Jump to content

Asking people to change the way they percieve others/reality


Recommended Posts

I think it is reasonable to ask people to change their perception on other people or reality.

However, is it reasonable to demand others to change their perception of individuals or reality?

Spoiler

I don't think so, i think you cannot force people how they see the world witjout explaination and an order or a threat will not answer questions

Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to demand someone to change?

Spoiler

I think this only works in an environment, which requires everyone to think the exact same for the purpose of the environment to work properly

Can they properly change their view on something, if they were forced to, even if their questions about legetimacy were not answered?

Spoiler

I don't think so, questions left open have to be answered and you cannot force people to change their mind, that will only cause them to resent you

Do you need a framework to give them a hand in trying to understand someone else's reality?

Spoiler

Yes, it has to do with empathy but many people don't understand one another well enough to know the circumstances of each other and why they think or feel the way they do

Often it requires logic, because some people need to see, that wallowing in emotion, especially emotion caused by a misperception does not solve "the cause" of what makes one feel they way they do and often makes matters worse.

Killing a stranger in a rage, because you thought, that a loved one died because of them, when the loved one is alive and the stranger has nothing to do with your wife, does not help.

Some people are more emotionally oriented than others and vice versa.

Wallowing too much in logic, especially faulty logic, that does not take the circumstances and emotions of the other into account diminishes ones humanity and it will ironically have others percieve you as something you think you are not.

Telling an infant in pain not to cry  because "it is just a feeling like any other, which impairs judgement" and "it will heal by itself, it doesn't matter" while not wrong, is not just heartless, it will completely warp the childs perception of pain and the act of crying, which is a call for help and love, which will breed mental illness.

What if they already had the same framework you have given them, but they reject it because they think that there is something fundamentally wrong with the conception of the framework, because it does not answer all the questions one might have?

Spoiler

I think demanding someone change their perception because they talk about an experience that obviously matters to them, regardless how much it matters to you, is unreasonable, as it is the foundation of their belief.

I think in this circumstance, you have to listen to the arguments and visualize, why they think the way they think, there might be some truth to what they are saying if they say "i used to think like you but then xyz happened and now i cannot do the same".

Maybe that event xyz was a horrible trauma, causing ptsd, in which case sheer rejection will not help them and will instead further the hopelessness they have and make their mind even more ridgid to change.

Maybe xyz was something so graciously good of a miracle, that it transformed their perception of reality and feel fortified, saying that there is hope left even for the individuals, who are off the worst; telling them, demanding them to change will get them to think, that you are a victim of your own mind working against you, which will not get them to change how they view the world.

In those cases, if your framework does not align, you have to show, that the framework works in spite or more effectively the event reinforcing the perception.

What if they presented that framework to you, but you reject it, because it is an opposition to your framework and you have something to disagree with it, too?

Spoiler

I think all you can do is ask here and present your experiences, if they don't accept how you feel or think, and instead reject you, it is useless to bother with them.

You say "excuse me for my rudeness but if you don't care what i care about and don't want to understand me, then i don't need you disturbing me"

Can you live with people who have a fundamentally different perception of reality and individuals than you? and if so, would it mean you don't talk about the edge cases, in which your perceptions clash? would you accept a temporary conflict if it meant a chance of resolving your problem?

Spoiler

I think being with people who act in the exact opposition in what you think or feel is helpful to learn from, while also being counterintuitive.

Helpful to learn because you will understand how they view the world and act in a way you might find difficulty, while you help them with something they cannot fathom because of your perception.

Conflicts will happen regardless, only if constant conflics happen, so big and destructive, that there is nothing left of the peace you cherish, you can safely dismiss those individuals because all they want is to hurt you.

Consequently, if you strive for conflict, surrond yourself with individuals, who thrive, so you can "sharpen your sword" so to speak, you will learn a lot on how they act and what your weaknesses are.

What would be the point, in which you think, that you need to part with someone permanently, because of the clash of your perceptions?

Spoiler

If they are out to hurt you, without wanting to consider your opinion even a little bit, they are a lost cause and you are actively feeding into their desires to hurt you, by engaging with them, so be careful

If you don't care how other people feel or think and don't have an open mind, even about the worst person to exist in your head, i don't think there is much reason to like you as an individual, since any "mistake" from someone else will immediately cause your rejection and this will get people to resent you over time.

what do you think?

is it reasonable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

However, is it reasonable to demand others to change their perception of individuals or reality?

Yes.

22 hours ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to demand someone to change?


If their perceptions of individuals or reality is unreasonable.
 

22 hours ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

Can they properly change their view on something, if they were forced to, even if their questions about legetimacy were not answered?

If a person is made to "change their view" on something by force but feels they have not been given a legitimate explanation as to why they should, they have not truly "changed their view."

They have merely stopped saying what it is they truly believed and resolved to hold their true views in secrecy, for fear of the consequences of expressing what is is they truly believe. 

 

22 hours ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

Do you need a framework to give them a hand in trying to understand someone else's reality?


The question is vague, ambiguous, and poorly worded.

Objection to the form of the question notwithstanding: Yes.

The framework that you need is an understanding and appreciation of the limitations of your own life experience. And a willingness to listen to people whose life experience has been difference has been different then your own + acknowledge where they are coming from. 

 

23 hours ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

What if they already had the same framework you have given them, but they reject it because they think that there is something fundamentally wrong with the conception of the framework, because it does not answer all the questions one might have?

The question is vague, ambiguous, and poorly worded.

Objection to the form of the question notwithstanding: you can't teach empathy.

A person either has the ability to care about other people and value other people's life experience, or they don't.

There's no point trying to reason with unreasonable people.

 

23 hours ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

What if they presented that framework to you, but you reject it, because it is an opposition to your framework and you have something to disagree with it, too?

The question is vague, ambiguous, and poorly worded.

Objection to the form of the question notwithstanding: my framework is that I seek and apply information, which I then apply to principles of reason to formulate beliefs.

I will accept another persons reality and incorporate it into my framework if their life experience allows them to present me with information that is not readily available from my own. 

I will reject another persons reality as oppositional to my own, however, if what they are asking me change is not the information to applied to principle of reason. But, rather, the very principles of reason themselves.

EXAMPLE:  " Insofar as the human condition is advanced when more persons are able to achieve their highest levels of happiness and productive and insofar as bigotry and prejudice towards individuals based on group animus rather than individual merit restrain human beings from so doing; bigotry and prejudice are anathema to the advancement of the human condition and societal evils which must be purged

That principle is immutable and will not be changed to accommodate someone who sees things differently.

But I will hear different people's life experiences on how race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, and the like + how society treats and thinks and thinks about these characteristics has personally affected them.

And I will adjust my own thinking on how to best operationalize that principle accordingly. 

 

23 hours ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

Can you live with people who have a fundamentally different perception of reality and individuals than you? and if so, would it mean you don't talk about the edge cases, in which your perceptions clash? would you accept a temporary conflict if it meant a chance of resolving your problem?

The question is vague, ambiguous, poorly worded, and compounded.

Objection to the form of the question notwithstanding: 

I could live with someone where our differences in the way we see the world yields--relatively benign disagreements.

EXAMPLE

"You believe in God. I don't"  (Okay--thats fine. Agree to Disagree)

"You believe that I'm going to hell because I don't accept Jesus Christ as my lord-and-savior, and that it is your duty as a believer to Evangelize me and tell me what awaits the heathen fornicators in the lake of fire until you save my soul."  (Thatttttssss a solid "get the fuck out of my house")  

 

23 hours ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

What would be the point, in which you think, that you need to part with someone permanently, because of the clash of your perceptions?


When their inability to accept the differences between us and insistence upon forcibly changing them becomes harassing. 

Or when where they stand and they way they view the world is so morally repugnant to where I stand and the way they view the world that I want no association with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To avoid confusion and possible misinterpretation:

Framework is defined as:

"Value/Perception structure, which is made up of past experiences, reasons and values, which allow/encourage/force the individual to see reality the way they do and value it like they value".

Analogous to "belief system".

 

The point of this thread is to try to find a method to get even the most stubborn people to be flexible in what they think, feel or believe, i think even the worst people possess value, even if they are "way off the deep end" in some perceptions.

Sorry that i wont quote all you said, when responding @Shoblongoo , im on my phone and most of what im saying here is half responding to what you said, half adding additional value to try and take this conversation a bit further.

 

That being said, your framework is extremely reasonable, assuming differing views could have something valuable to say is difficult, when information that acts in confirmation bias is extremely easy to find, an easy example being anti-vax.

The question becomes how do you allow people to think outside of that framework? and can you even do that?

Spoiler

I have a small method in which you can try to get others to understand you, in which you first emulate their framework and then try to build to your position using what they value analogous to you, which can be very hard, if using the anti-vax people for example, they argue, that it might be a conspiracy from the government, in which case, instead of ridiculing that thought, you give it free reign and expand on it to a point, in which its more reasonable with the new normal, 

e.g. saying the government is pushing this conspiracy theory to keep people dependant on their doctors to pay more money, which is not true but at least you will keep the people vaccinated and prevent their kids from getting harmed

 

 

I would honestly like to know why the extremist thinks why i would go to hell for my existence and such before asking them to get out of my house but maybe i am the weird one in that, only when i couldn't extract any additional value from their framework i would consider dismissing them,

even then, dismissing wouldnt be the "solution" to dealing with them, since they are still alive and can act in their framework, instead a "solution" would be making sure them not harm you in their framework, in which case you would have to emulate their framework and then find a way for them to think that you are not what they think you are or unroot their framework, either of which needing considerable effort, which nobody would really want to put into people they deem unreasonable.

If a compromise can't be found, at least you can say that you tried and possibly charge them for acting, if they have ever harmed you, unless they act out in their beliefs, a belief is harmless, unless there is something to justify it.

usually the harmful beliefs get justified, if the environment acts in a way, which dismisses without regarding it or furthers the belief by acting "unjustly" toward them.

 

Lastly, i think you can teach empathy but it requires them to (subconsciously) feel in 3 ways:

1: if it can happen to someone else, it can happen to them

2: they must have experienced a similar feeling before

3: they value the thing they empathise with

so: if someone thinks/knows, that they are immune, they don't know what something feels/might feel like or if they don't value individuals, they will probably not be empathetic, unless they have some neural disturbance.

Which means, they have to be taught that individuals are valuable to them, by placing them in an environment, in which their own survival is depandant on someone else and no superficial relationsships can be allowed.

At least thats what i think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...