"I used to have a neighbour who was a big conspiracy theorist. She had views about the moon and how many of us have been to it (zero), the children the government sacrifices (many), and the religions controlling the world (at least one). One day I realised that from her point of view, it looked a lot like everybody agreed with her."
"her point of view, it looked a lot like everybody agreed with her. She would bring up the child altars and the moon radars and everybody, including me, listened politely and said: You take care now! Nobody gave her the evidence that, in fact, we thought this was completely, totally, drinking-air-conditioner-coolant wrong. You leave people in their bubble when you"
A neighbour's conspiratorial beliefs felt reinforced because nobody challenged them, which made her assume broad agreement. When people never contradict extreme or prejudiced remarks, those speakers stay inside a bubble that suggests most people share their views. Expressing disagreement matters both to record that values differ and to create opportunities for change. The appropriate method depends on the goal: making a public marker of disagreement or aiming to persuade. Choosing listening, empathy and measured responses can be more effective for persuasion, while brief, calm refusal can serve as a clear value boundary.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]