2y ago

If you ask someone "why?" enough about a subject you don't agree on, eventually both of you will come to a conclusion

Many hold strong beliefs and opinions, however not many know the roots of their belief. If a person agrees to explore it, both of you will learn something new and fascinating. The problem is finding someone who wants to think and ask the questions. This goes for both. Many want to "convince" someone, but how much do you truly know about the thing you're trying to prove?

This also comes back to the "why?" game so many kids play. Parents get annoyed by it, but are they really annoyed at the game or their lack of knowledge depth? Play the game, find out how deep you lake of knowledge goes

63 comments

this doesn't guarantee that the conclusion is correct, or is in scope of expertise of either of you
- It doesn't, but at least it makes both think and hopefully improve the quality of the arguments. And with internet at our finger tips, it doesn't take much to double check a couple things :)
- That's a part of the enlightenment and purpose for open-minded people. One or both may learn they really don't understand what they so firmly believed.

Hmmm, but why?
- Why do you ask?
  
  Why wouldn't they ?
- Because if we did that all the time and everywhere, we would become smarter as a whole human race and maybe gain enough knowledge to stop slaughtering each other ❤️
  
  Why do you think that is?

This also comes back to the "why?" game so many kids play. Parents get annoyed by it, but are they really annoyed at the game or their lack of knowledge depth?
I used to think this as well, until I had a three-year-old. One day she yelled under the bathroom door, "WHY ARE YOU POOPING??" I've realized that young kids may ask "why" more often to annoy and test social boundaries instead of actually trying to learn something. When she does ask "why" in order to learn, it's fun explaining and teaching her. But it's not as often as I thought it would be.
- Well, why were you pooping?
  
  💀
- Ah, I see :D I guess it is important not to miss those actual sparks of curiousity though
- Sounds like being grilled on reddit.

This process is generally referred to as The Socratic Method. As you said, the devil is in first convincing both parties within a debate that they should be searching for shared understanding through the process of attacking and defending ideas, not attacking and defending each other.

Not always. A lot of the time people will just lie about what they actually believe and why they believe it.
For example. People are going to say they support free speech because they believe in it as an important principle for a free society. No one is going to say they support free speech because actually they're a full on Nazi and this is the only way to get their message out to the public until they get the reigns and then they can dispense will al the "free speech" stuff and lock down the opposition.
Actually this applies to a lot of politics related stuff. For example politicians always talk about how tax breaks are going to stimulate the economy, none of them say "well my mate paid me a few million under the table to push this, even though 'trickle down' has never worked in the 100+ years that it's been around".
Security patches, Everyone says "We need to insure that all new software has up to date security and patches.", no one says "We want to collect every single bit of telemetry and integrate end to end DRM and the only way that can work is if the device is completely locked down so the users can't bypass or root it.".
- You're right. Going down through the levels of "okay, and why?" works on a theoretical level but requires both the person asking the right why-question and a level of intellectual honesty from both parties that is incredibly hard to find.
  It's not a bad approach for questioning your own beliefs though, if you can muster the strength to be honest with yourself.

Why?

That works only when people are ready to question their opinions. Many are not. The 'why' question does not seem to make sense to them – why ask for reasoning, when we know 'the fact'?
The only meaningful 'why' in such situation may be: 'why I am still talking to them?'

I had a commander who used to drive all the techs crazy by asking "Why?" His philosophy was to ask "Why?" six times whether he understood or not to make sure his sergeants had thought through any proposal.

I think what you are looking for is kinda related to street epistemology.
- Great responses in this post. Thank you for additional source

eventually both of you will come to a conclusion
But not necessarily an agreement.
- I remember asking my father in law why he doesn't believe in climate change. It boiled down to him saying the democrats just want to control us. When I asked why he said just so they have more power for power's sake. I told him I'm willing to accept that politicians can be like that (because many are) but why does he believe that the republicans are immune to this craving of power or if he thought republicans denying climate change could be just for the sake of controlling people to get more power (like he accused democrats of) and surprise surprise he couldn't give me an answer other than democrats are corrupt and want more power but republicans don't (which isn't an answer because I'm asking why).
- Turns out most everyone thinks based on reasoning developed by years of cumulative, biased experiences that ultimately amount to fundamentally distinct axioms of how the world works. Few people actually have opinions based on "logic", least of all the people who fly the banner of "rational" or "emotion free" opinions. Answering why just provides post-hoc explanations rather than an actual cause (which humans are great at coming up with, just look at split brain cases). Which just turns most "big topic" disagreements into competitions over who can come up with a better sounding justification.

Or, alternatively - you'll be accused of Sealioning
- Haha, yes that indeed might be a problem! Any idea how to approach this without being incredibly annoying?
  
  i've never come across this before but this is an excellent term. nobody is entitled to an unchallenged opinion but at the same time forcing someone into that type of conversation is unlikely to be productive.
  
  I think the only way to avoid it really, is for the two people to agree in advance that they will each be open to questioning and will take the process in good faith. Know what yoiu are getting into.
  
  Nice meme, never seen it before haha
- Whoops! I may have been guilty of this in the past
  
  Haven't we all.
  More annoying though, is when you are really trying to understand the other person's point of view and they shut down debate by the accusation of sealioning. There should be a word for that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fivewhys

This reminds me of the 5 Why method from Toyota
- Yes! Just learned about it, seems to be very similar to what I had in mind ^^
- We use this at work a lot when there's been some kind of failure. The idea is to try and get to the real root cause of an issue, not just the immediate cause. Like maybe an engine failed because a valve didn't open - you could correct that by replacing the valve, but why didn't the valve open? Maybe it was stuck and the initial force to open it was more than the actuator could handle. Okay, so maybe we could lubricate it somehow, but why was it stuck. Maybe the supplier changed their cleaning method and switched to a new chemical. Why did they do that? Oh, because it was cheaper. That's the real root cause: the supplier tried to cut costs by switching to an inferior cleaning chemical. Time to work with them to fix that. All of the other fixes would have only helped that one valve on that one engine - this one fixes all of them.

See also Double Cruxing
- That was an interesting read - thanks for posting

Why should I do that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ0eWm5PxkU
Seems appropriate
- I had Louis C.K bit in mind when I wrote about the "why?" game bit. Comedy is a wonderful way to introduce people to more complex subjects

I don’t believe that’s true. People have different value hierarchies, so you won’t necessarily agree with them no matter how much you clarify knowledge.
For example, my value hierarchy changed when I got attacked on the street once. It made me realize how terrifying it was to see my life about to end, and that moved “staying alive” up the hierarchy.
Now I think taking away people’s weapons is a terrible thing. But I can’t convince anyone else of this by talking to them about it, unless they value the protection of life as powerfully as I do.
I thought I valued my safety, but I really didn’t. I took a lot more risks before that happened, because I valued fun, social status, money, exploration over safety.
So my values shifted, without any new knowledge of the world (at least not that I can convey in words), and as a result my decisions and worldview changed.
It sounds horrible, but I don’t know if I could alter another’s philosophy on this by talking. I’d have to disguise myself as a stranger and beat them half to death, then come back as myself again to really get on the same page.

63 comments