In my experience most people are more than happy to have a conversation about things. It’s more about it being on their terms so they can find the information approachable
I agree. And on a more serious note, I think it all stems from the fact that people don’t like being confronted about their identity. And oftentimes people will hold onto beliefs so hard that they become part of their identity. Look at many flat-eathers, it’s not a belief they have, it’s who they are, they are a flat-eather, and when you try to attack or question someone’s identity they react very defensively. So showing a flat-eather that there is evidence disproving their belief, then they either must reject it or question their identity. And rejecting it is always much easier. Which can make those convos extremely hard.
I think it’s even more important that you come at the topic in a collaborative way.
Everyone has been force-fed the idea that “the other side is totally evil and wants you dead” for years now - people are on a hair trigger ready to be attacked at any moment
Once they’ve decided you’re on the other side they’re not looking for common ground or to understand your position, they’re just trying to win a fight. They’re hearing whatever supports their viewpoint and ignoring any holes you’ve poked in their worldview
I think keeping it approachable is definitely important too, but I think this first step is where things so often go wrong
In my experience most people are more than happy to have a conversation about things. It’s more about it being on their terms so they can find the information approachable
I agree. And on a more serious note, I think it all stems from the fact that people don’t like being confronted about their identity. And oftentimes people will hold onto beliefs so hard that they become part of their identity. Look at many flat-eathers, it’s not a belief they have, it’s who they are, they are a flat-eather, and when you try to attack or question someone’s identity they react very defensively. So showing a flat-eather that there is evidence disproving their belief, then they either must reject it or question their identity. And rejecting it is always much easier. Which can make those convos extremely hard.
I think it’s even more important that you come at the topic in a collaborative way.
Everyone has been force-fed the idea that “the other side is totally evil and wants you dead” for years now - people are on a hair trigger ready to be attacked at any moment
Once they’ve decided you’re on the other side they’re not looking for common ground or to understand your position, they’re just trying to win a fight. They’re hearing whatever supports their viewpoint and ignoring any holes you’ve poked in their worldview
I think keeping it approachable is definitely important too, but I think this first step is where things so often go wrong