[b0rsuk]

In my discussions with stubborn people, I learned to be reserved and careful with making arguments. Many people have very short attention span. You only get a few seconds to make your point, so make them count. It's not too different in written form. More elaborate arguments might make people stuck on details and lose the track of your main point.

It's a fair observation that recent years are seeing a surge of 'gut feeling' and skepticism against science. Some of it is people with agendas, and governments have caught on how to manipulate people using paid social media accounts and bots. Personal charisma rules youtube. While rationality has its ebbs and flows, I think maybe we overestimated how rational people are in general. It turns out facts are not an universal language. Even facts are susceptible to cherry picking and selection bias. Maybe the internet and social media just made it more apparent. People in smaller communities were always a bit like that, it's just that now they can voice their opinion on an unprecedented scale and feel they don't need experts anymore.

There are a few countries which actively battle fake news and have success, such as Finland and - if I remember correctly - Singapore. The key is having educated citizens capable of critical thinking, and responding quickly with debunking. Others, including the one I live in, practice divide&conquer on their own citizens(note Romans used it on enemies) and think leading uneducated masses is easier. But I don't want to turn it into a discussion about politics, despite the efforts of the moderator.

I'm trying to be more emphatic when talking to people. It's easier to meet in the middle and reach a mutual understanding if you appeal to the values of the other person. Or is it? If I try to convince someone using HIS values, am I still making MY argument? Do the ends justify the means? Is the point of every conversation to convince the other person? Should it be?

Surprisingly few books are about facts that can't be questioned. Even when you act on facts, you can reach wrong conclusions. A famous example is WW2 survivorship bias. US military was keen to put the most armor plating in areas with the most bullet holes. Very few holes were found around the fuel tank or the pilot's seat...