On these types of forums it’s easy to jump into an argument about the technicalities or a post or comment.

You should know, though, that there is a theory called Ways of Knowing which defines Separate Knowing and Connected Knowing. It’s been a part of my masters program I’m taking.

Separate knowing disconnects the humanity and context from what’s being said and tries to only argue the “facts”. But facts, and the things people say, don’t just occur in a vacuum. It often is the case when people are arguing past each other, like on the internet.

Connected Knowing is approaching the thing someone said with the understanding that there is a context, humanity, biases, different experiences, and human error that can all jumble up when people are sharing information.

Maybe even just knowing that there’s different ways to know would be helpful for us to engage in a different level of conversation here. I’m not sure. I just wanted to share!

https://capstone.unst.pdx.edu/sites/default/files/Critical Thinking Article_0.pdf

    • moistclump@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’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: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “this is true for them

        “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.

            • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year 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.

              • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Really? Leaving people to believe stupid, damaging, dangerous things just because you don’t want to make a scene or don’t want even the least hint of rudeness (probably because you learned that extreme politeness, even at your own expense, is a value) seems a lot less empathetic to me.

                But you do you and follow “your own truth”.

                Are you defending leaving the people believe whatever they want, however wrong, damaging, wrongheaded, contrary to evidence or inane, just to avoid offending them? If not, what is your fucking point?!

                • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think you’ve missed the core point of this whole thread.

                  You’re also conflating empathy with acquiescence.

                  Separate knowing is understanding someone’s position logically or factually. Connected knowing requires an understanding of the context.

                  You can’t reason someone out of an unreasonable position.

                  Hitting a flat earther with logic and facts will obviously be counter productive. Even a modicum of empathy and curiosity as to why someone thinks the way they do will serve you well.

                  Conversations are about much more than who is wrong and who is right.

                  • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You can’t reason someone out of an unreasonable position.

                    Hitting a flat earther with logic and facts will obviously be counter productive. Even a modicum of empathy and curiosity as to why someone thinks the way they do will serve you well.

                    But in that case, the battle is already lost. I cannot engage with the person in a manipulative emotional way to use their emotions to shock them out of their mistaken positions. Any further communication regarding the matter is useless. And glossing over some topics is being an accomplice, but apparently that’s the only viable response.

                    Knowing why they believe ss they do will do nothing to help me show them their mistake.

                    Conversations are about much more than who is wrong and who is right.

                    Departing with people espousing damaging views for society, given that as you say reason is not a tool that works, is pointless.

                  • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re also conflating empathy with acquiescence.

                    Indeed. This is because he lacks actual empathy so doesn’t actually comprehend the very concept.

                • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes. That’s exactly what everybody here is saying.

                  I resubmit: you lack all capacity to comprehend any viewpoint other than yours and will only damage anything you believe in as a result.

    • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That “slippery slope” is absolutely vital to slither down if you want to formulate public policy.

      If you don’t understand why people mistrust “big pharma” or “big government” or “big [sobriquet]” and reflexively dismiss anything that involves them, you cannot formulate public policy that will be effective.

      Very rarely do people say “I’m going to dismiss centuries of scientific progress for this quack cure” without a reason. It’s maybe not a reason you agree with. It’s maybe not a reason reality agrees with. But you know what it might be? It might be a reason that traces back to how “big [sobriquet]” has acted toward such people in the past, often persistently over a long period of time, that has led to that breakdown in trust. In short: you (as in the beneficiaries of the status quo and “big [sobriquet]”, directly or indirectly) may be at least partially historically culpable in the opposition you now face.

      Now I get it: accepting that you yourself are partially culpable for “irrational” opposition is a bitter elixir to swallow, but if you don’t take that first step toward understanding, you can’t take the second step to correcting the problem. And the problem will continue to fester and take root until, oh, I don’t know, something utterly fucking insane happens and a million of your fellow citizens die in a public health disaster because half your population doesn’t trust the very institutions that were needed to prevent said disaster.

      So maybe you should learn to enjoy sliding down slippery slopes. Or, you know, die in the next easily-preventable pandemic. Like a million of your fellow citizens (assuming you’re American: insert your own numbers for your own country if not) did in the current one.