Social media discussion rarely changes anyone's minds.

[Bill Ryan]

... Discuss. :)

[JackMcThorn]

Social Media has a tendency to lower the quality of content given the significant numbers of participants whom also have lower quality mindsets being able to participate [One only needs a phone or computer [and in some cases, permission: i.e. not getting banned from social media]]. In short, there are too few of dynamic and solid thinkers with sound [un]common sense, participating. Being smart or having common sense does not cover the spectrum. Being wise also includes some sort of emotional stability; a facet that is seemingly undeveloped in the majority.

It is my opinion, that the majority of participants in social media are simply not wise.

This is a conundrum because it is my opinion; and due to my experiences online since around 1994 I think this opinion is a fact. There is a fair amount of effort required to find wise and interesting folks by which to have high quality exchanges. I would also keep in mind that smart people do indeed do dumb things from time to time; however, there are far more dumb people online than there are wise people. Tech-savvy is so common in this modern era that it does not guarantee the exchanges are coming from the wise contingent.

This preface gets me to the point of the discussion: 'Social media discussion rarely changes anyone's minds.'

Finding the right information takes more effort and requires more due diligence. Taking someone's 'word for it' is a thing of the past before social media. A quality individual would indeed have a reputation preceding him or her as a manner of one whom is wise and could be trusted. This is no longer the case. No one is to be trusted online and personal rapport is very hard to generate. [Not to mention how fast one will be cancelled and lose any reputation they might have enjoyed.]

So I attribute that social media discussion would rarely change anyone's mind from a perspective of 'trusted' and/or 'respected' or 'wise' and a reasonable EQ.

What I find interesting is the competitive nature of people [and entities] should increase the potential for higher quality exchanges; but the truth remains that with low EQ [or participation resulting in offensive content] dominating the discourse the competitive aspect seems irrelevant.

The cream therefore, will rise to the top. The internet is so vast that finding the top is the challenge; even in the content here at PA. Nothing will be ideal, but some sites/content will be more ideal than others and this may be cyclical.

Besides opinions and facts; I would indicate that I value experience over knowledge as experience is practical applied knowledge. Just because you know doesn't mean you can do.

[Gwin Ru]

... Discuss. :)...

... cough-cough... what for?

[Satori]

Unless this Forum is considered social media, I have zero social media presence. No Twitter, nothing. I did open a Facebook account about 7 years ago, but I never used it.

But from what I gather, and in my view, social media is a tool for the handlers to put stuff out there, and then identify what is being discussed, who is discussing it and then determine who to ignore and who to target. They learn a lot about us while they cause us to chase our tails bickering amongst ourselves over very often, almost completely, pointless distractions.

Divide and conquer and keep divided and conquered. They know that, as long as we remain divided, we will never recognize and unite against them; our common enemy.

[Bill Ryan]

... Discuss. :)
cough-cough... what for?Made me laugh. :)

It really seemed to me to be one of those paradoxes (or anomalies) that we never discuss at all. It comes a little close, maybe, to being an Emperor's New Clothes type of thing.

There are zillions of examples all over social media, but let's just take the microcosm of the Avalon forum. Below are some of the issues sometimes fiercely discussed in the last few years.

The vast majority of posters on these subjects already have fairly (or very) well-set views, and the number of instances of someone saying [something like] "Hey thanks, I see your point of view, you've explained it very well, and I think I've changed my mind" is tiny.


Vaccine effectiveness
Ivermectin effectiveness as a covid treatment
Trump's legacy as US president
Biden's legacy as US president
QAnon's claims and statements
Global warming
Ukraine/US vs Donbass/Russia.

There are many more, but those come to mind immediately.

What I notice again and again is that exchanges between those with opposing views get nowhere at all. It often comes close to literally being a waste of time.

So that leads to the question: What's the value of exchanging opinions?

I might suggest the answer: Much less than we may assume.

So what's the value of discussing anything at all?

I think the true value — which is important and significant — actually lies in expanding the nuances of our understanding of issues we broadly already agree with. As a kind of crude metaphor, we're educating one another about geophysics, not arguing about whether the earth is spherical or not. We're way past that point now.

And here's a very real example, not a metaphor at all. I'm personally as sure as I can be that a lost major civilization, probably a global one, existed prior to about 12,500 years ago. What I am interested in reading about and learning much more about is the ongoing discovery of artifacts and other evidence that may tell us more about what the civilization was like, where and when it flourished, and what eventually became of it.

And the same for the existence of ETs, UFOs, and off-planet (or maybe interdimensional) civilizations that are interacting with us on Earth. I'm 100% certain this is all very real. But I still want to learn more about the possible details, agendas, history, phenomena, and so on.

So there's an important distinction that can be made about the kinds of information we're all sharing here every day — and why we're sharing that information at all.

Here's a thought experiment. We've not had this happen on Avalon yet, but supposing a new member appears who starts advocating some of the aspects of 'woke' culture that I'd suspect many (or most, or maybe all!) of those reading this would consider abhorrent, socially destructive, and maybe even a symptom of a kind of modern mental illness.

Do we allow them a platform to express their views?

If your view is 'yes' — then why??

[JackMcThorn]

So what's the value of discussing anything at all?

I for one, perceive a forum as a discussion board; so I find some of the discussions riveting or at least interesting. There are some very smart people to read from here. [some very technical] The truth is, even this forum seems to have less discussion and more social media content. [Considering the fact that it is in its own right a collection of knowledge.]

The content I find at times mind-numbing. Videos? Okay, once in a while I will spend a little time on one if it is described somewhat. Other social media posts? Not too interested. Once you got an idea of what is going on in the Donbas, you pretty much get it. Frankly, if it wasn't for Mashika [and if I was in america] I wouldn't have had a real clue what was going on there. I do not wish to be a war correspondent so any further minute details by way of others social media feeds - I've just lost interest in it. If I had skin in the game, I might follow the details more closely. I would say I learned more about the area and the past decade there from her rather than from the twitter feeds on the same subject. I would prefer a natural local expert, than the social media feeds.

This Norman Rockwell illustration is the old fashioned way to follow a war with your sons involved:

50055

Notwithstanding, I am looking for discussion and opinions. I find the subject of opinions has been raised a bit, and I realise everyone has one but it has sort of become deplorable on PA to share an opinion, as it is may be some tired old perspective. I have always thought there to be a time and a place; or most things in moderation which means sometimes opinions might fly.

In the pursuit of the facts it is very human to deviate from pure facts at times. Sometimes, it is just nice to hear what someone thinks; once in a while. Especially, if you spend a lot of time thinking.

[JackMcThorn]

Here's a thought experiment. We've not had this happen on Avalon yet, but supposing a new member appears who starts advocating some of the aspects of 'woke' culture that I'd suspect many (or most, or maybe all!) of those reading this would consider abhorrent, socially destructive, and maybe even a symptom of a kind of modern mental illness.

Do we allow them a platform to express their views?

If your view is 'yes' — then why??

The platform currently has evolved in a manner of speaking that thinking to the contrary [of the group] is smartly curtailed by the participants. So, someone with a woke ideology wouldn't last very long here.

For example: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120094-Son-of-Man

2o missives basically and respectfully did not buy into this original post. [Conducted in a manner that did not break rules or attract moderation attention.]

The community has a set of rules, unwritten. I attribute this to various sensitive discussions and experiences that may have small followings, be exaggerated, or deliberate attempts to deceive the reader. We all know what these topics are and some people have lost reputations but in my opinion they had it coming if they thought they could fool all of the people all of the time. In this advanced forum, with high levels of respect for others, it sort of polices itself.

[Karen (Geophyz)]

I for the most part see social media as a blight on society. Young people do not learn how to think, they learn what someone else tells them to think. They learn what information is fed to them and for the most part, do no research of their own. On social media it is so easy to lie and if you say it enough time someone will believe you and that is how it starts. But my biggest fear is young people not learning to think thoughts and ideas out for themselves.

[Dennis Leahy]

In classical education, the "Rhetoric" pillar of the Trivium supplied the individual with the tools for debate. This was (I believe deliberately) left out of modern education, because it doesn't serve the Elite.

Forums (fora?) probably have the best chance of a couple of individuals exhibiting debate skills. The other social media platforms are set up as "hit-and-run" opinion bulletin boards, not scholarly debate. Instead of logic, we now get emotional diarrhea and ad hominim attacks in place of debate or even discussion.

KnowItAll Guy: "Water boils at 212 degrees F or 100 degrees C."

OtherGuy: "No, that statement is incomplete, so it is incorrect."

KnowItAll Guy: "You're an idiot! Scientifically illiterate!"

OtherGuy: "You need to add, "Using distilled water", and, "at sea level, on Earth", to make the statement complete and true."

KnowItAll Guy: "No you don't, idiot! I'm a scientist! I understand science! What is wrong with you? Are you a Nazi? Hitler lover? Trumpanzee?"

OtherGuy: {exits thread}

KnowItAll Guy: "Don't let the door hit you in your dumb ass!"

[Bill Ryan]

In classical education, the "Rhetoric" pillar of the Trivium supplied the individual with the tools for debate. This was (I believe deliberately) left out of modern education, because it doesn't serve the Elite.

Forums (fora?) probably have the best chance of a couple of individuals exhibiting debate skills. The other social media platforms are set up as "hit-and-run" opinion bulletin boards, not scholarly debate. Instead of logic, we now get emotional diarrhea and ad hominim attacks in place of debate or even discussion.

KnowItAll Guy: "Water boils at 212 degrees F or 100 degrees C."

OtherGuy: "No, that statement is incomplete, so it is incorrect."

KnowItAll Guy: "You're an idiot! Scientifically illiterate!"

OtherGuy: "You need to add, "Using distilled water", and, "at sea level, on Earth", to make the statement complete and true."

KnowItAll Guy: "No you don't, idiot! I'm a scientist! I understand science! What is wrong with you? Are you a Nazi? Hitler lover? Trumpanzee?"

OtherGuy: {exits thread}

KnowItAll Guy: "Don't let the door hit you in your dumb ass!"I could add the following, safely (I think! :flower:), as it's not actually manifested like this on Avalon. (But the equivalent has absolutely shown itself on the Ukraine/Russia thread.)

Pro-vaxxer: I trust the science. I'm vaxxed, and I'm fine.

Vaxx-critic: Here's a long list of vaccine injuries [reference], here's a bunch of interviews with independent doctors [reference], here's evidence that pharma companies have been duplicitous at best [reference], and here's what happened to my wife, my brother and my parents.

Pro-vaxxer: I trust the science. I'm vaxxed, and I'm fine. You should be vaxxed, too.

Vaxx-critic: Here's another list of vaccine injuries [reference], here are more interviews with independent doctors [reference], here's more evidence that pharma companies have been duplicitous at best [reference], and here's what happened to my friend's wife, his brother and his parents.

Pro-vaxxer: I trust the science. I'm vaxxed, and I'm fine. You should be vaxxed, too, and if you refuse, you're antisocial and dangerous to others.

(etc etc)

Sometimes, (as in Jack McThorn's example above (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120133-Social-media-discussion-rarely-changes-anyone-s-minds.&p=1532421&viewfull=1#post1532421) re this thread (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120094-Son-of-Man)), the protagonist may be very politely 'silenced' (as it were), or may just leave the forum entirely.

But what happens if the protagonist persists, and (as per this thread title) does not change their mind?

One possibility: maybe they should be politely retired from the community, once a point is reached when their presence becomes an obstinate irritant and seems to offer no educational value to other members.

[JackMcThorn]

I mentioned once before that I was on a different forum in america [now defunct] that was absolutely brutal. The forum moderator [there were only 2] would devise a question [current events or otherwise; sometimes political] and the discussion would entail over a period of 6-8 weeks on average and then a new topic would be posted.

I was with this forum for some years and the reason I stayed is the quality of writing was very high and there are just too few forum options around. The personal attacks of the Left vs. the Right were the brutal aspect. I sort of fell into the middle to the right side of things. I was told that the middle is for the impartial and I should pick a side. I did not take this advice. Even though the writing was high quality, the Left or the Right tried to force their perspectives on the other.

What I did do a few times is take the forum question and asked it on a social media debate forum to see the quality of writing and the discourse. The social media was a complete failure. The quality of writing was poor and the discourse nothing like the original forum but the personal attacks were similar. It seemed like the attention span on social media was culprit. People just did not think hard and write well.

So I was without a forum for a while until I found PA on complete accident. I come here mostly to read and to be honest, there is plenty I don't know.

[Isserley]

If we get into an argument with someone and our only goal is to prove that we are right and they are wrong, we guarantee that neither side of that argument would understand the higher truth, which is why we see it differently.

It’s important to realize that we're unaware of all the forces that took place to create our conclusions - beliefs, attitudes, and values which are made up of a culmination of years of experiences and behaviors.

When you try to change someone else’s mind, you should be open to having your own mind changed, as well. Ask yourself -- am I right about everything?
People tend to resist questioning themselfs - its cognitively difficult, and it can make them "loose ground" / identity. Thats why its so rare.
Of course, politeness in communication is another important factor that can contribute to finding common ground or not.

[sunwings]

One of the reasons that social media may not be effective at changing people's minds is that it can be a echo chamber, where people are exposed primarily to views and opinions that align with their own. This can create a biased and skewed view of reality, and it may make it difficult for people to consider alternative perspectives. Additionally, people may be more likely to engage with content on social media that confirms their existing beliefs, rather than content that challenges or contradicts those beliefs.

Chat GPT

[Gwin Ru]

...

... let me think a bit... social media do not foster "discussions"... they generate only heated arguing... a model of actual discussion can be found with the likes of Chris Martenson where factual data are analyzed down to an irrefutable conclusion. The guy can really, really "think"!

In other words, so-called social media deal only in triggers and emotional reactions. Unfortunately, most Alt-media are doing the same.

PA is definitively different since, as a forum, it compiles data and new discoveries which keep altering/modifying previous analyses, interpretations and conclusions and, therefore, is a continual work in progress.

As for what to do with deadly set minds... the first thing would be... don't feed them trolls.

[Mashika]

One of the reasons that social media may not be effective at changing people's minds is that it can be a echo chamber, where people are exposed primarily to views and opinions that align with their own. This can create a biased and skewed view of reality, and it may make it difficult for people to consider alternative perspectives. Additionally, people may be more likely to engage with content on social media that confirms their existing beliefs, rather than content that challenges or contradicts those beliefs.

Chat GPT

The problem is that once people are willing to participate in a conversation online and they don't lose the fear of having other people express different opinions, they just gravitate to a site or thread they know it's 'safe'. Then once there they join the critique and complaining about the other sites or threads that are not following the same line


I don't think this is new, it was around all since ever, like bars and coffee corners that people frequent and are one sided and if a person from 'the other side' comes around there may be trouble. Or how stadiums work mostly with people from each team mostly sitting in opposite sides



https://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/no-dad-thats-fake-news-but-how-can-it-be-fake-if-it-says-exactly-what-i-think.jpg
50057

[Mashika]

... Discuss. :)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AL9nZEX853sTHvMB8kUtAqOCYEZmFGGwraEb5g3pBkPTwpcHT8PbfgUtXXuJEDS_UfIzHs0WS5jyWdSS1qkafutZL8x1Y0z9GJ10 x_YZzOADfWitaDeEdEZgTFQyMU0s3PIGGnZmtRQ28JCA6T70I07l-U8W=w577-h432-no?authuser=0

Circular dependencies from hell... :p:clapping::ROFL::sherlock:

[Lunesoleil]

... Discuss. :)

my opinion Bill, are you nostalgic?, the networks do not replace real life. We have to fight with trolls who have created many fake accounts... There are exceptional people, I met my darling on social networks, he replied to my comments and I loved reading his. Paradise on Earth . I waste a lot of time on the Avalon forum, is it useful?

my passion is astrology and I've been in it for 50 years, my mother was the trigger then a meeting later, because we don't always do what we want in life, despite a happy childhood, but without true friend, I was born into a big family. I went to mass every Sunday and after communion I no longer believed in religion. Later, I learned to know myself with astrology which is a tool for self-knowledge before being for others... my life has completely changed...

🙏

[DNA]

In classical education, the "Rhetoric" pillar of the Trivium supplied the individual with the tools for debate. This was (I believe deliberately) left out of modern education, because it doesn't serve the Elite.

Forums (fora?) probably have the best chance of a couple of individuals exhibiting debate skills. The other social media platforms are set up as "hit-and-run" opinion bulletin boards, not scholarly debate. Instead of logic, we now get emotional diarrhea and ad hominim attacks in place of debate or even discussion.

KnowItAll Guy: "Water boils at 212 degrees F or 100 degrees C."

OtherGuy: "No, that statement is incomplete, so it is incorrect."

KnowItAll Guy: "You're an idiot! Scientifically illiterate!"

OtherGuy: "You need to add, "Using distilled water", and, "at sea level, on Earth", to make the statement complete and true."

KnowItAll Guy: "No you don't, idiot! I'm a scientist! I understand science! What is wrong with you? Are you a Nazi? Hitler lover? Trumpanzee?"

OtherGuy: {exits thread}

KnowItAll Guy: "Don't let the door hit you in your dumb ass!"I could add the following, safely (I think! :flower:), as it's not actually manifested like this on Avalon. (But the equivalent has absolutely shown itself on the Ukraine/Russia thread.)

Pro-vaxxer: I trust the science. I'm vaxxed, and I'm fine.

Vaxx-critic: Here's a long list of vaccine injuries [reference], here's a bunch of interviews with independent doctors [reference], here's evidence that pharma companies have been duplicitous at best [reference], and here's what happened to my wife, my brother and my parents.

Pro-vaxxer: I trust the science. I'm vaxxed, and I'm fine. You should be vaxxed, too.

Vaxx-critic: Here's another list of vaccine injuries [reference], here are more interviews with independent doctors [reference], here's more evidence that pharma companies have been duplicitous at best [reference], and here's what happened to my friend's wife, his brother and his parents.

Pro-vaxxer: I trust the science. I'm vaxxed, and I'm fine. You should be vaxxed, too, and if you refuse, you're antisocial and dangerous to others.

(etc etc)

Sometimes, (as in Jack McThorn's example above (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120133-Social-media-discussion-rarely-changes-anyone-s-minds.&p=1532421&viewfull=1#post1532421) re this thread (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120094-Son-of-Man)), the protagonist may be very politely 'silenced' (as it were), or may just leave the forum entirely.

But what happens if the protagonist persists, and (as per this thread title) does not change their mind?

One possibility: maybe they should be politely retired from the community, once a point is reached when their presence becomes an obstinate irritant and seems to offer no educational value to other members.

This is the dialogue most pressing...

I've spent most of my life not owning a television.
Also, I've avoided the news.

As far as hypnosis goes I'm highly suggestible.
But I know it.
I can feel it.
The effects hit me and I'm like wait a minute, that's not my opinion and then I retract the steps and scrub the source.
I know from experience that the televisions began increasing their power to hypnotize and suggest as the technology became more advanced.
The audio as well.
Now I don't even think modern movies are safe to watch without risking a subliminal insertion of some sort.

I blame television for the state of things.
I blame the brain washing and the triggered defensiveness on television, especially the news casts.
I've noted that the folks I've managed to get through to watch very little too no television.

Just an opinion.

[Delight]

I have said it before and think it is even more apparent.... the matrix is shattering . Trying to hold onto "something" the collective mind is splintering into vast numbers of versions of the matrix.

This is my understanding and where I am focused. Whatever version one attaches ones focus on is strengthened in one's personal experience. Therefore, one must FOCUS one's attention where one chooses. I am choosing to look at all the information about "current events" and I say "the TRUTH is coming out". Personally I look to the mass realization of how we effect OUR reality with our intention, our focus and what we love is the POINT.

It makes all the difference to let go of the need to establish "the absolute TRUTH" and just use all the material one comes across to solidify what one THINKs is valuable, FEELS is good and beautiful and then LOVE on it with our actions. I credit social media with a great deal of Good. I LOVE the internet and I find great information. How I am living in my my fractal is MINE to make .... you have a fractal TOO and all of the billions of lives in the shattered field that is falling to pieces. So, information in social media discussion could be the key for someone somewhere sometime to awaken to being ones own Boss in the midst of the disintegration.

The level of chaos will increase and IMO a great mystery may unfold for our free will creativity to enjoy! Energy and frequency and information MATTER. I am convinced that I stand in my own light and have a Creator at my back for what MY soul may create here and now. Frankly I am not sure what that IS? But I am finding out.....as does everyone who allows the surrender to a mystery. The moment is now to be "I am" in the mystery.

[Delight]

One of the reasons social media discussion may miss the mark is that it is not able to reach the depth of heart understanding face to face sharing may touch? BUT at the same time, when we hear the words spoken as in a video, much more is conveyed than just the words in text. I am blown away that my optimism that we WILL live on earth as it is in heaven is resounded in so many ways by various POV. I always had an issue with the idea of Christ as a "King" because of my suspicion about heirarchies and their thumbs of oppression.
Tonight I had an ahha that my conception of "Kingdom" and "King" MUST have also been INVERTED in my mind like everything else by the twisted collective machination.

I don't know who exactly is the "enemy" I tend to think my ONE enemy is my inability to surrender to a "higher" authority? In that I have compassion for the terror of someone who truly is disconnected from God. God IS. God IS. God IS even if I cannot begin to understand what that means. However, I FEEL I am an heir, a daughter of a Presence that is REAL. This gentleman's sermon here has grabbed me so strongly. I KNOW there is a shift. I wholely embrace the prophecy here. I highly recommend its healing balm UNDER any words. We are in a SHIFT where the heaven on earth I imagine is blooming.

7AuSZG0toUw

uxTc98K9OeU

[Gwin Ru]

...

... this could be a solution to counter that same very global application being fostered on humanity to keep it on its knees:


"People will let themselves be led by someone who is in the next level up on the scale (http://whale.to/v/tone.html). Therefore, all of the gullible souls in the Fear band can be easily influenced and pushed into action by the 1.5 (anger fixation)."--Ruth Minshull (http://whale.to/b/minshull_h.html) (How to choose your people p119) Source: http://whale.to/v/tone.html

[Matthew]

If you don't think you're influencing anyone then tough luck you are anyway. If you're trying to influence you probably aren't.

[Casey Claar]

... Discuss. :)
cough-cough... what for?Made me laugh. :)

It really seemed to me to be one of those paradoxes (or anomalies) that we never discuss at all. It comes a little close, maybe, to being an Emperor's New Clothes type of thing.

There are zillions of examples all over social media, but let's just take the microcosm of the Avalon forum. Below are some of the issues sometimes fiercely discussed in the last few years.

The vast majority of posters on these subjects already have fairly (or very) well-set views, and the number of instances of someone saying [something like] "Hey thanks, I see your point of view, you've explained it very well, and I think I've changed my mind" is tiny.


Vaccine effectiveness
Ivermectin effectiveness as a covid treatment
Trump's legacy as US president
Biden's legacy as US president
QAnon's claims and statements
Global warming
Ukraine/US vs Donbass/Russia.

There are many more, but those come to mind immediately.

What I notice again and again is that exchanges between those with opposing views get nowhere at all. It often comes close to literally being a waste of time.

So that leads to the question: What's the value of exchanging opinions?

I might suggest the answer: Much less than we may assume.

So what's the value of discussing anything at all?

I think the true value — which is important and significant — actually lies in expanding the nuances of our understanding of issues we broadly already agree with. As a kind of crude metaphor, we're educating one another about geophysics, not arguing about whether the earth is spherical or not. We're way past that point now.

And here's a very real example, not a metaphor at all. I'm personally as sure as I can be that a lost major civilization, probably a global one, existed prior to about 12,500 years ago. What I am interested in reading about and learning much more about is the ongoing discovery of artifacts and other evidence that may tell us more about what the civilization was like, where and when it flourished, and what eventually became of it.

And the same for the existence of ETs, UFOs, and off-planet (or maybe interdimensional) civilizations that are interacting with us on Earth. I'm 100% certain this is all very real. But I still want to learn more about the possible details, agendas, history, phenomena, and so on.

So there's an important distinction that can be made about the kinds of information we're all sharing here every day — and why we're sharing that information at all.

Here's a thought experiment. We've not had this happen on Avalon yet, but supposing a new member appears who starts advocating some of the aspects of 'woke' culture that I'd suspect many (or most, or maybe all!) of those reading this would consider abhorrent, socially destructive, and maybe even a symptom of a kind of modern mental illness.

Do we allow them a platform to express their views?

If your view is 'yes' — then why??

I will dive in here:

"So that leads to the question: What's the value of exchanging opinions?"

Is it opinions we are really sharing? I would suggest we are sharing much more than this, something far more intimate, either knowingly or unknowingly. We are sharing ourself. The value of this comes in the doing. Doesn't it? In the process of this we refine ourselves. It is quite the cooking process, isn't it? But the refinement can somewhat easily be seen and understood by considering first a more feral kind of man and situating this alongside any one of us, anyone who has learned how to express themselves, share of themselves, including the exchange of raw information. The value is that through this we evolve, both as an individual and as a species.


"I think the true value — which is important and significant — actually lies in expanding the nuances of our understanding of issues we broadly already agree with. As a kind of crude metaphor, we're educating one another about geophysics, not arguing about whether the earth is spherical or not. We're way past that point now."

I would go significantly further.

I think we learn - grow - very little, relatively speaking, in a petrie dish of those we are already in agreement with. I do agree, as you have said, Bill, that what can be learned are ever greater nuances and intricacies, however only of a SINGLE color, rather than all color. I think the really important thing we are all learning is not a view, or even spectrum views, but how to allow these to peacefully coexist. How to not go to war against 'other' views, nor run from, segregate, demonize, marginalize or omit them. This is what I think, as a species we are at the cusp of learning. How to do this. How to live, breathe, think and behave in harmony with ALL that is. It is a process, though, and beginning with a solid basis in understanding ourself, even deep down into all those nuances is a good, intelligent and profound start. The immanent question is, how will this progress? Does a sports team, as an example, ever get any better playing against itself? - ( answer : it doesn't ).


"Here's a thought experiment. We've not had this happen on Avalon yet, but supposing a new member appears who starts advocating some of the aspects of 'woke' culture that I'd suspect many (or most, or maybe all!) of those reading this would consider abhorrent, socially destructive, and maybe even a symptom of a kind of modern mental illness.

Do we allow them a platform to express their views?

If your view is 'yes' — then why??"

My answer would be yes.

Not just yes but a resounding yes.

There really is room enough for everyone. Understanding our own processes is one thing, but it is only a start. Evolving ourselves to truly ( and by this I mean accurately ) understand someone else, their processes, where they are in their own unfoldment is another. As is not interfering or impeding upon that. One very large reason we are seeing what we are in the world at present, is that good people, positively oriented people are inclining toward negative thought, action and behavior. The [ + ] orientation is one of inclusion, allowance, and non-infringement upon free-will. It is the [ - ] orientation that fights, dominates, disallows and infringes. Those who have chosen the [ + ] orientation, and in my estimation this is 92+% of the local population have to focus more into the fact of their choice and spend more of their time actively developing it.

This indeed is what will turn the tides. ( clearly, yes? ). :heart:

Practice is required. So, yes, open the stage.

Always trust in the potential of an open and pure heart. <-- let Avalon be where this is developed.

Nothing can overrun or overturn this. Save ourselves.

Is our love strong enough?

Let's run the LIVE test.

[Digit]

Jumping straight in to offer initial response to:


Social media discussion rarely changes anyone's minds.

... Discuss.

Perhaps "rarely", but not never.
So there's a chance. ;)

However, perhaps it's better to approach with some kind of epistemological method, than reliance on mere guesstimation of statistical chance.

Maybe I'm yet to discover an even better method. Or even just need to better practice.

I've still a long way to go at reliably deploying a warm, inviting, curiosity-evoking version of the socratic method. But I think it's good to keep trying to develop. Any other ideas how?

Also, which social media?

I suspect one can find different results, on, say, diaspora than mastodon. Different results on GNU Social compared to Zot. And even differences between different servers in the same protocols, e.g. catcatnya (mastodon fork with long form) compared to any more w.h.o. censorship adherent mastodon servers. And between anything of the fediverse and corporate social media. ... I'm just presuming with that last one... I don't do corporate social media. I just presume it's a very high probability of low caliber mind apertures among those who stayed on The Corporation's casino-like addictive datamining & censorship sites.

It's fun to seek out different perspectives. Approach them with your mind open, and more likely to garner similar in return.

[Edit:
PS: regarding:


Vaccine effectiveness
Ivermectin effectiveness as a covid treatment
Trump's legacy as US president
Biden's legacy as US president
QAnon's claims and statements
Global warming
Ukraine/US vs Donbass/Russia.



I've expanded my conceptions of all of these, learned much from others, and usually, it goes unsaid, the learning and delving into more nuance, continuing after whatever helpful pointers/seeds/clues/links shared in some post on the fediverse.

So keep offering good offerings. You may never know how many storms you whip up, by flapping your butterfly wings. :)]

[lake]

One of the reasons that social media may not be effective at changing people's minds is that it can be a echo chamber, where people are exposed primarily to views and opinions that align with their own. This can create a biased and skewed view of reality, and it may make it difficult for people to consider alternative perspectives. Additionally, people may be more likely to engage with content on social media that confirms their existing beliefs, rather than content that challenges or contradicts those beliefs.

Chat GPT

I don't fault what you have posted but from my point of view .... people seldom change their current indoctrination!

I was a .... well lets say 'mod' on a well known forum and I near never saw members 'change their mind' because of the posts created by other members!

Never happened. (<< and that is over years)

The alternative community will cling on to an idea or concept (disregarding most all negative information to their held belief) as badly as the mass of people!

There isn't really much of a distinction between the mass and the alternative (<< sorry I know how that reads ... but it would seem to be correct? I am happy to be wrong!)

[Bill Ryan]

:bump::bump::bump:

[Harmony]

My observation is people posting on PA like to offer information for others to contemplate, join dots or maybe delete them thus forming a bigger picture of what is going on around us. Rather than changing minds I think our overview evolves. Adding more understanding of how things unfold, which is really quite complex, sometimes helps us develop compassion and love as well.



If we can understand how things happen, we have the power to change them or not repeat them again. I really like perusing new ideas or information, just putting them on the back burner for later where they often fit in the puzzle of life somewhere.:heart:

[arwen]

I remember clearly the early days of the Usenet. 1994 - 1995 for me.

I remember engaging in exciting discussion with people all over the world, using the Deja News bulletins boards (https://www.livinginternet.com/u/uu_arch.htm) to find areas of mutual interest.

I remember the AMAZING level of high quality conversations. The early pioneers were those kinds of people. Curious, open to debate, new ideas, civil.

Then came the masses. Then came the World Wide Web. Then came trolls and spam and bots to disrupt conversations and amplify emotions. Then came social media to corral the anarchic Usenet groups into controllable echo chambers. Then came intelligence agency and government covert influence campaigns with massive budgets.

So given all that, nope, mostly nobody will change anyone's mind on anything unless they are all mutually agreed to share ideas and learn from each other.

The Internet was and has been such a magnificent gift - in the beginning, it lead to exponential evolution in human communication. It honestly worked better in terms of exchange of ideas and opinions and useful discourse back in the days of the Usenet. Social Media was deliberately structured in my opinion to default to the lowest common denominator. But one can still use it strategically to enjoy the original benefit - filtering out noise and antagonists and tuning into what is valuable.

Avalon is thus an oasis, reminiscent of the old Usenet, where quality conversations on a variety of really interesting topics take place. Disruptions are occasional, and able to be managed BECAUSE of the Moderators, to whom we all owe a great gratitude and appreciation for their time.

In my humble opinion. You do not have to agree with me. :chuckle:

[Matthew]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it read and accept your tweet deep into its soul. Social media is a useful echo chamber because news travels fast, it's digested across a wide demography and feedback is near instantaneous. It's a fantastic echo chamber, ...so useful! Is anyone influenced by anything? Other than the bombardment of advertising, trash tv and state fear? I'm not sure. More than five years ago I guess, but those who are transformed didn't transform by me giving them a 10 minute rant monologue about virus theory vs 5G. Their trust was broken, it had little to do with me.

[triquetra]

The difference is like navigating a hall of mirrors alone, compared with navigating a labyrinth together with everyone of a like mind to your own across the entire world.

Everyone has taken themselves up with the hall of mirrors, caught up in the fast moving bouncing of light that is over and over again just a reflection of themselves, each direction looking equally viable as the last.

Few have remembered that in places like Avalon, you CAN navigate the labyrinth (and even the abyss) through what you have learned from your comrades as you work together. Even as some of us have found dead ends, we are able to communicate them to one another to better find our way together.

Maybe most people on Earth needed to become even more lost before they could find themselves again through cooperative discussion, rather than freezing themselves in place, arguing (to themselves) that their determined path through the hall of mirrors is the right one. When a social network is really just a way of funnelling data to the company that runs the network, and interacting with others is just an illusion in order to reinforce the ego and generate even more data for the company in your thrashing about, that's all that can really happen.

[SoulValor]

I don't think online discussions should have the premise of changing other people's minds. How about just sharing experiences, views, information and data and see where that leads to? No need for proselytisations or the involvment of egos. Nobody needs to believe anything or convince anybody or get convinced.

Maybe it's just about sharing and broadening one's horizon, regardless of it fitting your current world view or not....and isn't it more fun to question things, including yourself and your own views? And consider/delve into other possibilities even if they sound crazy at first? I wish more people would get into that groove....

[shaberon]

I don't think online discussions should have the premise of changing other people's minds. How about just sharing experiences...


I would say those are two different kinds of conversations.

And, this is definitely on a scale...there are those who believe it their duty to compel you to believe.

There are those who refuse to affect anyone whatsoever.

As someone who is notoriously impossible to affect, I only have one example about "change". I'm not sure I "changed my mind" (switched sides), but, discovered a new idea.

I am guessing the context of *most* of what is being discussed is more along the lines of persuasion, that is, propaganda which has the intent of affecting the way one feels and transferring reputation to a different role model. We may be saying no one's propaganda works. It's a yelling of slogans.

In the sense that there probably is "new information", something objective that I did not know or understand, then, yes, I hope I am at least adaptable and able to respond.

When I started posting here, I may have been asking a wrong question.

It turns out to be a federal government issue.

I found someone posting something that "sounded" like the issues I had in mind. So I asked a lot of questions. I spent some time with this, because, there was a coherent point being made, and I couldn't quite tell what it was. It took a little time and I got the feeling that some of the responses were a bit copy-paste off a website or someone's personal files. Fixed, pre-arranged. Not *quite* an in-the-moment spontaneous reaction.

After learning the argument, I continued to post it on my own.

Nobody ever particularly agreed or disagreed with the point being made, although sometimes there were reactions.

A bit further down the road, I guess I figured out how to ask the "right question" and uncovered a series of facts that annihilate the argument.

Naturally, I tried to feed this back into the original discussion and of course it did not go well. I got a few blunt dismissals and absenteeism. Apparently couldn't stand the heat. I don't know. I consider the thing resolved. Later, Bill banned this member in full public view for, what I would agree, were some very crude racist remarks.

I "changed my mind", temporarily, I'm sure I did that. That was the universe's opportunity to adjust whatever was needed, and, it wound up being the negative of what it first looked like.


At the same time, it would be most honest to say that I constantly give off rhetorical persuasion, that almost certainly is pre-loaded with certain values, and there is no chance I am un-biased. That's strongly the case. It's not a political party or form of government. The only thing I have really been known for is changing people permanently. I'm not sure I can even do anything else. The online experience is not "normal" like this. The third dimension remains superior.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I have changed a handful of people's minds over the years, but not on a forum. It is only possible in an ongoing, real time, one on one, conversation. Some it took many years, first to teach what they did not know, then to correct their incorrect assumptions. Only after that can true learning begin. Every one has thanked me afterwards.

And I come here with the same thing in mind, only in reverse. I thought I came here to teach, but in fact I came here to learn.

Avalon has done for me what I did for those few.

Some things have been harder to learn than others, and there are some things I have yet to learn, but I try my best to remain open. Some things seem as though I will never learn it, whether because they are not true or because I have a cherished bias I have yet to unravel.


My other point is that I am very much aware of another reality that we do not understand and that is counter in many ways to this life. When discussing any topic I am fully aware that the topic is moot on this mysterious level of reality, yet I go on and on, pretending like the topic can stand on its own - when it can't.

This other reality is far more real to me than this world. Much of what seems controversial in my posts is the realization that the topic under scrutiny has no merit in the real world. I am forever aware that we are living a lie, a false reality based on false assumptions about self hood. I understand we support a death cult that has inverted our world to cherish death and live life as though we are dead, only to finally come alive after we have died to this reality. It is preposterous and extremely frustrating.


So yes, social discussions where more than two people are involved, and with no direct contact other than a screen, can never be adequate to change someone's mind.
Too many voices, too many opinions, too many choices.