Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 58 of 58

Thread: How do people change their minds?

  1. #51
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    eNTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    15,183
    Quote Originally Posted by RDF View Post
    I would say that that particular context leads into a discussion of "non-attachment to outcome." Put good systems in place, and don't worry too much about achieving this or that specific outcome. Instead, work on testing and improving your systems, and trust the systems to deliver good results over the long-term.
    YES!

    That said, my biggest criticism of Kahneman is his attachment to algorithms and deterministic state machines. It's his blind spot regarding his own need for consistency. He has a point, but it's not as universal as he thinks it is, and ironically, even within his book, he gives an example of failing to adapt based on new knowledge where the failure to adapt was because of rigid adherence to an existing algorithm. I'm a bit fuzzy on the deets but it was about their scoring method for deciding which potential candidates for officer were most likely to succeed in the long term. They determined they were no better than random chance, but still stuck with their algorithm.

    Quote Originally Posted by KM View Post
    I don't really have the energy to reply to this properly, but wanted to bring up tactics of cult leaders and other abusive people who confuse you intentionally, so they can knock you off-balance and distract you and awe you and in doing so make it so that it is hard to trust or notice your gut instinct. I'm all for growth and development and free will and changing your mind, but I do demand an intimate partner not confuse me so that I can "feel" safe and one way of accomplishing that is by communicating and letting me know what is going on in their heads philosophically, phenomenologically. That way, my expectations change and I won't be confused by their seemingly sudden change in behavior. Another toxic example of this confusion is the push/pull, hot/cold dynamic when those that are narcissistically inclined do the idealization-devaluation dance to cause damage to the self-esteem of their target.
    Yes. That sort of predation makes discussing this more difficult--it makes giving a general rule seem impossible. I'm not saying it's okay for people to gaslight you, I'm saying it's not valid to expect they always behave in a way you understand.
    Last edited by Hephaestus; 07-29-2020 at 09:50 PM. Reason: Combining double post.
    I'm suspicious of people who say they'll die for a flag but won't wear a mask for their neighbor.

  2. #52
    Member RDF's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    YES!

    That said, my biggest criticism of Kahneman is his attachment to algorithms and deterministic state machines. It's his blind spot regarding his own need for consistency. He has a point, but it's not as universal as he thinks it is, and ironically, even within his book, he gives an example of failing to adapt based on new knowledge where the failure to adapt was because of rigid adherence to an existing algorithm. I'm a bit fuzzy on the deets but it was about their scoring method for deciding which potential candidates for officer were most likely to succeed in the long term. They determined they were no better than random chance, but still stuck with their algorithm.
    I think I was starting to skim a little bit by that point in the book. I remember the material, but I wasn't interested enough to dig into the details.

    The Wikipedia article on "Thinking" points out at least one place where Kahneman violated his own principles:

    Part of the book has been swept up in the replication crisis facing psychology and the social sciences. An analysis of the studies cited in chapter 4, "The Associative Machine", found that their R-Index is 14, indicating essentially no reliability. Kahneman himself responded to the study in blog comments and acknowledged the chapter's shortcomings: "I placed too much faith in underpowered studies." Others have noted the irony in the fact that Kahneman made a mistake in judgment similar to the ones he studied.

    Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinki...ication_crisis
    But I figure that that is the price one pays with a big, sweeping book like "Thinking": It's easy even for the experts to flounder a bit in all the details.

    Overall, though, I loved what Kahneman was doing in terms of describing the dichotomous nature of the human mind.

  3. #53
    KM's Avatar
    Type
    INFJ
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    Yes. That sort of predation makes discussing this more difficult--it makes giving a general rule seem impossible. I'm not saying it's okay for people to gaslight you, I'm saying it's not valid to expect they always behave in a way you understand.
    I like the way that's worded. I tend to be fascinated by weirdos, people who don't behave in ways I immediately understand.

    Even if I don't expect people I meet to remain in that personality forever, I still don't see a lot of people who change all that much throughout their lifetimes, besides aging. Even when they have the freedom to change and neurological plasticity to change, most people don't change much.

    "
    'I cannot play with you,' the fox said. 'I am not tamed.'" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Le Petit Prince (1943)

    REMINDER TO SELF WHEN DEALING WITH THE RABBIT WARRIOR: "All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu,
    The Art of War

  4. #54
    Member RDF's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by KM View Post
    I don't really have the energy to reply to this properly, but wanted to bring up tactics of cult leaders and other abusive people who confuse you intentionally, so they can knock you off-balance and distract you and awe you and in doing so make it so that it is hard to trust or notice your gut instinct. I'm all for growth and development and free will and changing your mind, but I do demand an intimate partner not confuse me so that I can "feel" safe and one way of accomplishing that is by communicating and letting me know what is going on in their heads philosophically, phenomenologically. That way, my expectations change and I won't be confused by their seemingly sudden change in behavior. Another toxic example of this confusion is the push/pull, hot/cold dynamic when those that are narcissistically inclined do the idealization-devaluation dance to cause damage to the self-esteem of their target.

    Along with what you said later:
    When dealing with potential abusers, the usual "metrics" you look for are basically ranged around their observance (or non-observance) of healthy personal boundaries, respect for healthy emotional distance, etc.

    "Out of the Fog" is a message board for partners and family members of people with personality disorders--primarily NPD and BPD. There are a lot of enablers and codependents posting there. The website includes resources and tools to help teach enablers and codependents to spot abuse and try to avoid the worst effects. The "tools" are largely focused on personal boundaries.

    Link to the message board: https://outofthefog.website/
    Link to the "toolbox": https://outofthefog.website/toolbox-intro
    Last edited by RDF; 07-29-2020 at 10:58 PM.

  5. #55
    KM's Avatar
    Type
    INFJ
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    You cannot change your mind or behaviors and be consistent with your past self from all angles.
    I had some insomnia last night and it lead me to an interview related to this.

    “ I am willing to completely die to any form of me that I had been so that I can birth the women that I am becoming.”
    “The reason why a lot of people won’t become who they want is that they're too attached to who they’ve been.”

    "
    'I cannot play with you,' the fox said. 'I am not tamed.'" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Le Petit Prince (1943)

    REMINDER TO SELF WHEN DEALING WITH THE RABBIT WARRIOR: "All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu,
    The Art of War

  6. #56
    schlemiel Faust's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,385
    Quote Originally Posted by KM
    “The reason why a lot of people won’t become who they want is that they're too attached to who they’ve been.”
    I think people fantasize about a different past, as though changing themselves in the present were less realistic.

  7. #57
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    eNTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    15,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Faust View Post
    I think people fantasize about a different past, as though changing themselves in the present were less realistic.
    Do you mean nostalgia-vision or getting wrapped up in wishing for a better past? The difference is the difference between "Things were better back when..." and "If only I'd been born rich."

    I think both play an interesting role. The latter leads to defeat in the present because of a belief that being who you wish you were requires a foundation you will never have--which in some cases is true, but even when it isn't, it blinds you to what you might be able to do. The former is where a paper trail can really fuck a person up.

    In the absence of a paper trail, it is easy and common for people to confabulate their past, to nudge their perceptions of their past, to make them congruent with the present. A paper trail allows for direct contradiction to that internal narrative. People in general are averse to being wrong, and will fight tooth and nail to avoid the mark. I think this implies it is easier for most people to revert to previous positions than it is to explain how or why--or even admit or acknowledge--that they changed their mind. The further one goes from aesthetic judgments, the more changing one's mind is an admission of being wrong and an acknowledgement of fallibility. I think people are far more likely to accept a new viewpoint if they are allowed to do so quietly and with the self-delusion of that viewpoint being internally consistent.

    I've fallen prey to both the above idiocies in my life.
    I'm suspicious of people who say they'll die for a flag but won't wear a mask for their neighbor.

  8. #58
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Faust View Post
    That must be true. I could have brought this up in the conformism thread, but those most successful at absorbing others into their ideological circle are great at exploiting listeners' desires. They aren't debating them, and certainly aren't antagonizing them, though it can be at the expense of the Other, a common enemy. Maybe breaking down strongly held conventional beliefs is not that hard under the right circumstances.
    I partly agree with this. I'd express my view by saying that changing minds should be a convergence for all people involved - people moving away from ideologies and towards viewing all people as valuable individuals with common human needs. It is important to listen and to acknowledge truth whenever it is spoken.
    Back yourself.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •