How do I teach someone to think without them noticing?

It might sound like a weird question, but if I'm too direct with the person I'm dealing about why she's wrong about something she'll decide that I don't listen to her and that I'm against her and so is everybody else. The traits I need to fix are: >Lack of critical analysis / scientific method ("This photo of a tree which is dead on the side closer to the 5g tower shows that 5g has an impact on nature") >Paranoid mindset ("I knew you'd say I'm wrong, you always do and so does everybody") >Lack of empathy ("I'm not one of those idiots who thinks they're killing people", +analogy about how someone on facebook who does is crazy and stupid) and if possible, >Long held beliefs ("I'm not using those chemicals, the crystals work fine") I probably sound pretty arrogant, that's why I tried to characterise the person with paraphrasing. For the sake of conversation let's assume I'm not and I really do understand how to think better than them. Masterpiece related is original btw.

I believe beliefs are not so much about rational arguments as they are about social connections. So if you want to change someones beliefs take out their connections upon which they are grounded.

Do the Socrates and make her ask her way to knowledge

Beliefs become part of the identity and this is also part of our social self perception as >>25667 pointed out. If you attack beliefs, you unkowningly are attacking that persons ego. Perhaps you want to ask yourself first why do you want to change this persons mind in the first place? What do you get out of it? Then, as >>25669 also pointed out, maybe giving that person an incentive to ask herself questions and to answer them is probably the best choice. Do not expect however you will get the mindset you want, as her conclusions, if thinking properly, will most likely come to be different than yours. If you are fine with that, then perfect, if not ask yourself again why do you want that.

My usual response with someone like that would be "don't try," but assuming you're truly invested... >>25667 raises an interesting possibility. I can't argue for its effectiveness from personal experience, but this kind of approach might be worth a try. However, I would agree with >>25669 more readily. If you're unfamiliar with the actual way in which Socrates handled these discussions, here is a translation of Euthyphro: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html. It's accessible and short, so don't be afraid to start reading.

1) that is a fuarrrking schway image, props 2) she probably believes these things because it makes her feel like she understands something that is very complicated, without requiring her to put in the time and effort of actually understanding it. You should try to refute her points in a purely logical fashion, without appealing to authority. Don't engage her paranoia or lack of empathy. If she believes something without sufficient evidence, ask her why she believes it, and why she believes her evidence is sufficient.

Show her that her intuition is not as reliable as she thinks. Something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo could help. (but don't just explain the experiment, make her participate, otherwise she won't understand it on an emotional level) Try to get her to understand that someone can reach a conclusion she doesn't like using her line of reasoning. Never ask 'why?', it sounds confrontational. Always say:'what led you to believe that?' But most importantly of all: ask yourself whether this is worth your time, sanity, and relationship with that person and whether just distancing yourself from them is an option. >>25673 I would add Protagoras to the mix. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1591 It's a bit longer, but reading the quotes in the OP she sounds like the kind of person who will try to fall back on relativism when confronted.

The degree to which this is useful here is questionable, considering how you say you're just out to convince her and she sounds like she's not at a stage where she would appreciate this, but I found this extraordinarily enlightening (like "miraculous bolt of inspiration from the heavens" enlightening) with regard to handling interpersonal relationships, etc., when another lainon posted it a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7TONauJGfc. It's Marshall Rosenberg's workshop in San Francisco, in which he outlined the essential concepts behind the system he called "Nonviolent Communication," a framework for listening, speaking, and understanding the self and others. In my personal view, getting something out of this requires a certain flexibility in not taking everything he says at face value. For example, at one point he actually says the words, "Any time you're thinking, you're reducing your chances of getting what you want." If you take those words in context and flesh them out charitably, the idea is reasonable. Otherwise, it's nonsense, as it appears to be here. Should you attempt to adopt Rosenberg's methods, I will give you one very important piece of advice: do not, under any circumstances, give the other person the impression that you're using a system. Don't talk about giraffe language. Prioritize sounding natural over speaking by the book. I think you'd be surprised at how angry some individuals become when they realize you're using this system, especially if they're already mad about something else.

how fast do you need this to happen? if this is a family member or a partner or a close friend, and you're in it for the long haul, then the single best way to change how someone thinks is to model good thinking for them. let her into your head in a natural and conversational way. if you find out some new information, then narrate your thoughts as you process it: e.g. "oh wow this says that 90% of americans wear red hats. i wonder where that information came from? hmm.. here's the study. oh i see, it's says that 90% of americans have worn a red hat at some point in their life; that seems more reasonable". once you do stuff like this for a while pay attention to see if she's mimicking you at all. you'd probably be surprised by how much even adults mimic eachother once you start looking for it. you'll probably catch her using your arguments in conversations with other people. if you do, it's working. if you don't, maybe try presenting your thoughts differently. it's important to get her to detach herself from her beliefs, and this part is incredibly difficult because it's something that people kind of have to figure out for themselves. it is, however, something else that you can attempt to model and hope it sticks in her head a bit. use descriptive language and avoid forming positive conclusions about the world. hypotheticals are annoying when you're trying to make a concrete point but they're great for exploring ideas and practicing thinking, so i would probably recommend engaging with her ideas in a hypothetical context. it's honestly kind of fun. what would the world look like if crystals had magic powers? what implications would this have? that's something you can explore together rather than forcing her to defend it. if she gives you some anecdote that "proves" her belief, offer up a counter-interpretation. don't be afraid to get kind of crazy or metaphysical with it, if she corrects you that's a good thing because it demonstrates critical analysis. for example, if she tells you the horoscopes are legit because all of her friends fit the archetypes perfectly, it's probably better to say something like "maybe it has to do with the seasons people grow up in during their formative years" and let her (hopefully) point out that not everywhere in the world has the same seasons than to just tell her to look up what confirmation bias is.

Ok here's my 2 cents. Imthink the kind of critical thought processes you're seeking are based mostly on self-evaluation and examination. This has traditionally been achieved by many teachers by way of asking pertinent questions, such as to cast light on inconsistencies and omissions on the thought process of the interlocutor. The most effective way to do this unobtrusively would be through Polya's heuristic method. The most important barriers in this process are, I believe, emotions. We humans stick to a specofic view, however wrong it may be, becaise of a certain emotion. So examination of the emotion that an idea raises is wise. Another factor of importance is whatever biases the other person has. Think of biases of authority or status quo. Questioning these biases will probably convey an emotion, and that emotion is usually a brick wall in reasoning, Anyway, this kind of self examination is only possible if the person allows it to some extent. Try on someone who will not want to do this, and you'll achieve nothing.

Maybe leave people alone? You're selfish.

>>25666 For most such discussions you cant. Without the ability to provide direct proof through say an experiment you have to rely on other sources. So the problem becomes merely a problem of whom you trust. A person that got hardwired through personal experiences not to trust people wont be convinced by whatever authority you can dig up. You wont change that so you wont convince them. Now for your example its still simple - 5g tower dead tree? Find a 5g tower with a healthy tree. Counter evidence isnt that hard here. You will settle at worst at "it might be bad but not that bad since many trees are fine" Your second point is bs itself to be honest. They aint paranoid to say most will tell them they are full of soykaf. It gonna be factual if they try to preach this soykaf openly. Lastly im curious whats the deal with crystals?

>>25678 Apparently this image has a stranger and more fascinating backstory than I ever expected.

I agree with the others here who are saying to subtly integrate it to your interactions. What's important to remember is that, however her mind works, it works. Try to find out how, exactly, her mind works, then you might be able to figure out how to gradually move her mind towards working better. Remember that, when dealing with other people, well placed incentives are more powerful than manual effection.

>>25666 Be and let be, everything else will fall into its place.

>>25760 >>25792 A democracy only manages to sort of work when its citizens are able to look out for their own interests (and for that of others). Normalising this attitude that "it is ok to be irrational as long as you are not directly harming anyone right now" will backfire because you live in the same society as these people. And finally, these people are aready causing harm right now. There are children who die because their parents resort to alternative medicine, people who unwittingly spread misinformation, political issues that impact people's lives, etc. And even if you don't care about all those people, remember that those people could be closer to you than you think. You might lose a job opportunity someday because the RNG showed someone an unfavourable tarot card.

>>25673 the link seems like a really interesting archive, but when trying to access I get a login prompt, I can't seem to find anything on the topic and it appears to be open for everyone, anyone got an idea?

>>25827 It isn't your job to save the world and other people.

>>25828 Worked for me. You could try archive.org or http://www.fullbooks.com/Euthyphro.html. If you want an audiobook its available at https://librivox.org/search?title=Euthyphro&author=Plato&reader=&keywords=&genre_id=0&status=all&project_type=either&recorded_language=&sort_order=catalog_date&search_page=1&search_form=advanced

>>25830 thank you very much, I guess it's only free access in specific areas, country-wise, my next stop would have been genlib, but thanks for the new resources, I needed a place for audiobooks and will give this book a listen :3

>>25829 it is in your best interest to try

>>25666 Those trips have been checked. You won't be able to teach her anything if she doesn't have the desire to learn. Even for people who consciously think they might want to learn that stuff, they probably don't have enough motivation to get very far. Convincing people of things is a very complicated process and something that must be done without them noticing. You'll probably have to give her the notion that it's her idea to want to learn, somehow. You should know though that true change in people is a rare thing.

>>25666 The Socratic method, embedded inside very polite conversation that allows you to not come across as attacking them. Basically, ask questions that lead them to find the answer themselves & makes them feel like they came up with it on their own. Study the art of rhetoric.

>>25920 Bad idea. People feel like you are 'trapping' them when you use the socratic method.

>>25666 Learn to motivate other people. Chapter 5 and onwards is the most important.

Just troll them. That will make them more independant thinker.

>>25920 You mean being passive-aggressive? Most people with straight up stop talking to you if you do this two-faced bullshit.

>>30630 That isn't being passive aggressive. >>29481 is right though. These people often have really negative associations with school and educators so you have to be careful not to seem like one. It's actually really sad. They view their teachers as adversaries that ask them to do stupid impossible things, set them up to fail, and intentionally make them feel stupid. Their aversion to feeling stupid is part of the reason they're in this mess to begin with. They can't deal with being wrong so they never learn anything.

>>30636 Hard projection of a stereotype from your side.

>>30636 Yeah, I think it's projection like anon said. I didn't think about school when I posted that. My point was that you're making someone do something while giving them the illusion that it was their choice only. It's almost abusive.

>>30640 You think? I've known a few people who are mistrustful of anyone who they feel is trying to "educate" them and would probably react poorly to the socratic method because of that. Figured that's the kind of person OP is dealing with. >>30645 >making someone do something while giving them the illusion that it was their choice only This isn't what the Socratic method is about. It's just an education strategy created under the assumption that people will understand things more deeply if they produce the reasoning themselves rather than having it spoon fed to them. It doesn't stop working if you recognize it as the Socratic method. Like I said, I don't think it's the best strategy here but "abusive" is a stretch.

>>25667 This is such an underrated point. I think arguments, facts, logic, and so on certainly make a considerable impact, but so many people place more importance on belonging and being accepted by the most attractive group

>>25666 >I probably sound pretty arrogant, That's because you are. There's plenty of hard scientific literature on electrophysiology, bioelectromagnetics,a nd magnetobiology. Organisms, including humans, can detect and measureably respond to alternating magnetic fields below the strength of the geomagnetic field. That's a fact. Crystals are oscillators, they would change field characteristics around them. That's a fact, and you're going to have to deal with that fact if you want to go around and tell someone what's what. And scientific method? Who do think you are, you haven't even read the vast body of work on this topic. Who are you to go around "educating" anyone? You don't even know the topic. You don't know your audience. Anyway, the best way to teach someone is to make them come up with the idea themselves. The other way is of course pleasure and pain. People learn through torment and domination, and they learn through wonder and gratification. What you're tlaking about is loosely considered cybernetics and brainwashing, more than it is pedagogy, in truth, as it sounds like you're dealing with a resistant audience. Thus you can't realy on status and their response to threat is artificially narrowed. Anyway, educate yourself. Assuming you're not the same pseudoscientist quack I've talked to on here before. In which case, don't bother responding. http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72