I agree with you wholeheartedly on the dangers of ideologies. This doesn’t appear to be limited to any one political “idealogy,” I find myself stranded in the middle while everyone I know runs to either far left or far right. Social media is doing all it can to fan the flames.
Originally, Risk & Progress was conceived as a YouTube channel that was aimed at “centrist” Americans, to promote common-sense ideas to restore the rational middle. I quickly realized that the Youtube algorithms don’t want you to succeed as a moderate.
They want the thumbnail with the silly ‘surprised’ expression, the Trump image with devilish red eyes, or the photo of Biden looking shamefully downward. The algorithms want you to play with people’s emotions, not to engage in reasoned thought.
I also want to "promote common-sense ideas to restore the rational middle." But I have been in politics long enough to know that it alone will not change other people's minds.
You have to undermine the assumptions that ideologies are based on (and ideologues do not even know that they have).
If you shift the focus from "beliefs" to "results", it is amazing how quickly you can frustrate an ideologue and either:
a) shut them up because they know that they cannot debate on those terms, or
b) leave them open to a rational discussion that just might be the beginning of them leaving their ideological beliefs behind.
You are not trying to convince your debating opponent.
You are trying to convince the audience. On the internet, there is always an audience. The audience is full of relatively open-minded people who can be convinced.
They can see when someone is full of it, even if they say nothing.
It is not easy. You have to frame the question very carefully.
I try to do so in my Challenges on this website.
For example, rather than arguing over whether progress exists, I challenge them to choose a year when people were most prosperous. That forces them to defend something specific with evidence.
Most ideologues just want to prove they are more moral, intelligent or higher status than you. Force them to take a stand on something with proven results. They rarely can.
And most importantly, do not let them change the subject. This is what they do when they know they are losing. Force them to concede point before they change subject.
Usually they fold very quickly, but sometimes it turns to an interesting conversation where we both learn.
Yeah, I have pretty much given up on YouTube as well for the same reason. You are completely dependent on algorithms and you have no idea whether they are helping you or hurting you.
I might try again later, but Substack now has video functionality, so that might be better.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on the dangers of ideologies. This doesn’t appear to be limited to any one political “idealogy,” I find myself stranded in the middle while everyone I know runs to either far left or far right. Social media is doing all it can to fan the flames.
Originally, Risk & Progress was conceived as a YouTube channel that was aimed at “centrist” Americans, to promote common-sense ideas to restore the rational middle. I quickly realized that the Youtube algorithms don’t want you to succeed as a moderate.
They want the thumbnail with the silly ‘surprised’ expression, the Trump image with devilish red eyes, or the photo of Biden looking shamefully downward. The algorithms want you to play with people’s emotions, not to engage in reasoned thought.
I also want to "promote common-sense ideas to restore the rational middle." But I have been in politics long enough to know that it alone will not change other people's minds.
You have to undermine the assumptions that ideologies are based on (and ideologues do not even know that they have).
If you shift the focus from "beliefs" to "results", it is amazing how quickly you can frustrate an ideologue and either:
a) shut them up because they know that they cannot debate on those terms, or
b) leave them open to a rational discussion that just might be the beginning of them leaving their ideological beliefs behind.
How do you shift from beliefs to results? Typically, what happens is they then challenge the messenger of the results as 'biased'.
Oh, yes, I forgot the most important rule.
You are not trying to convince your debating opponent.
You are trying to convince the audience. On the internet, there is always an audience. The audience is full of relatively open-minded people who can be convinced.
They can see when someone is full of it, even if they say nothing.
This is a particular important point.
It is not easy. You have to frame the question very carefully.
I try to do so in my Challenges on this website.
For example, rather than arguing over whether progress exists, I challenge them to choose a year when people were most prosperous. That forces them to defend something specific with evidence.
Most ideologues just want to prove they are more moral, intelligent or higher status than you. Force them to take a stand on something with proven results. They rarely can.
And most importantly, do not let them change the subject. This is what they do when they know they are losing. Force them to concede point before they change subject.
Usually they fold very quickly, but sometimes it turns to an interesting conversation where we both learn.
Yeah, I have pretty much given up on YouTube as well for the same reason. You are completely dependent on algorithms and you have no idea whether they are helping you or hurting you.
I might try again later, but Substack now has video functionality, so that might be better.