NOM

Ok, actually from someone who left the WBC. In this TED talk she summarizes what she learned and how outsiders people were able to get through to her and change her entire outlook:

https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_ ... t#t-251527

She lays out a method for successful conversation in four components:

1- Don't assume bad intent
2- Ask questions
3- Stay calm
4- Make your argument

The last one may seem a bit mysterious but her point is that, just as we are inclined to assume we already know what others think and how they feel, we assume that they know where we're coming from. But that is seldom the case. They can't understand what we're hoping to communicate unless we tell them in a straight-forward, non-emotion-driven, and reasonable way.

This sounds a lot like my marriage counseling!

Only it's free...

I'll have to watch it now.

I just scrolled by this today while looking up a ted talk my counselor gave me (The Power of Vulnerability by Brene Brown).
Anyway, it looks interesting but I just can't bring myself to watch it right now. I can't explain why... I guess I just want NOM cliff notes at this stage.

Love this TED talk! And if you want to hear more from her, I really enjoyed when she was on the Sam Harris Podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hwLFjD8V1g

I haven't listened to the TedTalk, but I did read this a while back, it was very interesting:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/ ... =longreads

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:33 pmShe lays out a method for successful conversation in four components:

1- Don't assume bad intent
2- Ask questions
3- Stay calm
4- Make your argument

The last one may seem a bit mysterious but her point is that, just as we are inclined to assume we already know what others think and how they feel, we assume that they know where we're coming from. But that is seldom the case. They can't understand what we're hoping to communicate unless we tell them in a straight-forward, non-emotion-driven, and reasonable way.

Good advise. Thanks.
When she talked about polarization, she reminded me of how group-thought (herd-mentality - religious, political, etc.) is usually based on cognitive distortion/logical fallacy (like polarized thinking - you're either with us 100% or you're against us 100% - which is nonsense). If someone is thinking for themselves, they will consider each issue or principle on a case-by-case basis, rather than accept or reject an entire list of "articles of faith" just because their favorite group says they should.

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

I also like how you explained her point about making an argument. To do this really well, requires some thought & study - explaining logical reasons based on facts, rather than emotional reasoning or other logical fallacies.