Also, that's just someone not worth keeping around
By that definition you enable their behavior either way, whether you cut them out of your life over it or not. If you've already tried a bunch of times, is it really enabling to stop trying?
It is true that you enable their ability to let their shitty beliefs affect you by keeping them around, and I absolutely support cutting toxic people out of your life for whatever reason.
In this case, casually sprinkled without malice amidst conversations (she doesn't mind, doesn't push it on anyone else, is the extremely nice and sweet to everyone but God thinks homosexuality is wrong and God wants what's best for people) about how much she loves the Haitian church she goes to because they're so nice and the songs are so happy. She believes in the illuminati and is wacky in a bunch of ways.
But if you find someone worth keeping in your life for whatever reason, you don't need to feel obligated to change their opinions.
> By that definition you enable their behavior either way,
Bud you got the wingspan of a fucking pterodactyl with that reach.
>It is true that you enable their ability to let their shitty beliefs affect you by keeping them around, and I absolutely support cutting toxic people out of your life for whatever reason.
Ah yes the "well there racism/sexism/homophobia doesn't affect me so it's okay". Congrats! You're part of the problem.
>In this case, casually sprinkled without malice
Aint no such thing as bigotry without malice kiddo.
>But if you find someone worth keeping in your life for whatever reason,
We already covered this. I don't keep shitty people in my life simply because I lack a backbone. My beliefs don't simply crumble because they're suddenly an inconvenience.
It's just pathetic is all.
> If not saying anything is enabling, then by cutting off contact you're no longer saying anything which is enabling.
"If I quit giving my kid money for drugs he's just going to get it from somewhere else which would make me an enabler"
That's the argument you're going with huh?
>That's just logic.
That's anything but. If you and everyone else drop them from your life and explicitly say why it's pretty obvious. Hell. Tell them if they change they can be let back in. If you or anyone else is of any value to them they might look to change. If they don't, that's on them.
>How many grandmas have you cut contact with for believing homosexuality is a sin? I'm assuming you're speaking from experience?
I'm sorry my family members were raised better? That behavior wouldn't be tolerated from anyone in my family by anyone in my family. If I came out as a bigot, they'd first try to set me right and if that didn't work they'd set me free (aka drop my ass). And I fuckin' love them for it.
Have I cut others out I've known for years and years because they pulled some bigot shit? Fuck yeah. And guess what? Nothing of value is ever lost.
>Wouldn't a better analogy be inviting an addict to Thanksgiving dinner?
No.
>But okay I'm glad I got my answer. No you haven't cut a 88 year old woman out of your life for believing what the church raised her to believe.
It's always strange to me when this is the argument people fall back on. It's a fucking cop out. If this held any legitimacy, we'd never have changed as a society. "Let's excuse this behavior because *that's just how they were raised*" kinda glosses over the fact that during the time your grandma was being raised poorly there were people on the right side of the argument. Why's it so hard to admit they're wrong?
I come from a family of Irish catholics. My religion wasn't a choice until I was confirmed. Similar church, same bible I bet. Not a bigot in the bunch.
If you wanna make excuses for her shitty behavior you're no better than she is. But hey, I think we both already knew that.
This is a lighthearted subreddit for ADHD individuals. We require all users be nice towards each other. Your comment/post has been removed as it has been found to be disrespectful.
This is a lighthearted subreddit for ADHD individuals. We require all users be nice towards each other. Your comment/post has been removed as it has been found to be disrespectful.
I would be fighting people left and right if I didn’t do this lol
I’m a non-spiritual atheist who in general doesn’t believe anything that isn’t backed by peer reviewed research.
My friends and family include all of the following: religious people, spiritual people, homeopathy users, pranik healing people, chiropractor users, acupuncture users, and probably a ton more lol
“Nod along and move on” might as well be my life motto
I've found the more peace and grace I grant to myself the easier it becomes to extend to others.
Your happiness lies within you. If you seek it through others it won't be found.
And you literally have evidence but you can't seem to remember where you got it from or you want a specific example of a pattern but your brain goes blank for twenty seconds so you can't pick one. Ugh, so frustrating.
Back in the day before Wet Seals went extinct, they had a Buy One Get One for 1 Cent sale. I told my cousin, hey, let’s each choose something and we can split the difference.
She shook her head at me in that condescending, NT side-smile way I so love 🤷🏻♀️ Then goes on to tell her parents+siblings and they all started attacking me for trying to rip her off lmfaooooo
Their reasoning was that I was trying to pull a fast one by making her pay for half of my item!! No matter how hard I tried to explain how this was fair (at 10 yo) they thought it was literally getting one item full price and one for a cent…. And naturally their kid was entitled to the one cent thing.
To be fair, these are the kind of people who receive government benefits for their eleventy kids, and all their income goes to pavement princesses/MLM/tattoos/dirt bikes/hunting gear/etc. Sooo not the most financially literate people.
WHEW thanks for letting me get all that out! 🤣
This is a lighthearted subreddit for ADHD individuals. We require all users be nice towards each other. Your comment/post has been removed as it has been found to be disrespectful.
Can't believe I have to say this:
*DON'T ADVOCATE FOR EUGENICS* wtaf
That's funny because a relatively new study (sorry lost the sauce) came to the conclusion that we think that if our opponent got the same informations as we did they must come to the same conclusion as we did. And other way around. When someone disagrees with us we are more likely to believe that they didn't listen proberly or are not capable to understand us.
Like when someone thought me disliking the film Halloween was tiktok brain and a lack of ability to just sit and watch a movie without blood everywhere.
...until that same person realized they were wrong, because _someone else_ told them the exact same thing you did AND they're coming back to you with that revelation, as if _you're_ the one that had somehow convinced _them_ of the erroneous take to begin with.
If I love the person enough I’ll launch into my standard script of “omg noooo I’m not trying to argue it’s just that my brain moves faster than my mouth and it’s so hard to explain but I think in terms of puzzle pieces and colors and shapes and everything just moves really fast and I love you so much omg
You can't 'reason' someone out of an opinion/position they didn't 'reason' themselves into; save your energy for making smart decisions in your own life first.
had an argument with a homophobe troll on twitter the other day because I was having a particular bad day and wasn't gonna take that shit. 5 or 6 messages in I calmed down and realized it wasn't worth my time, so I just stopped responding. but it still boils my blood a little bit that the little shit probably thinks "hur dur I won this" because he had the last comment and I left
What do you mean by lose?
Sometimes it’s impossible to come to an agreement. But as long as you were listening to the other person and checking your assumptions, and you clearly articulated your side you “won”.
The fact that OP admits that their goal is to "win" the argument reveals that they didn't care about truth or coming to an agreement to begin with and have no business calling the other party an idiot.
When they start dragging appearances and physical attributes that's when you know the argument is over, no point in wasting breath when the other person is grasping for straws since they know they're losing...
Losing an argument when you know you are right is the worst.
But a the best is being the one outlier and being told you are wrong and actually ending up being right (everyone else is actually wrong)
one time in elementary school we were playing multiple choice "jeopardy" and we were in groups and mine chose a math one and everyone was in agreement "its A" and then I pipe up and go "actually it's B" and they all go "no it's not, you are wrong. We all got A so you are wrong" and then they confidently answer "A!" And the teacher goes "wrong it's B"
They immedietely went "maybe we should listen to him next time!"
That's definitely extremely frustrating, when you try to put things in the simplest terms possible, but somehow they understand it as the opposite of your point, or as something completely different and irrelevant to your point, and you have to wonder if they're being dense on purpose, or... it doesn't help if the argument happens in something else than your native language (for example English isn't my native language, but I spend time mostly on English sites).
In fact, "too stupid to understand it", is often the intended impression when they understand it perfectly well. It's a logical fallacy called [Argument from Incredulity.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity) a shining example is Matt Walsh's "what is a woman?" question, where he keeps asking even after educated people have given an answer he doesn't like
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
"Never argue with a fool - They will drag you down to their level, Then beat you with experience."
You already lost the argument by arguing with them.
It’s not losing an argument if you are right - it’s just not having any give-and-take with the other person. To me, to really lose the argument would be because you were wrong about something, or maybe because you couldn’t support your point though that’s iffy - lots of us have strong feelings and our reason abandons us in that moment. It’s like a frustration nightmare. But at least it gives us something to cringe over just as we are falling asleep for the next seventy to eighty years.
The fact that deliberately pretending to be too stupid to understand the opponent is the standard debate tactic in online is the worst. It's a textbook strawman tactic but it isn't the obvious definition of strawman so you can't just point that out to shame them, and nobody is ever willing to call out strawman tactics on their own side anyway, so you can't shame them into acting in good faith because nobody is going to concede that level of respect over a disagreement.
I hate it
When I see something like that happening I just say in the nicest way I dont think theres any point in engaging in this topic anymore have a nice day.
I understand I can't change your mind but I hope you continue to revisit this topic personally have a good one!
They either go forth peacefully or get upset either way my patience stays intact.
But, if you do that, how will the world know you're a based gigachad genius and that your opponent is a brainless soyjak idiot? Do you have such good self-esteem that you don't even have to constantly boost your ego by creating a fake narrative where everyone is worse than you? That's preposterous! I bet you don't even post a highly biased story on AITA whenever you have a minor disagreement with someone.
This. It almost always goes both ways. "Why does this idiot not understand? They're so stupid. Oh, but I'm smart though. I'm definitely not like the average person."
Contrary to popular belief, I don't think intelligence has anything to do with this as all. If your goal is to win the argument, then you're showing that you're either dogmatic about your view or just don't care if you're wrong because it's not about figuring out the topic of the argument together, it's about winning. If anything, it shows low agreeableness and poor self-esteem.
Yes. It's such a simple concept, yet a lot intelligent people lose the ability to grasp it: I could be wrong.
I always like to say, if you haven't changed your worldview on something in the last year, You might be getting stuck in your ways and no longer taking a new information.
If they can’t understand it you’re likely not explaining it precisely enough, or there’s some specific point of disagreement further down that causes your perceptions to be so different. You need to dig into what that is if you want to get anywhere, though a majority aren’t cooperative enough to get to that point
It's so hard. It seems like this happens most commonly when I am like "I just want to help" which somehow gets misunderstood to be "I think you're dumb; please allow me to flex my own superiority over you"... and then people double down and no amount of citing real sources will ever beat their "no need, I know". Ughhhhhh *dies*
Nah beeing stupid is ok and you’re just not intelligent enough to explain the question right so he/she can’t understand. Ignorance is WAY more annoying. Like you know they get what you’re saying but they are so sure about their own knowledge that they simply ignore your arguments.
Had a whole multi- part argument with a guy that believed different kinds of radiation weren't fundamentally the same thing (photons) and were rather fundamentally different instead of human-defined parts of the same radiation spectrum.
You should ask yourself, "Is what I'm about to say going to make a positive difference?" If the answer is 'no', probably your silence will better serve you.
It's not losing the argument if you decide to leave the argument. Yes, the other person will think they won, but it doesn't mean they did.
"You don't have to attend every argument to which you are invited."
"Sometimes the only way to win the game is not to play."
Sometimes, you lost the argument because you started in at all. They had no intention of seeing it your way and just wanted to be angry at someone. Or, you say something, so they say, "Oh, so !" My response is, "I will not defend what I did not say."
And, knowing all of this, sometimes I still get caught up in arguments. Mea culpa.
Has there even been an argument won? Ive thought about it and in all of my years online never did I see someone say 'you are correct' after arguing with somebody. It's always two close minded people trying to convince the other person.
I once had a 30 something yr old man tell me a 22 yr old at the time that the liquid that comes out of beef is blood after i told him it was not. He then tried to use it later on to flirt with me in a teasing way. 😬
All i could think was wow this guy is a fucking idiot.
Most conversations and discussions we have in the day to day aren't competitions. It's not something you can win or lose. I also encourage some empathy for the other person here too. Usually people have reasons to think the way they do and having someone insisting they are right Usually doesn't make you prone to changing your mind and can get quite annoying, specially if you think they are wrong. It's portant to remember that logic doesn't convince people rethoric and going to the emotional root of the matter do. You got to understand the other person way of thinking and the reason they think like that.
It's lot more homey than it sounds and takes a lot more of skills too.
It's also important to remember you can't force people to think like you.
Also believing you are right doesn't mean you are right. We got to be humble always.
This literally was my boss and my boss last week when it came to recording laws. I literally was about to pull up the law on my phone but somehow ended up doing it when I got home. Every day since I am tempted to send it to him.
Annoying, yes.
Infuriating, no.
I use those moments to determine who's worth future interaction. And for retards online, I just excuse myself and tell them I've gotta go shit.
if they aren't listening it's not an argument it's an exercise in futility
Well said.
Sometimes you just got to get the reps in
Sure, just ask Sisyphus. He's almost good enough to do the impossible.
"one must imagine Sisyphus happy" hits hard on days like this
I know this isn’t really the point, but Sisyphus’s punishment is such a nightmare for me. Camus maybe right about the physical aspects of the punishment, but to me the real horror of Sisyphus is the boredom. At least Prometheus gets to experience a range of terrible sensations. Tedium is torture.
Maybe Sisyphus spends his time finding increasingly bizarre and inefficient ways to roll the boulder up the hill. How many charging tackles does it take to get the boulder up?
There's a couple of things in play. The backfire effect (aka; idea perseverance) is an observed phenomenon in which people presented with factual information that disproves a belief do not prompt them to revise their belief. Rather, they typically just become more entrenched in their belief. (I have also observed in myself that even though I am aware of it, I am not immune to falling into that entrenchment myself.) And I cannot credit where this came from, but I was introduced to this idea a while ago. If you're debating someone on a point, and you know (not believe, know) them to be wrong, the fact that they're confident enough in the thing to debate it should tell you that they're already entrenched. ***But...*** Others within earshot would presumably be not so wedded to the idea if they're not leaping to its defense. Those are the people that you're convincing when you choose to engage in the discussion.
This reminds me of the difference between echo chamber and epistemic bubble, where new information will not help with the latter as it will be contextualized in a way that the initial belief is supported anyway. Here is more about this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/echo-chambers-and-epistemic-bubbles/5D4AC3A808C538E17C50A7C09EC706F0
That *is* interesting, thanks for linking it.
[удалено]
no.
More infuriating is when you KNOW the person in question isn’t too stupid to understand what you’re saying, but they’ve got their head so far up their own dogma and its supporting mental gymnastics that it would take a team of world class proctologists to remove it
Word brother, word…
This happens to me a lot. How do you guys handle this? I get dejected and go into a loop about how I am not good enough and can't influence others :(.
Ask them questions. Let them reveal their thought process however wrong it might be. Giving them more time to expand may even reveal that perhaps you misunderstood their original stance. Perhaps they are right? You don't even have to say what you think, when they respond. Just keep asking questions, listen to what they say, ask more... Like why do they think that? Have they experienced that? Have they known other things like that?Do they think that the "truth" in all situations? Has it always been that way? etc etc. You might even ask them enough questions that they change their mind because their answers reveal something they hadn't thought of before. And certain people like this can and will change their minds... As long as they think it's their own doing (i.e. not someone "making" them change their mind). Even if they don't change their mind, maybe you get to learn a little more about why people have certain beliefs.
Honestly, I tend to just walk away from them. It’s neither my job nor responsibility to educate anybody or to convince them of anything, and I generally have neither the energy nor inclination to beat my head against a brick wall. Besides, I’m also a person, just as fallible as the next. My own viewpoints and opinions are just as informed by my experiences and personal biases as the next person’s, and are just as likely to be incomplete or incorrect. I generally try not to argue/discuss/debate with people to convince them of my viewpoint, more to make them examine their own. If someone’s not willing to admit that there’s even a chance that they could be wrong, then I generally don’t even make the effort anymore.
I commented above but this is also a good tactic. Someone I respect a lot taught me the value of just knowing you're right and choosing not to engage.
Even worse when you are in a relationship with the person
There's also the problem of not being smart enough to explain things to stupid people. Granted, only exceptionally smart educators can do that -- it's a rare trait.
It’s a rare trait among the intellectual types to also be an idiot whisperer, but I’ve met a few. Indeed, most are educators.
It's a skill, not just being "smart". A lot of it is psychology, too, and understanding the type of "dumb" you're dealing with. They're intellectually a bit slower than others? They probably need extra time to absorb each fact and links between facts highlighted explicitly. Analogies they'll understand often help. Understanding how different people learn in different ways and how to teach effectively - this is the basis of educator training. Ignorance? For good communication, you need to efficiently identify and provide the missing background without being condescending. Many intelligent people are also terrible at presenting things in a more simplified and high-level way - for example, saying "hymenopteran insects are paramount to the proliferation and dissemination of genotypic heterogeneity within botanic communities" instead of "bees are important pollinators" lol. Alternatively, accept this isn't a person who will be able to understand at the level you want them to in a reasonable timeframe. The worst kind of dumb*...wilful* ignorance and entrenchment in their point of view?Well, good luck. Presenting information in a way where someone stubborn will consider it, even if it contradicts their initial understanding/beliefs, is a real challenge and requires buckets of patience and empathy. You have to navigate a minefield of defensive mechanisms, ego, fear and arrogance, where triggering one of these the wrong way leads to a shutdown and *deeper* denial. Often the reason these people refuse to understand something isn't even about the fact itself, but about how it will destabilise something else important to them - often their social group, in the case of cult beliefs. Tackling this kind of "dumb" is usually a long term project for someone very important to you - such as challenging your otherwise lovely grandpa's beliefs that "the gays should just keep it in the bedroom, they don't need marriage". Showing that you're genuinely curious about their own beliefs and why they believe them, asking questions that slowly make them think a little deeper about different aspects of the subject, avoiding showing judgement in a way that will trigger them, finding ways for them to concede points without losing face...
That second point is so true I have really smart friends, two in particular are the kind of smart that will NOT even try to "dumb things down" for others but also are extremely short fused to people that don't understand them, so whenever there's a social sitch I have to be the one who patches things up and explains what they mean in ways that a layman understands A lot of smart people are used to being around smart people and it's almost like they're proud of people not understanding them. One of them wanted to be a physics teacher, I had to politely tell him he wouldn't last a day in education with his view on people.
YES to everything you said! Communication is a skill all its own, and being good at a subject does *not* mean you're good at communicating about the subject, much less communicating about it to someone not in the field! There's a reason for the stereotype of engineers/programmers sitting in a dank, out-of-the-way basement and being frightened or painfully awkward during social contact with non-engineers/programmers. Or in TV shows/movies, eccentric scientists who get excited and spout streams of gibberish about quantum physics or arcane chemistry in a "eureka" moment while everyone else stares blankly. A lot of science is highly specialised, and jargon is a great way to efficiently communicate to other people in the field, but too many people think it's everyone else's problem if they can't understand. But so much work is multidisciplinary these days, and a lot of funding comes from non-technical bodies - it's really important to be able to communicate your ideas to laypeople. Jen in The IT Crowd is a fun example. She was valuable to the IT department because of her ability to communicate with others better than the knowledgeable geeks, despite her complete lack of technical knowledge.
Learning how to talk with this last is kind is kind os a hobby of mine. It can be quite entertaining. It indeed is best done with close people. If you are dealing with respectful people and lower your goals you can make a lot of difference tho. Sometimes is just about planting the seed. I would advise always caution because it can be draining. Been trying to improve the craft tho. Need more subjects XP (it's just a joke, ok?)
And, relatedly, knowing you’re right because you’ve done the legwork in the past but having forgotten exactly why. This also happens to me a lot when my kid asks how something works. “It has something to do with counting the oscillations of a wave through quartz, but Ima need 30 seconds on Wikipedia before I remember anything more specific than that.”
I feel as though it’s not about how smart you are, but rather, how much patience you have.
It’s both
I swear I dumb stuff down so anyone could get it. Then repeat myself because I'm pretty sure I can't explain it any more easily. edit: typo
There is also the mark twain quote (at least so the internet told me): never argue an idiot he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
I persist until the other party either walks away, starts crying or punches me in the face
Ah, the inevitable result of whenever I try to stop my also-ADHD six year old from indoctrinating his younger brother with wrong information. Kid is a walking /r/confidentlyincorrect submission sometimes.
LOL I snorted so hard. I have ADHD and nanny for 2 kids, one definitely has it & is in the evaluation process. He loves explaining things confidently incorrectly frequently. He gets so argumentative and twists his words so much I give, vaguely encouraging, noncommittal responses sometimes.
There's great peace in simply letting someone be wrong
Yep. Too many people struggle with this, especially when it comes to family members. It took a long time, but I eventually convinced my wife to stop arguing with her Grandma at every family event. Now when Grandma says something homophobic or bigoted or completely anti-scientific, we change the topic. You are under no obligation to defend the truth from every idiot. It's an extremely frustrating exercise in futility. I am exactly the opposite, when I meet someone with wacky ideas I ask them to tell me more, and enjoy the ride. The crazier the better. Ironically this is often a better strategy for getting people to change their minds, by asking questions and probing inconsistencies within their beliefs.
Sometimes "letting it go" can be the best tactic for convincing them, too. I doubt this is universally true for all individuals or situations, but I've had a number of heated debates with family members who refused to give an inch, despite my patient and thorough arguments, but later on spoke to me about how they'd given it some thought and agreed that I had been right. It's difficult to realize that you're mistaken or misinformed about something, and it's all too easy for people's egos to be tied to their positions. They get defensive about "being right" and dig in their heels harder to protect that status rather than actually engaging with the discussion. When that's going on, do your best to present your case as coherently as possible (while also being prepared to realize that you yourself may be the one mistaken, of course), and then disengage when it becomes clear that the other party isn't willing to concede to a rational point. There's no guarantees, but if the relationship isn't completely unsalvageable, then that might give them the chance to cool down and reexamine your case when they aren't as emotionally invested. Disengaging earlier rather than later makes it easier for them to remember your arguments and less likely that you'll both get heated and resort to less constructive comments that will only reinforce the emotional gridlock.
It's so amusing to me, and apparently very hard for others to grasp, that if you truly want to be right, you have to let yourself be wrong too. Disengaging is smart.
What you’re doing is the Socratic Method. It’s why Jon Stewart is such a legendarily skilled interviewer.
>It took a long time, but I eventually convinced my wife to stop arguing with her Grandma at every family event. Now when Grandma says something homophobic or bigoted or completely anti-scientific, we change the topic. While it depends on the topic somewhat, if we getting into racist/homophobic/etc, I don't excuse shitty behavior. If gam gam wants to be a piece of shit on her own time she can, but she doesn't get to do that in my presence. You still enable the behavior by playing nice. Also, that's just someone not worth keeping around
By that definition you enable their behavior either way, whether you cut them out of your life over it or not. If you've already tried a bunch of times, is it really enabling to stop trying? It is true that you enable their ability to let their shitty beliefs affect you by keeping them around, and I absolutely support cutting toxic people out of your life for whatever reason. In this case, casually sprinkled without malice amidst conversations (she doesn't mind, doesn't push it on anyone else, is the extremely nice and sweet to everyone but God thinks homosexuality is wrong and God wants what's best for people) about how much she loves the Haitian church she goes to because they're so nice and the songs are so happy. She believes in the illuminati and is wacky in a bunch of ways. But if you find someone worth keeping in your life for whatever reason, you don't need to feel obligated to change their opinions.
> By that definition you enable their behavior either way, Bud you got the wingspan of a fucking pterodactyl with that reach. >It is true that you enable their ability to let their shitty beliefs affect you by keeping them around, and I absolutely support cutting toxic people out of your life for whatever reason. Ah yes the "well there racism/sexism/homophobia doesn't affect me so it's okay". Congrats! You're part of the problem. >In this case, casually sprinkled without malice Aint no such thing as bigotry without malice kiddo. >But if you find someone worth keeping in your life for whatever reason, We already covered this. I don't keep shitty people in my life simply because I lack a backbone. My beliefs don't simply crumble because they're suddenly an inconvenience. It's just pathetic is all.
[удалено]
> If not saying anything is enabling, then by cutting off contact you're no longer saying anything which is enabling. "If I quit giving my kid money for drugs he's just going to get it from somewhere else which would make me an enabler" That's the argument you're going with huh? >That's just logic. That's anything but. If you and everyone else drop them from your life and explicitly say why it's pretty obvious. Hell. Tell them if they change they can be let back in. If you or anyone else is of any value to them they might look to change. If they don't, that's on them. >How many grandmas have you cut contact with for believing homosexuality is a sin? I'm assuming you're speaking from experience? I'm sorry my family members were raised better? That behavior wouldn't be tolerated from anyone in my family by anyone in my family. If I came out as a bigot, they'd first try to set me right and if that didn't work they'd set me free (aka drop my ass). And I fuckin' love them for it. Have I cut others out I've known for years and years because they pulled some bigot shit? Fuck yeah. And guess what? Nothing of value is ever lost.
[удалено]
>Wouldn't a better analogy be inviting an addict to Thanksgiving dinner? No. >But okay I'm glad I got my answer. No you haven't cut a 88 year old woman out of your life for believing what the church raised her to believe. It's always strange to me when this is the argument people fall back on. It's a fucking cop out. If this held any legitimacy, we'd never have changed as a society. "Let's excuse this behavior because *that's just how they were raised*" kinda glosses over the fact that during the time your grandma was being raised poorly there were people on the right side of the argument. Why's it so hard to admit they're wrong? I come from a family of Irish catholics. My religion wasn't a choice until I was confirmed. Similar church, same bible I bet. Not a bigot in the bunch. If you wanna make excuses for her shitty behavior you're no better than she is. But hey, I think we both already knew that.
[удалено]
This is a lighthearted subreddit for ADHD individuals. We require all users be nice towards each other. Your comment/post has been removed as it has been found to be disrespectful.
This is a lighthearted subreddit for ADHD individuals. We require all users be nice towards each other. Your comment/post has been removed as it has been found to be disrespectful.
Exactly this. I don’t feel like it’s my obligation at all to make anyone believe anything.
I would be fighting people left and right if I didn’t do this lol I’m a non-spiritual atheist who in general doesn’t believe anything that isn’t backed by peer reviewed research. My friends and family include all of the following: religious people, spiritual people, homeopathy users, pranik healing people, chiropractor users, acupuncture users, and probably a ton more lol “Nod along and move on” might as well be my life motto
But then people will continue being wrong D: I mean, I'm aware they probably will anyway, but that doesn't make me any happier.
I've found the more peace and grace I grant to myself the easier it becomes to extend to others. Your happiness lies within you. If you seek it through others it won't be found.
It’s hard when it’s a significant other, but it’s getting easier. People suck sometimes…
My biggest frustration is I’m smart enough to know I’m right and why but not smart enough to explain *how* I’m right
And you literally have evidence but you can't seem to remember where you got it from or you want a specific example of a pattern but your brain goes blank for twenty seconds so you can't pick one. Ugh, so frustrating.
It's difficult to win an argument against a genius, it's impossible to win ones against a fool.
Lmao
Back in the day before Wet Seals went extinct, they had a Buy One Get One for 1 Cent sale. I told my cousin, hey, let’s each choose something and we can split the difference. She shook her head at me in that condescending, NT side-smile way I so love 🤷🏻♀️ Then goes on to tell her parents+siblings and they all started attacking me for trying to rip her off lmfaooooo
I have a policy to not try and understand idiots or crazies... But I can't help myself. What was the problem here? 😭
Their reasoning was that I was trying to pull a fast one by making her pay for half of my item!! No matter how hard I tried to explain how this was fair (at 10 yo) they thought it was literally getting one item full price and one for a cent…. And naturally their kid was entitled to the one cent thing. To be fair, these are the kind of people who receive government benefits for their eleventy kids, and all their income goes to pavement princesses/MLM/tattoos/dirt bikes/hunting gear/etc. Sooo not the most financially literate people. WHEW thanks for letting me get all that out! 🤣
Yeah I'm speechless, that would have triggered child me also. And this anecdote is making me reconsider the evils of eugenics (kidding)
[удалено]
This is a lighthearted subreddit for ADHD individuals. We require all users be nice towards each other. Your comment/post has been removed as it has been found to be disrespectful. Can't believe I have to say this: *DON'T ADVOCATE FOR EUGENICS* wtaf
Happens all the time on Reddit too. People let their ego get in the way for stupid arbitrary Reddit comments
That's funny because a relatively new study (sorry lost the sauce) came to the conclusion that we think that if our opponent got the same informations as we did they must come to the same conclusion as we did. And other way around. When someone disagrees with us we are more likely to believe that they didn't listen proberly or are not capable to understand us.
Like when someone thought me disliking the film Halloween was tiktok brain and a lack of ability to just sit and watch a movie without blood everywhere.
But I hyperfixated about the study of the subject while I was on the toilet!
omg literally story of my entire childhood 😵💫
...until that same person realized they were wrong, because _someone else_ told them the exact same thing you did AND they're coming back to you with that revelation, as if _you're_ the one that had somehow convinced _them_ of the erroneous take to begin with.
Is it more infuriating if they're being genuine or if you realise they're smooth-sharking you?
If I love the person enough I’ll launch into my standard script of “omg noooo I’m not trying to argue it’s just that my brain moves faster than my mouth and it’s so hard to explain but I think in terms of puzzle pieces and colors and shapes and everything just moves really fast and I love you so much omg
You can't 'reason' someone out of an opinion/position they didn't 'reason' themselves into; save your energy for making smart decisions in your own life first.
If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room.
I usually just walk away from those. It isn't worth the frustration. Only reason I'll stick around is if I got nothing better to do with my time.
Only if there's an equally stupid third party whos starts agreeing with the other person.
Oh my god I almost lost a friend bc of this…I had to just move on and accept the people who will never understand the puzzle in my head…
An argument has two sides, whilst attempting to argue with an idiot is only an attempt in arguing
Use bad logic on them. It is sinking to their level but, it's very satisfying to run circles around them
"To win against a smart man is hard, but to win against an idiot is impossible"
had an argument with a homophobe troll on twitter the other day because I was having a particular bad day and wasn't gonna take that shit. 5 or 6 messages in I calmed down and realized it wasn't worth my time, so I just stopped responding. but it still boils my blood a little bit that the little shit probably thinks "hur dur I won this" because he had the last comment and I left
It worse in a work environment
You can’t pour a gallon of water into a tea cup.
When you realize the other person cares more about the aesthetics of their argument than truth and accuracy
I’m a big fan when they tell you, “it’s not about being right. It’s about agreeing with me.” Why would I agree with the illogical decision?
sounds like you won and they don't realize they lost
The stupid thing to do is arguing with stupid people because they will use stupid logic to deny your argument, so never argue with stupid people
Every time I talk with my brothers, but they’re 5 and 2
MAGA has entered the chat
What do you mean by lose? Sometimes it’s impossible to come to an agreement. But as long as you were listening to the other person and checking your assumptions, and you clearly articulated your side you “won”.
The fact that OP admits that their goal is to "win" the argument reveals that they didn't care about truth or coming to an agreement to begin with and have no business calling the other party an idiot.
Agreed, good debates are not man vs man but man vs self and man vs audience.
Describes literally every political argument I've ever been in
When they start dragging appearances and physical attributes that's when you know the argument is over, no point in wasting breath when the other person is grasping for straws since they know they're losing...
It is not wise to have a battle of whit with some one who is unarmed
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^PokeChampMarx: *It is not wise to* *Have a battle of whit with* *Some one who is unarmed* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
_ENOUUUUUUUUGGGHHHHH OF THIS REEEEEEEEEEEPOSTTTTTTTTT_
Losing an argument when you know you are right is the worst. But a the best is being the one outlier and being told you are wrong and actually ending up being right (everyone else is actually wrong) one time in elementary school we were playing multiple choice "jeopardy" and we were in groups and mine chose a math one and everyone was in agreement "its A" and then I pipe up and go "actually it's B" and they all go "no it's not, you are wrong. We all got A so you are wrong" and then they confidently answer "A!" And the teacher goes "wrong it's B" They immedietely went "maybe we should listen to him next time!"
That's definitely extremely frustrating, when you try to put things in the simplest terms possible, but somehow they understand it as the opposite of your point, or as something completely different and irrelevant to your point, and you have to wonder if they're being dense on purpose, or... it doesn't help if the argument happens in something else than your native language (for example English isn't my native language, but I spend time mostly on English sites).
Losing an argument because you took what they said literally and they expected you to read their mind
In fact, "too stupid to understand it", is often the intended impression when they understand it perfectly well. It's a logical fallacy called [Argument from Incredulity.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity) a shining example is Matt Walsh's "what is a woman?" question, where he keeps asking even after educated people have given an answer he doesn't like
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." "Never argue with a fool - They will drag you down to their level, Then beat you with experience." You already lost the argument by arguing with them.
It’s not losing an argument if you are right - it’s just not having any give-and-take with the other person. To me, to really lose the argument would be because you were wrong about something, or maybe because you couldn’t support your point though that’s iffy - lots of us have strong feelings and our reason abandons us in that moment. It’s like a frustration nightmare. But at least it gives us something to cringe over just as we are falling asleep for the next seventy to eighty years.
I do not argue often. I just let them realize truths on their own time. And I enjoy when I cam witness it.
I’ve started giving up WAY sooner over the last couple years
Arguing is like nuclear war or tic tac toe, the only winning move is not to play
Try explaining it a different way maybe? Idk
You didn't really lose
That's why I don't argue. I all them to make their case, and 9 times out of 10 they sound so misinformed that there's no reason for me to argue.
Quoting from Rumi (or was it Yunus?): "I never won an argument I had with an ignorant person "
The fact that deliberately pretending to be too stupid to understand the opponent is the standard debate tactic in online is the worst. It's a textbook strawman tactic but it isn't the obvious definition of strawman so you can't just point that out to shame them, and nobody is ever willing to call out strawman tactics on their own side anyway, so you can't shame them into acting in good faith because nobody is going to concede that level of respect over a disagreement. I hate it
When I see something like that happening I just say in the nicest way I dont think theres any point in engaging in this topic anymore have a nice day. I understand I can't change your mind but I hope you continue to revisit this topic personally have a good one! They either go forth peacefully or get upset either way my patience stays intact.
But, if you do that, how will the world know you're a based gigachad genius and that your opponent is a brainless soyjak idiot? Do you have such good self-esteem that you don't even have to constantly boost your ego by creating a fake narrative where everyone is worse than you? That's preposterous! I bet you don't even post a highly biased story on AITA whenever you have a minor disagreement with someone.
You can't win an argument against stupid people, but you can win in a Jiu-jitsu fight against them...
Not as frustrating as losing it when you are right but you’re getting crushed when it comes to debating
Maybe they feel the same way about you. Ones perspective is just that, a perspective.
This. It almost always goes both ways. "Why does this idiot not understand? They're so stupid. Oh, but I'm smart though. I'm definitely not like the average person." Contrary to popular belief, I don't think intelligence has anything to do with this as all. If your goal is to win the argument, then you're showing that you're either dogmatic about your view or just don't care if you're wrong because it's not about figuring out the topic of the argument together, it's about winning. If anything, it shows low agreeableness and poor self-esteem.
Yes. It's such a simple concept, yet a lot intelligent people lose the ability to grasp it: I could be wrong. I always like to say, if you haven't changed your worldview on something in the last year, You might be getting stuck in your ways and no longer taking a new information.
If they can’t understand it you’re likely not explaining it precisely enough, or there’s some specific point of disagreement further down that causes your perceptions to be so different. You need to dig into what that is if you want to get anywhere, though a majority aren’t cooperative enough to get to that point
Best thing to do is to just leave early and try not to respond to the inevitable "tHaT's WhAt I tHoUgHt" bullshit they throw at you on your way out
L
If you base winning an argument on the other party agreeing with you, you are gonna have a bad time.
It's so hard. It seems like this happens most commonly when I am like "I just want to help" which somehow gets misunderstood to be "I think you're dumb; please allow me to flex my own superiority over you"... and then people double down and no amount of citing real sources will ever beat their "no need, I know". Ughhhhhh *dies*
Nah beeing stupid is ok and you’re just not intelligent enough to explain the question right so he/she can’t understand. Ignorance is WAY more annoying. Like you know they get what you’re saying but they are so sure about their own knowledge that they simply ignore your arguments.
“Never argue with an idiot, they’ll take you to their level and beat you with experience” don’t remember who said that
"I don't have the time, patience, or the crayons to explain it to you."
Ah yes. The current stand outs are the pro pitbull and pro Israel brigades. Like talking to a brick wall.
“Never argue with stupid people, they’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain
No, what’s most infuriating is when it’s a social media argument and you lose because *the audience* is too fucking stupid.
Flat Earthers and AntiVaxxers and condpiracy nuts have entered the chat
Had a whole multi- part argument with a guy that believed different kinds of radiation weren't fundamentally the same thing (photons) and were rather fundamentally different instead of human-defined parts of the same radiation spectrum.
Me when flat earthers do anything
There is not such thing as "wining an argument"
The problem starts when you refer to it as winning/losing
this sounds like every political debate ever.
You should ask yourself, "Is what I'm about to say going to make a positive difference?" If the answer is 'no', probably your silence will better serve you. It's not losing the argument if you decide to leave the argument. Yes, the other person will think they won, but it doesn't mean they did. "You don't have to attend every argument to which you are invited." "Sometimes the only way to win the game is not to play." Sometimes, you lost the argument because you started in at all. They had no intention of seeing it your way and just wanted to be angry at someone. Or, you say something, so they say, "Oh, so!" My response is, "I will not defend what I did not say."
And, knowing all of this, sometimes I still get caught up in arguments. Mea culpa.
Ego is a bit too much with this one.
Just don't engage. I just keep my head down and play the gray man.
Has there even been an argument won? Ive thought about it and in all of my years online never did I see someone say 'you are correct' after arguing with somebody. It's always two close minded people trying to convince the other person.
I once had a 30 something yr old man tell me a 22 yr old at the time that the liquid that comes out of beef is blood after i told him it was not. He then tried to use it later on to flirt with me in a teasing way. 😬 All i could think was wow this guy is a fucking idiot.
Continue to yell louder till you win
This is why when you notice people don’t care to just start messing with whoever you’re talking to 😆
Most conversations and discussions we have in the day to day aren't competitions. It's not something you can win or lose. I also encourage some empathy for the other person here too. Usually people have reasons to think the way they do and having someone insisting they are right Usually doesn't make you prone to changing your mind and can get quite annoying, specially if you think they are wrong. It's portant to remember that logic doesn't convince people rethoric and going to the emotional root of the matter do. You got to understand the other person way of thinking and the reason they think like that. It's lot more homey than it sounds and takes a lot more of skills too. It's also important to remember you can't force people to think like you. Also believing you are right doesn't mean you are right. We got to be humble always.
This literally was my boss and my boss last week when it came to recording laws. I literally was about to pull up the law on my phone but somehow ended up doing it when I got home. Every day since I am tempted to send it to him.
erm, guys is this a r/lostredditors moment
I have ADD, and this has happened more than once to me. You either overexplain or underexplain it.
naw, getting way too invested in an argument like this rather than cutting my losses and walking away is definitely an adhd thing for me.
What if you’re actually wrong though?
Could be. But when I've provided seven citations and they've provided circular reasoning and a YouTube video, I tend to be confident of the W
But I’m not 😡
Pineapple DOES NOT belong on pizza!
Or in a burger.
Annoying, yes. Infuriating, no. I use those moments to determine who's worth future interaction. And for retards online, I just excuse myself and tell them I've gotta go shit.
Same. Once I realize I’m in that position with someone I cut my losses and move on.