On these types of forums it’s easy to jump into an argument about the technicalities or a post or comment.

You should know, though, that there is a theory called Ways of Knowing which defines Separate Knowing and Connected Knowing. It’s been a part of my masters program I’m taking.

Separate knowing disconnects the humanity and context from what’s being said and tries to only argue the “facts”. But facts, and the things people say, don’t just occur in a vacuum. It often is the case when people are arguing past each other, like on the internet.

Connected Knowing is approaching the thing someone said with the understanding that there is a context, humanity, biases, different experiences, and human error that can all jumble up when people are sharing information.

Maybe even just knowing that there’s different ways to know would be helpful for us to engage in a different level of conversation here. I’m not sure. I just wanted to share!

https://capstone.unst.pdx.edu/sites/default/files/Critical Thinking Article_0.pdf

  • moistclump@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not alternative facts, or accepting that anything someone is saying is True. But maybe trying to start from a place of “this is true for them and I wonder why that is, because it’s so far from what I know to be true.”

    The separate knower might say “hydrochloroquine is not as good as science.” They’d be right and could absolutely leave it at that.

    In my opinion though, the connected knower actually has a chance to change their stance through empathy and curiosity, recognizing the way that under education and economic strife has disillusioned this person from trusting science and being curious about whether or not a path exists for this person back to truth and science.

    Makes me think of this wonderful man, Daryl Davis: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

    Compassion is not the same as blind acceptance of what they’re saying or rejection of science and truth. It’s bringing in a human element and choosing connection and curiosity.

    • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “this is true for them

      “True for them” is the wrong way to put it. “X is something they believe, even in the face of contrary evidence” is a better way.

          • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            In human language: You are completely and absolutely devoid of any degree of empathy or compassion and thus your own worst enemy when it comes to persuading others. You are far more likely to damage any cause you espouse than to promulgate it.

            Human enough for you? If you’d rather have it in binary bits, let me know which ISA you are programmed in and I’ll write the program that explains it to you.

            • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Really? Leaving people to believe stupid, damaging, dangerous things just because you don’t want to make a scene or don’t want even the least hint of rudeness (probably because you learned that extreme politeness, even at your own expense, is a value) seems a lot less empathetic to me.

              But you do you and follow “your own truth”.

              Are you defending leaving the people believe whatever they want, however wrong, damaging, wrongheaded, contrary to evidence or inane, just to avoid offending them? If not, what is your fucking point?!

              • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think you’ve missed the core point of this whole thread.

                You’re also conflating empathy with acquiescence.

                Separate knowing is understanding someone’s position logically or factually. Connected knowing requires an understanding of the context.

                You can’t reason someone out of an unreasonable position.

                Hitting a flat earther with logic and facts will obviously be counter productive. Even a modicum of empathy and curiosity as to why someone thinks the way they do will serve you well.

                Conversations are about much more than who is wrong and who is right.

                • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You can’t reason someone out of an unreasonable position.

                  Hitting a flat earther with logic and facts will obviously be counter productive. Even a modicum of empathy and curiosity as to why someone thinks the way they do will serve you well.

                  But in that case, the battle is already lost. I cannot engage with the person in a manipulative emotional way to use their emotions to shock them out of their mistaken positions. Any further communication regarding the matter is useless. And glossing over some topics is being an accomplice, but apparently that’s the only viable response.

                  Knowing why they believe ss they do will do nothing to help me show them their mistake.

                  Conversations are about much more than who is wrong and who is right.

                  Departing with people espousing damaging views for society, given that as you say reason is not a tool that works, is pointless.

                • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re also conflating empathy with acquiescence.

                  Indeed. This is because he lacks actual empathy so doesn’t actually comprehend the very concept.

              • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes. That’s exactly what everybody here is saying.

                I resubmit: you lack all capacity to comprehend any viewpoint other than yours and will only damage anything you believe in as a result.