= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on Open Thread May 16 - May 22, 2016 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (121)
I urge you to consider why you think this is true. You say that many other people warned this couple about the risks and all were blown off. If they had listened to your (or anyone's advice), there is a non-trivial chance of a different outcome. But was there a non-trivial chance you would persuade them differently?
(I'm also skeptical that your political disagreement had any effect on your persuasiveness regarding the danger of these drugs.)
Whether it's true in that case or not, it frequently happens that someone will start to act like they disagree with you about everything, because they happen to disagree about a few issues. And that definitely can cause them to do things that they otherwise wouldn't do, just because you suggest that doing them is a bad idea.
Alternatively, the causal arrow goes in the other direction. People don't give your practical opinions much weight, but you don't realize the gulf until you have a flare up about ideological disagreement.
I agree that ideological disagree can lead to lower weight to opinions, but if the gulf is as large as OP described, then I suspect the blow up was a symptom, not a cause.
I know at least a few people who have >90% chance of agreeing with basically anything I say, if they happen to be in a good mood, and almost the same chance of disagreeing, if they happen to be in a bad mood.
Do they actually mean anything by their (dis)agreement, or it's just content-free social noises indicating "good, good" or "bad, bad"?