I found this post really useful (and persuasive), thank you!
One thing I I feel unconvinced about:
“Another red flag is the general attitude of persuading rather than explaining.”
For what it’s worth, I’m not sure naturally curious/thoughtful/critical people are particularly more put off by someone trying to persuade them (well/by answering their objections/etc.) than by them explaining an idea, especially if the idea is a normative thesis. It’s weird for someone to be like “just saying the idea is that X could have horrific side effects and little upside because [argument]. Yes I believe that’s right. No need to adopt any beliefs or change your actions though!” That just makes them seem like they don’t take their own beliefs seriously. I’d much rather have someone say “I want to persuade you that X is bad, because I think it’s important people know that so they can avoid X. OK here’ goes: [argument].”
If that’s right, does it mean that maybe the issue is more “persuade better”? e.g. by actually having answers when people raise objections to the assumptions being made?
At the opening session [Alice] disputes some of the assumptions, and the facilitators thank her for raising the concerns, but don’t really address them. They then plough on, building on those assumptions. She is unimpressed.
Seems like the issue here is more being unpersuasive, rather than too zealous or not focused enough of explaining.
I agree with you.
Yet I bristle when people who I don’t know well start putting forth arguments to me about what is good/bad for me, especially in a context where I wasn’t expecting it.
I’m much more accustomed to people thinking that moral relativism is polite, at least at first.
Moral relativism can be annoying, but putting forth strong moral positions at eg a fresher’s fair does feel like something that missionaries do.
I found this post really useful (and persuasive), thank you!
One thing I I feel unconvinced about:
For what it’s worth, I’m not sure naturally curious/thoughtful/critical people are particularly more put off by someone trying to persuade them (well/by answering their objections/etc.) than by them explaining an idea, especially if the idea is a normative thesis. It’s weird for someone to be like “just saying the idea is that X could have horrific side effects and little upside because [argument]. Yes I believe that’s right. No need to adopt any beliefs or change your actions though!” That just makes them seem like they don’t take their own beliefs seriously. I’d much rather have someone say “I want to persuade you that X is bad, because I think it’s important people know that so they can avoid X. OK here’ goes: [argument].”
If that’s right, does it mean that maybe the issue is more “persuade better”? e.g. by actually having answers when people raise objections to the assumptions being made?
Seems like the issue here is more being unpersuasive, rather than too zealous or not focused enough of explaining.
I agree with you. Yet I bristle when people who I don’t know well start putting forth arguments to me about what is good/bad for me, especially in a context where I wasn’t expecting it.
I’m much more accustomed to people thinking that moral relativism is polite, at least at first.
Moral relativism can be annoying, but putting forth strong moral positions at eg a fresher’s fair does feel like something that missionaries do.