Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What commonly given MFP Forum advice do you personally disagree with?
Replies
-
I disagree with counting non starchy vegetable calories. My limit is already low and I eat huge volumes of non starch vegetables. When I include them, I have zero energy. It does not affect my weight personally when I don't count them.
This is the thing that bothers me. We all know one size doesn't fit all and when advice is given it assumes people have a baseline information (or the ability to recognize that they don't and either ask it Google it) and the advice is given to cover the majority in the middle of the bell curve.
I realize this person isn't generalizing and did say that this is what works for them. However, I have seen people go into threads and poo poo the advice that works for most people, and is a good starting point for most discussions, and claim that it doesn't work for them because they are part of this fringe population, or claim that everyone should be eating x or not eating x because it's a super food or a devil food.
There has to be room for error and individual situations/personalities. There also has to be a starting point for solving a problem. The quicker you can narrow down the viable solution the better. I think I would be less bothered if the fringe situations were presented in a, "hey, in case this doesn't work for you, maybe consider that you're on the fringe and you may want to check out xyz" and less in a argumentative way.
I mentioned this earlier (and on p. 29, it bears repeating
). Many who are objecting to "commonly given advice" do so because that common advice doesn't apply to them in X situation. That doesn't discount the value of the advice for the majority of the population. "When you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras." 10 -
“What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?”
When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it.
As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner.18 -
amberellen12 wrote: »“What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?”
When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it.
As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner.
I understand what your saying, I once felt that way too but...
I have to admit I learned the most from "snarky" comments here on mfp. I was the ACV, fasting any quick thing I could do that I read on a blog post type of dieter. I had soooooooooo much wrong information in my head about what to do and not do. My very first post here was how I'm going to "trick my body" and I got some pretty snarky comments. I was hurt at first but as I continued to read I realized they might know something I don't and yeah they did. I can't interpert the scientific studies, I don't know much about the process etc so I rely heavely on people here that do and are able to translate in laymans terms.
Having said that you or others may read what I thought was "snarky" and think they were just stating the facts or their experience. I know that I've posted a tip that worked for me and the responses were as if I was telling them their idea was poop when all I was saying was "here's what works for me" (incedently they were asking for tips).
tl;dr - I've learned not to assign intent to posts because it's hard to get the intent of the message in black and white. Most people here are genuinely interested helping people and they are just matter of fact type of people. Context of the whole thread usually gets you the info you need:)18 -
It’s how something is worded that can make someone listen or reject it. The blunt nasty ones I just block.9
-
amberellen12 wrote: »It’s how something is worded that can make someone listen or reject it. The blunt nasty ones I just block.
Too bad--as mentioned above, you'll be missing out on a lot of good information.11 -
snowflake954 wrote: »amberellen12 wrote: »It’s how something is worded that can make someone listen or reject it. The blunt nasty ones I just block.
Too bad--as mentioned above, you'll be missing out on a lot of good information.
Not to mention, one person's 'blunt and nasty' might be another's 'direct and no nonsense' or 'tough love.'16 -
Blunt and nasty doesn't mean it's wrong. Just like sweet and nice doesn't mean something is right.
I'll take blunt and nasty correct over a sweet and polite lie or incorrect response any day.
If the goal is to learn, then content means more than tone.14 -
I would never take a vice from rude know it all people. There’s a way to deliver you thoughts or beliefs without chastising people.15
-
amberellen12 wrote: »I would never take a vice from rude know it all people. There’s a way to deliver you thoughts or beliefs without chastising people.
Never?
Sure, we would all prefer advice delivered with kit gloves.
It doesn't always come that way.
Well, at least not good advice. There are those who deliver suspect advice with lips of honey. Sugary sweet bad advice is still bad advice. That's my point.
Tone doesn't have much, if anything at all to do with the quality of the advice.
Just as we are cautioned not to judge others because we don't know their journey, why isn't the same grace offered to the grouchy subject matter expert?
Maybe he's just worn out by the seemingly never ending stream of nice sounding, but totally wrong advice.
Too many seem to have the standard grace for me, but judgment for thee...16 -
I really don't see this "chastising" and for some people disagreement seems to = mean, no matter how politely and gently it's phrased. There seems to be an idea that no one should ever be disagreed with, because it's supposedly too humiliating to told you are wrong about anything (which is a really problematic approach to discussion of anything, IMO). This is actually one of the gentlest places on the internet I've come across.
That aside, one of the exchanges I had that woke me up before I decided to figure out how to lose weight was with someone (a friend, and one I'd listened to complain about things too) who was probably fed up with me complaining about being fat. She just said bluntly "if you don't like how much you weigh, why don't you lose weight." It was like a light went on and I realized being overweight wasn't just something that happened to me and that I had no control over, but something that I could control. Figuring out for myself how to do, and taking responsibility for things like motivation myself, that was very important for me. I do know that talking about fitness and nutrition and sharing ideas is a way to make it interesting and keep caring about it, so I like the discussions.11 -
amberellen12 wrote: »“What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?”
When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it.
As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner.
Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button.
7 -
amberellen12 wrote: »“What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?”
When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it.
As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner.
Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button.
The woo button is actually intended to keep people from being ganged up on with multiple posts debunking something questionable that's been put forth... so, to be kind. Of course, it's helpful if at least one person explains the source of disagreement. But keep in mind, many people have no idea what the woo button is actually for (some think it's a cheer), so take it with a grain of salt
9 -
amberellen12 wrote: »“What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?”
When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it.
As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner.
Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button.
The woo button is actually intended to keep people from being ganged up on with multiple posts debunking something questionable that's been put forth... so, to be kind. Of course, it's helpful if at least one person explains the source of disagreement. But keep in mind, many people have no idea what the woo button is actually for (some think it's a cheer), so take it with a grain of salt
@try2again - in the spirit of positivity- I will try to assume the woos are woohoos Thanks for the perspective.
7 -
amberellen12 wrote: »“What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?”
When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it.
As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner.
Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button.
The woo button is actually intended to keep people from being ganged up on with multiple posts debunking something questionable that's been put forth... so, to be kind. Of course, it's helpful if at least one person explains the source of disagreement. But keep in mind, many people have no idea what the woo button is actually for (some think it's a cheer), so take it with a grain of salt
It should be renamed. I recommend either "Bull *kitten*" or "Oh Hell No".3 -
I really don't see this "chastising" and for some people disagreement seems to = mean, no matter how politely and gently it's phrased. There seems to be an idea that no one should ever be disagreed with, because it's supposedly too humiliating to told you are wrong about anything (which is a really problematic approach to discussion of anything, IMO). This is actually one of the gentlest places on the internet I've come across.
I was thinking the same thing while at work earlier today. Seems many confuse disagreement with hate today.
Just because I disagree, or have a different opinion, or am not as tolerant of expressed ignorance doesn't mean I hate the person.
One can attack bad ideas without it being a personal attack on the one expressing those ideas.
If you are someone who believes the Earth is flat, I don't hate you. I think the notion of a flat Earth is ignorant, and will say so. But I don't hate you for believing what you believe.
It's an allegedly free nation where I live, so believe what you want. Just don't demand or expect that I agree or that I hate you because we differ.
8 -
I was thinking along the lines of the Car Talk brothers Tom and Ray that it be called the "Dope Slap" button.FireOpalCO wrote: »amberellen12 wrote: »“What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?”
When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it.
As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner.
Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button.
The woo button is actually intended to keep people from being ganged up on with multiple posts debunking something questionable that's been put forth... so, to be kind. Of course, it's helpful if at least one person explains the source of disagreement. But keep in mind, many people have no idea what the woo button is actually for (some think it's a cheer), so take it with a grain of salt
It should be renamed. I recommend either "Bull *kitten*" or "Oh Hell No".
3 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »amberellen12 wrote: »“What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?”
When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it.
As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner.
Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button.
The woo button is actually intended to keep people from being ganged up on with multiple posts debunking something questionable that's been put forth... so, to be kind. Of course, it's helpful if at least one person explains the source of disagreement. But keep in mind, many people have no idea what the woo button is actually for (some think it's a cheer), so take it with a grain of salt
It should be renamed. I recommend either "Bull *kitten*" or "Oh Hell No".
Somewhere in the bowels of the forum, it does show up as a WTF button. I'd prefer it if it had been left that way.4 -
It definitely has more clarity!! I think we should be able to see who likes and WTFs though. There needs to be hug and woo transparency lol.Tacklewasher wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »amberellen12 wrote: »“What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?”
When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it.
As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner.
Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button.
The woo button is actually intended to keep people from being ganged up on with multiple posts debunking something questionable that's been put forth... so, to be kind. Of course, it's helpful if at least one person explains the source of disagreement. But keep in mind, many people have no idea what the woo button is actually for (some think it's a cheer), so take it with a grain of salt
It should be renamed. I recommend either "Bull *kitten*" or "Oh Hell No".
Somewhere in the bowels of the forum, it does show up as a WTF button. I'd prefer it if it had been left that way.
2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »amberellen12 wrote: »“What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?”
When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it.
As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner.
Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button.
The woo button is actually intended to keep people from being ganged up on with multiple posts debunking something questionable that's been put forth... so, to be kind. Of course, it's helpful if at least one person explains the source of disagreement. But keep in mind, many people have no idea what the woo button is actually for (some think it's a cheer), so take it with a grain of salt
It should be renamed. I recommend either "Bull *kitten*" or "Oh Hell No".
Somewhere in the bowels of the forum, it does show up as a WTF button. I'd prefer it if it had been left that way.
If you hover over it and look at what shows up at the bottom of your browser, you will see WTF as part of the URL...
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/react/comment/wtf?id=430831103 -
tbright1965 wrote: »amberellen12 wrote: »I would never take a vice from rude know it all people. There’s a way to deliver you thoughts or beliefs without chastising people.
Never?
Sure, we would all prefer advice delivered with kit gloves.
It doesn't always come that way.
Well, at least not good advice. There are those who deliver suspect advice with lips of honey. Sugary sweet bad advice is still bad advice. That's my point.
Tone doesn't have much, if anything at all to do with the quality of the advice.
Just as we are cautioned not to judge others because we don't know their journey, why isn't the same grace offered to the grouchy subject matter expert?
Maybe he's just worn out by the seemingly never ending stream of nice sounding, but totally wrong advice.
Too many seem to have the standard grace for me, but judgment for thee...
I'll tell you why this is true for me. It's along the lines of this quote from Bertrand Russel, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
People who truly want to understand the world as it really is tend to be full of humility and self-doubt, because knowing the truth requires you to be able to self-correct, to always be aware that you might be wrong.
A person who is so utterly convinced that they are completely right that they are angry about it lacks these qualities that would recommend them as advice givers. They come off as people who want to feel right more than actually be right.
I'm not into people being sugary sweet either. I like plain talk but I also want basic human decency and respect.
If you don't understand that there is a chance you're not as right as you think you are, you are not reliable. If you're not testing your certainty by attempting to falsify it, you are not reliable.
And I have seen this anger and frustration at the ignorance of others in flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers. You can be both angry and wrong.
There probably are people who are nasty and also right, but it's not worth it to me to deal with that. If you can't deliver the truth without condescension and mockery, I'll just wait for somebody who can.13 -
tbright1965 wrote: »amberellen12 wrote: »I would never take a vice from rude know it all people. There’s a way to deliver you thoughts or beliefs without chastising people.
Never?
Sure, we would all prefer advice delivered with kit gloves.
It doesn't always come that way.
Well, at least not good advice. There are those who deliver suspect advice with lips of honey. Sugary sweet bad advice is still bad advice. That's my point.
Tone doesn't have much, if anything at all to do with the quality of the advice.
Just as we are cautioned not to judge others because we don't know their journey, why isn't the same grace offered to the grouchy subject matter expert?
Maybe he's just worn out by the seemingly never ending stream of nice sounding, but totally wrong advice.
Too many seem to have the standard grace for me, but judgment for thee...
I'll tell you why this is true for me. It's along the lines of this quote from Bertrand Russel, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
People who truly want to understand the world as it really is tend to be full of humility and self-doubt, because knowing the truth requires you to be able to self-correct, to always be aware that you might be wrong.
A person who is so utterly convinced that they are completely right that they are angry about it lacks these qualities that would recommend them as advice givers. They come off as people who want to feel right more than actually be right.
I'm not into people being sugary sweet either. I like plain talk but I also want basic human decency and respect.
If you don't understand that there is a chance you're not as right as you think you are, you are not reliable. If you're not testing your certainty by attempting to falsify it, you are not reliable.
And I have seen this anger and frustration at the ignorance of others in flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers. You can be both angry and wrong.
There probably are people who are nasty and also right, but it's not worth it to me to deal with that. If you can't deliver the truth without condescension and mockery, I'll just wait for somebody who can.
One of my personal favorite people and quotes. Brilliant!
This is where I fall on the diversity of experience that such a forum as this provides. An individual is going to respond to specific stimulus and no two will be precisely the same. Some prefer direct, others a more subtle approach. No approach is superior or inferior, but variable based upon the situation.
There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned.7 -
There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned.
Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite?
Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them?
To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people.
I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views.
11 -
There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned.
Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite?
Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them?
To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people.
I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views.
Lol... I think that's the fancy way of saying, "You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar"
(But BTW, sincerely enjoying the thoughtful discussion, you guys )
4 -
There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned.
Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite?
Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them?
To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people.
I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views.
Lol... I think that's the fancy way of saying, "You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar"
(But BTW, sincerely enjoying the thoughtful discussion, you guys )
lol, I see your point but I don't actually think the answer is in being nice. As I've said already, I'm not a fan of the saccharine.
Also, flies prefer vinegar, but that's beside the point. 2 -
There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned.
Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite?
Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them?
To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people.
I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views.
Lol... I think that's the fancy way of saying, "You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar"
(But BTW, sincerely enjoying the thoughtful discussion, you guys )
lol, I see your point but I don't actually think the answer is in being nice. As I've said already, I'm not a fan of the saccharine.
Also, flies prefer vinegar, but that's beside the point.
And who wants flies anyway?4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »I really don't see this "chastising" and for some people disagreement seems to = mean, no matter how politely and gently it's phrased. There seems to be an idea that no one should ever be disagreed with, because it's supposedly too humiliating to told you are wrong about anything (which is a really problematic approach to discussion of anything, IMO). This is actually one of the gentlest places on the internet I've come across.
I was thinking the same thing while at work earlier today. Seems many confuse disagreement with hate today.
Just because I disagree, or have a different opinion, or am not as tolerant of expressed ignorance doesn't mean I hate the person.
One can attack bad ideas without it being a personal attack on the one expressing those ideas.
If you are someone who believes the Earth is flat, I don't hate you. I think the notion of a flat Earth is ignorant, and will say so. But I don't hate you for believing what you believe.
It's an allegedly free nation where I live, so believe what you want. Just don't demand or expect that I agree or that I hate you because we differ.
ITA. First, you can't really read tone, and I think a lot of the time posters who are defensive or self conscious about the subject matter assume a mean tone to replies that don't agree with them, when none was intended. I've seen plenty of threads where a poster will bristle at being attacked or disrespected, and I go looking for these mean people but can't find any posts actually doing that.
That's not to say I don't see posts here that are unnecessarily snarky or short, but they are few and far between considering the level of snark on the internet in general.12 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned.
Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite?
Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them?
To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people.
I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views.
Lol... I think that's the fancy way of saying, "You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar"
(But BTW, sincerely enjoying the thoughtful discussion, you guys )
lol, I see your point but I don't actually think the answer is in being nice. As I've said already, I'm not a fan of the saccharine.
Also, flies prefer vinegar, but that's beside the point.
And who wants flies anyway?
You'll regret this just before you're overrun by my army of flies!0 -
There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned.
Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite?
Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them?
To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people.
I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views.
One thing that bugs me about "be very careful how you deliver advice--you don't want to offend anyone" posts is this: the people complaining about delivery don't get in there and post advice. I wish you would all form a group and start responding to posters in the forums. Please show us how it should be done. I've been waiting years to see this. Am still patiently waiting.........24 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned.
Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite?
Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them?
To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people.
I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views.
Lol... I think that's the fancy way of saying, "You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar"
(But BTW, sincerely enjoying the thoughtful discussion, you guys )
lol, I see your point but I don't actually think the answer is in being nice. As I've said already, I'm not a fan of the saccharine.
Also, flies prefer vinegar, but that's beside the point.
And who wants flies anyway?
I know... I always think that! Isn't there a phrase we can use that attracts a more desirable creature? 1 -
There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned.
Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite?
Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them?
To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people.
I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views.
Exposing wrong is simple - although this requires acknowledgement of objective evidence. Convincing the unwilling is impossible as this requires self awareness, which some simply lack. There is also an element of reason, which a disturbingly rising number have not been trained to do.
It is more helpful to understand why someone is wrong. Is it refusal to acknowledge evidence which contradicts an uninformed opinion? Is it a lack of understanding? Is it a matter of pride or potential loss of perceived or real power in being wrong?
Condescension and mockery are very powerful tools and like any other uses of force should be used with caution and care, but tools should never be taken off the table. One should always leave the door open to new ideas, but how do you manage someone who does not and poses a very real risk to others e.g. anti-vaxxers?7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions