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

    • 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?!

        • 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.

        • 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.

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

                Or if you don’t want to be a silent accomplice of certain evils in society.

                Would you have nice chats with a mass murderer about art?

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

                  Sorry you’ve lost me.

                  We usually lock up murderers to prevent them from harming others. That being the case, I guess you could chat to them about art if you were really interested in that.

                  That said, if you were trying to prevent future murders of course you’d need to try to understand the murderers perspective.

          • 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.