971 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Sep 2023 \ on: How bitcoiners should argue big state believers bitcoin
You're approach is not going to work psychologically. If you are on the attack, then they will be defensive and dig in or just tune you out. People are open to persuasion when they like the person they're talking to, which is why you're correct about the direction to approach them from. If they're operating on moral reasoning, then meet them on that level. Every point you make needs to be aligned with the morality they're starting from.
The problem you're going to run into is that many people will grant every point you put forward and still not change their minds. The issue is that many people aren't really thinking about the position, they're evaluating whether or not their position is socially approved.
The sad reality is that very few people are willing to hold idiosyncratic views and change their minds when presented with arguments. This is why Michael Malice often says that most people literally have no mind. The NPC caricature is quite accurate.
Good points, mostly agree. Indeed, as we all know, most people don't like to think, most people don't change their minds. And almost never after one conversation.
What I've noticed is this strategy changes the dynamic of a conversation. I feel more empowered and I speak with more confidence. Most people have never been approached like that and it can trigger something. They will not soon forget the conversation. And if it happens more often...
An essential point I made was 'as is appropriate in that situation'. I really mean that. To meet people where they are is key. Eg. find and call out things that you both agree on can help. And you can follow my strategy in a lighthearted way.
Also, often other people are present who are not so dug in / opinionated. They just want to live their life's and don't stick out, but deep inside they don't like all the state interference. From hearing you speak they may be encouraged to speak up more the next time.
reply
often other people are present who are not so dug in
That's a really important dynamic. I've had several of these types of conversations swing my way because I was able to persuade the undecided people who were there. That's part of the tribal approval mechanism. Seeing someone else agree grants psychological permission to agree.
The other thing I thought of is that it's not really relevant what works best on most people, if they aren't going to be receptive anyway. Your direct/confrontational approach might actually be extremely effective on the set of people who can be reached. It's definitely what works on me.
reply
This is my experience. I don't think most people are interested enough in the state and its role to even consider it not existing and how that might be better or worse. Its like you are on another planet. The truth is, most people's opinions on these things don't really matter that much.
reply
When I'm actually talking to reasonable people, I don't try to give the full ancap pitch, unless they explicitly ask about it. Rather, I just talk to them about whatever they're interested in and try to move them a bit in my direction. My feeling is that bringing 10 people 10% of the way is like bringing 1 person 100% of the way.
reply