Last spring I visited my grandparents. They were (are?) convinced that President Obama is Muslim. That he had set up camps in America. That Occupy protests were going to boil to a head over the summer and Obama would enact martial law. Something about Sharia Law, too. Good god.

From Wikipedia: "Modernity aimed towards 'a progressive force promising to liberate humankind from ignorance and irrationality' (Rosenau 1992, 5)."

There's no denying that there has always been a circus sideshow group of people who will believe whatever they want to believe. It just seems to me they're getting louder. So when I question modern society prevailing I'm simply growing tired of defending it against the ignorant and irrational.

Are they FOX News watchers?

How'd you know!

But really. Are we just supposed to be zen and ignore them, hoping that they go away while continuing to tell myself that "modern society will prevail?"

More importantly, GLENN BECK?

I apologize in advance for a long response, but this is not a discussion about simple matters that are 1-dimensional. ;D

In my experience, once people are talking about Sharia law and similar conspiracies, they are not people who are willing to listen to rational thought. It's like arguing with a brick wall. They hear selectively, and if you want to have a pleasant time with them, it would be best to avoid politics completely.

I agree with @Ryan, I I think this is a fairly broad discussion.

Here's the thing, the reason why the "craziness" appears to be getting worse is because up till this last election, the GOP has become increasingly extremely. It's apart of why the lost the election, the GOP did not recognize that the US voter base is no longer comprised of angry white dudes.

To your point, I have learned not to attempt to reason with these people. As Zac says, once they start claiming that Obama is a muslim, and talking about Sharia law, they are in their own dream land.

Yes, we're all entitled to have and voice our opinions, but not all opinions should be treated as equal, some opinions are based on facts and reason... others are not.

There are a lot of ways to look at this stuff.

I work every day to be more and more of what I want to experience and bring into the world, and I surround myself with like-minded and like-oriented people. This allows me to a great extent to be unaware of all the crazy shit the rest of humanity is doing. I am not apathetic, I am not uncaring, I just recognize that being miserable about the misery in the world is just bringing more misery into the world, and making me miserable in the process.

I cannot change other people through coercion or manipulation, I can just hope to influence by example and/or increasing the number of those engaged in moving away from the crazy... and/or ignore people who are fundamentally opposed to what I want my life and experience to be about.

So, I think ignoring them can be an effective tool, but there is also the other side which is that sometimes action is required to protect life and liberties against hostile and destructive forces. I think it's a matter of being aware of what's going on in the world, and identifying where your "battle" lies. Different people have different callings and contribute in different ways.

I think that saying some opinions are based on fact and reason and some aren't is problematic. Many of the people who believe insane shit aren't stupid, and can often give detailed and intricate explanations of why they think what they do. On the flip side, there are some very intelligent scientists in the world who arrive at completely false conclusions while being "rational" or "logical" or whatever other adjective they think makes them "right."

That's the other thing, this whole notion of "right" is extremely problematic. "Correct" and "right" are two VERY different things, and way too much of the world is focused on and oriented towards this imaginary thing called "right." It doesn't exist.

Oooooh! You can "branch" topics! THIS IS AWESOME!!

I finished reading "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer and it's main topic was why we(humans) form belief systems. In this case, I think people who believe crazy things like conspiracy theories have a very low threshold of what a rational person would consider evidence.

But that's more of "why" they believe things, not really "what we can do" about it.

I enjoy talking to people who have weird beliefs because I like understanding how they came to those beliefs and see if my arguments and line of reasoning stands their scrutiny. I don't necessarily try and change their minds on the spot, but if I can get them to question their own beliefs, I think that's the path to getting people to think more critically about their beliefs.

"I just recognize that being miserable about the misery in the world is just bringing more misery into the world"

Well said.

Sam and Zac, to your points... What does it look like to not treat those opinions as equal? Our novel media gives the same weight to both. Some might argue, more weight to people like Trump, who with a few tweets gets spun up into a media frenzy and talked about for days.

I'll have to pick up that book, Seb. Sounds interesting for sure. I approached the discussion with my grandparents in the same way, bouncing my own ideas and conclusions against theirs, to challenge my own beliefs not to change theirs. That was very helpful.

I really glad my grandparents were super liberal. My grandmother was president of the BPW for years. She would have had another heart attack had she been alive for this election just based off women's rights alone.

Just so the other people can see this image. It has been happening for 40+ years. We've always been cray-cray. :/

t.co

I just noticed the title of this thread: "How can we reason with unreasonable people?" Simple answer: you can't.

What are you wanting to accomplish through engaging with them?

@Pter Who's this "we" you speak of? :P

That's not really adding to the conversation though, Peter. It's been happening forever, I'm sure. Not really the point...

Ryan, I guess I want them to be reasonable. It's probably an unreasonable request.

Really what you're saying is that you want them to see things the way you do, and assuming that the way you're seeing is reasonable. I'm not saying it isn't, but you're basically wanting the same thing that all the FOX News groupies are desiring (who also think they're reasonable and you're a lunatic).

What's the point that you're trying to get at in the conversation? Maybe that's not clear. It seems like a kinda free-flowing discussion of things around "People they be cray-cray. How come?"

@Rob, How can you reason with unreasonable people. I used to try... but once I realized that no matter how well I researched or argued my position, if the other side is just going plug their ears and scream "Muslim, terrorist, nah nah nah" then you have to move on and not place any value in their opinion on the topic.

The great thing is, just because someone has an uneducated opinion about certain topics, doesn't typically make them stupid, or a bad person. It just makes them ignorant on that topic.

You can still love the stupid people, and I think it's worth it (post plug: cl.ly) because ultimately, none of this craziness is new, and it's not worth losing relationships over, especially with friends and family.

Ryan, the point was that Peter said "modern society will survive." If modernity is "a progressive force promising to liberate humankind from ignorance and irrationality," is it up to us to advance modern society, or does it simply work itself out?

I'm wired to argue my point. I'm a very logical person. So when someone with an illogical argument thinks they are "right" about an issue, when I am "correct" about an issue, I find it very difficult to be the only one in the discussion to be rational, listen to their argument, say, "Hah! You loon," and walk away.

Ah, ok. That makes sense.

I think that it's really really easy for people to lose context for where we are in our species evolution because there currently isn't a widely utilized metric for tracking it. Not that they don’t exist, they’re just not mainstream knowledge yet.

That said, I was journaling recently about the concept of paradigm blindness in terms of how it affects our perception of progression/evolution, and I made this li'l graph:

omgfriends.com

What I was illustrating these is a constant upward trajectory that has dips and peaks. When a dip happens it's easy to think of it as knocking us back down to "square 1" because it seems low relative to our current location, but it’s in fact way above square 1.

I think it’s odd that it’s 2012 and we’re still debating equal pay for women and gay marriage, but in comparison to what our social discourse was even 30-50 years ago, we’re so far advanced from that crap. We’re also just in our generation watching how these FOX News people and their superstitions are being recognized and seen as more and more fringe and superstitious, where before people would say “oh, they’re just Christian” (i.e. excusing fucking gross and horrible beliefs, behavior, and actions as freedom of religion).

I don’t say this in a hateful way, but those people are going to die out soon(ish). That’s going to leave the next generation(s) in charge. There’ll be blind spots in those generations that the younger generation will be scratching their heads about, and we'll eventually die out and be replaced by them. Rinse and repeat.

"I find it very difficult to be the only one in the discussion to be rational, listen to their argument, say, "Hah! You loon," and walk away."

I think walking away is a totally reasonable and appropriate response.

I avoid debating or getting into serious conversations with almost everyone I encounter because ultimately the VAST majority of people on this planet don't genuinely want to challenge or vet their paradigms or beliefs. They just wanna keep rolling with it; functional or not.

This is exactly the kind of positive, optimistic, light-hearted, cute bundles of... hope that I needed.

Your illustration is great. I definitely feel that way sometimes (I've felt lately like we're in for the second dark ages) but I like your perspective on that.

Thanks Ryan!

Awww, yay! That makes me happy! :D <--- see?

To me it feels like things are coming to head in order for a serious breakthrough to happen. It's the "it's always darkest before the dawn" thing. There's an insane amount of really wise old maxims (not the magazine).

It feels like a lot is congealing into a thick poopy soup so that it can be seen clearly for what it is and fundamentally culturally resolved, at least in terms of the folks who are actively pushing things forward and not clutching to the past with a stranglehold.

It's always been a small group of visionaries that lead the masses in establishing new standards. Once they've been created and established the masses follow because there's a bandwagon to jump on. It's the establishment of a new flow that takes a LOT of energy and dedication and consistent focus (and often lives) on the part of visionaries. But, nothing easy is fucking fun or fulfilling in the end.

VIVA LA PAIN IN THE ASS!!! >:O

Having been raised in a small town in the Midwest I can attest to the proud ignorance that has penetrated science, politics, and just about every part of life for some people. In high school, a kid in my class said "I don't need to learn this stuff, my cows don't care about math."

I think this attitude toward education and knowledge go far to explain the current nature of politics. If you don't escape this lifestyle at a young age, odds are you will forever be in a state of denial toward any opinions outside of your own—and often the opinions of those around you, which in these small towns, is often the church. If you refuse to educate yourself, how would you know anything different?