Viser arkivet for stikkord psychology
Often people ask questions like “Why don’t people fight climate change? Why don’t people fight ageing? Why don’t people fight AIDS? Why don’t people fight poverty?” and lots of other similar “good fights” they themselves undertake.
On the face of it fighting climate change, aging, AIDS, poverty, all seem like no-brainers. So why don’t people do these things?
1. They think doing something won’t help enough.
2. They think the outcome would not be good.
3. They think it is not a problem of theirs at this moment in time.
Number One is easy to understand. If you think what you yourself can do is not enough to fight climate change, ageing or AIDS then you will not do anything. Number two is present even when it comes to AIDS and aging in some cases. Three is also somewhat easy to understand, most often people have not been thinking about the problem and so it is like an uninvited object they don’t consider theirs. Like if you go up to someone with a random dog-poo bag and say “is this yours?”; they say no if its just a tiny bit negative or something that seem quite out-of-place (there’s a time and a place for everything, it seems).
1. People think they can’t do anything to help stop ageing (no one yet have managed to stop ageing, they think no one has managed to affect ageing, they think no one has a theory of how to succeed, they think ageing is a feature of humans untouchable by biotechnology, they believe this technology will come at the same time in the future no matter what they do).
2. People think the outcome of succeeding in stopping ageing will not be good (They think there will be overpopulation, that bad people will live forever, that science will progress slower if the old don’t die and make room for the new, they believe there will be lack of resources, they believe people should die to make room for the next generation, they believe stopping ageing will result in very poor quality of life because of boredom or very poor health, etc).
3. They think ageing is not a problem that they should concern themselves about right now (They believe they can’t do anything anyways, they believe it won’t be in time for them, they believe they have more pressing things to take care of first, they believe they might do it at another time and place when they can consider the question more, etc).
1. People think they can’t do anything to help stop climate change (fex because they think its not manmade, or because they think everyone else will just continue to pollute even if they themselves stop).
2. People think the outcome of succeeding in stopping climate change will not be good (They believe it will bankrupt the nations to stop it, and a whole bunch of other things).
3. They think climate change is not a problem that they should concern themselves about now (They believe it is still so far away they have more pressing things to take care of first, or that the climate is not changing at all, or that climate change is not due to man).
The same three points can be written for any number of things, including but not limited to:
-Specific personal abilities.
-Opinions (personal and others).
-What leaders do (prime ministers, presidents, CEO, social group leader etc).
-Pretty much anything, even atheism and agnosticism and ignosticism (“I can’t imagine how life formed” is Type One, Type Two; “I don’t think atheism/agnosticism/ignosticism gives a good quality of life even if I became one” and Type Three is that they don’t feel they have to do all this intellectual work about this particular problem right now).
Most people are not consciously aware of which of these three Types need to be argued in order for them to change their minds. If the main reason they don’t stop aging is type One, Two or Three. And as such, most people fall into the others once one type has been argued against. If you argue against Type One they retort with Type Two or Type Three as if that makes your argument against Type One invalid somehow. If you then argue against the Type they retorted with they retort with either of the other two Types again, as if your first argument against Type One was invalidated.
Quite frankly, I’m tired of meeting this phenomenon every time I argue for rejuvenation biotechnology. People want to force people to die of repairable decay because of three reasons they don’t notice have been proven to be bad reasons. They hop from Type to Type and in-doing so maintain the delusion of not being argued wrong.
I can imagine people that try to get people to stop climate change and cure AIDS and Religion and so forth also could do without this fundamental flaw in human being’s self-proclaimed rationality.
It can be summarized as such;
For something to be done it must be considered feasible, desirable and undeferable.
And subsequently, if it is not considered to be feasible, desirable and undeferable, it will not be done.
Open markets are considered a good way to improve a service or product, but there are plenty of ways to make it not work as intended. Same with carrots (rewards) and sticks (punishments).
For one, if you add a price or punishment in tasks where some ounce of brainpower is needed, you cut performance instead of increase it. The carrot and stick only works in algorithmic tasks where extremely little cognitive work is needed.
Political parties often argue that “if two hospitals compete, they will produce better quality services”, but its not always true that competition improves performance. Carrots and sticks ONLY improve performance when it involves algorithmic skill. Example; If you tell a runner he gets more money for every tenth of a second he takes away from his time, he will probably increase in performance. But if you tell someone to do something that requires ANY cognitive skill, more reward LOWERS performance. This is hard data in several experiments, its over 4 year old scientific results that can’t be dismissed no matter how counter-intuitive it sounds or how much you think you know better. If you ignore this fact you can not work in economic administration without being at a huge risk of crashing a business or crashing a country.
Prices and competition motivates and improves performance, in certain conditions. If cognitive skill is required you only pay enough to take the subject of money off the table, and you don’t stress them with carrots and sticks. If you add more carrots and/or sticks where cognitive work is needed you lobotomise the worker. If you want to see it in action, watch a couple of minutes from this video .
If you would like to ignore this fact about how human cognitive ability works under stress I would ask you to remove whatever is stressing you and making you lobotomised (I’m laughing out loud as I write this, with a large hint of seriousness).
Under even small stress like the boss mentioning the deadline of work you are in the process of doing can make you lose your concentration and make your frontal lobe suffuciently lobotimised to make your work have substandard quality.
That politicians and others who want to improve economies do NOT know this fact about human cognitive ability means we should avoid introduction of free markets in public services as the plague. Because nothing will prevent them from accidentally making a system which lobotomise thousands of public workers.
Sources: See Dan Pink on motivation vs performance .
(and what he refers to, can’t be bothered to find links to all the sources he talks about, this is not a scientific peer-reviewed article, but an article that points out well-known facts for the layman)
To stigmatize is in no way a good thing, but there are far too many bogus myths about why people do it for people to be efficiently made to not do it anymore.
Reasons people stigmatize is commonly: Believing millions of people have chosen to be evil, or that a group want something bad to happen to millions of people. Sprinkled by reasons to stigmatize that consist of negative attributes, like any “bad people” you see in Star Trek (that the Vulcans are logical might be enough reason for some groups to stigmatize them). But free will does not exist, it is a clever illusion that has evolved in humans (and many other animals and possibly even insects and fish). So we do not choose anything as such.
Here is how free will can not exist within the laws of physics, and here is the closest thing to free will we can get in a deterministic universe.
We can no more blame people for their actions as we could blame a stone for falling on our foot. But if you try to make them do something, or not do something, and you fail, trying the same method/argument twice expecting a different result is your fault. Peoples behavior is dictated by the laws of physics.
People have evolutionistic behavior patterns, behavior that often helped survival and reproduction. In the case of stigmatization it has evolved into group forming behavior that aid in getting entrance and acceptance into groups. And it aids in keeping groups together (you might have some idea of how much time can be spent laughing talking about some other group your social group likes to stigmatize). Someone with a walking cane are stigmatized by a person from a certain group, lets say someone with glasses, then the stigmatized person is more likely to want to stigmatize people with glasses. People with glasses then are more likely to stigmatize people with walking canes. And then when we run through all the variations, long hair, short hair, dark skin, light skin, tall, short, fat, skinny, left politically, right politically, Norwegian, Swede, Ferrari driver, Volvo driver, owner of a big house, owner of an apartment, young people, old people, employed people, unemployed, sick people, retired people, etc. Then we have tons of groups of people who stigmatize other groups, exactly as would be the case in our hunter-gatherer ancestral life. In the hunter-gatherer life other groups must have been stigmatized by the group in order for the group to continually have an emotional driver that spurs on fighting to keep their hunting territory. Those that did not think their neighbors were evil and bad in numerous ways would not continue to successfully prevent their neighbors from wiping them out. It only takes one day to wipe out a tribe completely, largely removing it from the gene-pool, therefore this has shaped our genes a lot. And it also remains a powerful behavior we inherit all the time (very few exceptions). When we inherit our DNA we also inherit our brain and senses. What our senses do and how they function is dictated before we are born, and how our brain reacts to what we sense is out of our first-hand control.
Only after we feel something, only after we think something, only after our brain decides something to do, can we have the option of stepping in and stopping ourselves.
Stopping ourselves from acting on feelings, stopping ourselves from striking out in anger.
Stopping ourselves from doing what our brain decided is the right action that split-second.
Stopping ourselves from striking back because someone’s brain did something against us.
Stopping ourselves from striking back because a stone landed on our foot, a human stone we have evolved to sense and react to as if it has free will.
In an experiment you are given the choice between two scenarios:
1. 100 dollars today.
2. 101 dollars in a month.
We usually think of this experiment as:
1. Immediate gain.
2. Long term gain.
And we assume that the more rational you are, the more likely you are to choose option 2.
But I propose both options are only decided based on the immediate gain they provide.
What is the immediate gain of both choices?
1. 100 dollars today.
This immediately provides:
A) The expectancy of receiving 100 dollars.
B) The feeling of making the superior choice by some rationalization. “Now is better than later” being the prevailing rationalization.
2. 101 dollars in a month.
This immediately provides:
A) The expectancy of receiving 101 dollars.
B) The feeling of making the superior choice by some rationalization. “More is better than less” being the prevailing rationalization.
Which immediate gain option has the most value is decided by which weighs most heavily; More being better than less, or sooner better than later.
There are a number of fundamental things that stop people from supporting, in this example, rejuvenation biotechnology. None of the fundamental things can be the rejuvenation biotechnology in itself. The problem lay in the brain of the people (I’m not saying they’re braindamaged), because even if we make them into rejuvenation biotechnology experts they will still have things that will exert energy in their mind, exerting a mental force which pushes them from supporting rejuvenation biotechnology. Meanwhile none-experts like myself do not need to be an expert to support it.
I can explain it in terms of a discussion about free will. It is a topic I have spent close to a thousand hours on and when I explain it, others do not always understand what I say to such an extent they learn something. Most of the time we are two unchanging arguments being sent again and again toward each other. Unless my words and expressions are exactly right and about exactly the right thing which stops them from accepting my conclusion, they still disregard the information I give them and still conclude their view is the correct one. Out of a thousand comments, only a rare few, like ten or twenty, actually conveys information. The others are like one saying “we do not have free will” in pages of words, and the other party going “we have free will” in lots of pages of words. Neither side gets a real reason to reexamine their position.
One in a thousand comments find out the problem, in this case the problem is usually that free will is something we see when the cause of events are not easily apparent. If the billiard ball is bounced around on a table with lots of other billiard-balls, its easy to see there is no free will because we can see exactly what causes all the movements of the billiard ball. If however the table and the other billiard balls are invisible and give no sound, the billiard ball we can see bouncing around appears to have free will and we feel the same as when we see a human deciding to do something.
Until the cause of the argument being rejected is found, it exerts such a powerful force on the mind of the person that he/she does not accept the other argument regardless of its quality. In this case the person still thinks “but I see free will, I feel free will, when I see someone decide between options, this supercede your arguments against free will even though your arguments are without fault”. Regardless of the quality of the arguments I use to prove there is no free will, the only argument that works is usually the one which shows how free will is an illusion.
When people experience to see and feel like it is free will when a human decide which road to take to work, but to see determinism at work when a ball rolls down a hill, they do not take the now obvious-to-us route and ask “why do a ball not look like free will but a human does look like he/she has free will?”. The common thing to do without this piece of idea is to invent lots of arguments, many rational and good and sane arguments, that try to prove to the person that free will exists, to rationalize the delusional observation. The reason for the arguments are inherently to rationalize delusional observations (the observation of free will in humans, the lack of free will in the ball is an observation that fits with reality) and thus these rationalizations are unable to truly explain what free will is to such an extent we can put free will in a ball, or laptop, or other products.
I think we should look for what similarly keeps people from wanting rejuvenation biotechnology. It is probably not rejuvenation biotechnology which is the problem. It is probably none of the arguments for and against rejuvenation biotechnology that is the real problem.
If you ask someone “what keeps you from wanting rejuvenation biotechnology?”, their answer will probably not be the correct one. Their answer will be based on the true answer, like in my experience with free will. When I asked them “what prevents you from accepting that free will does not exist?” they were not able to put into words that they “feel like” they see free will when the causes of events are not easily apparent to us. They invented another answer based on feeling like they see free will when the causes of events are not easily apparent to them.
I arrived at my insight into free will by trying a new way to argue it does not exist every time, making a point to try to not repeat previously made arguments, but it took several months of discussions with those who firmly believed in the existence of free will, before I gained the ultimate insight into why they refused to accept free will does not exist.
Somehow, someway, there’s something that supercede arguments in our minds, something first-hand that we experience which makes us think the arguments must be false even in circumstances where there are no faults in the arguments.
Even though the arguments are not at fault (they’re not experienced as wrong or irrational), this first-hand experience forces us to disregard the arguments in favor of some anti-argument stance. We must figure out what it is and how it works, so we can explain why we get this first-hand experience under certain circumstances while not under other circumstances where we are happy to accept the arguments. Similarly to how we experience some groups of atoms have free will under certain conditions but are perfectly happy to accept the arguments for determinism for other groups of atoms.
I think this shall be the “first-hand bias”. A bias that pushes us to disregard arguments however perfect when they conflict with first-hand experience. Most often without recognizing that we irrationally use first-hand experience in place of arguments, we then experience the delusion of being rational by disregarding the arguments that conflict with first-hand experience. No doubt this has its dosage of chemicals in the brain and certain neurological activity.
Type One: Two people using first-hand biases to disregard the other’s arguments will ultimately result in mostly irrational illogical arguments and fail to resolve anything.
Type Two: Then there is when one person who uses first-hand bias to argue against another which does not use this first-hand bias. This will ultimately lead to one side making irrational illogical arguments and the other will spend much time disproving them but not swaying the other party to accept the arguments from the none-biased party.
Type Three: Then there is the beautiful argument when two people without the first-hand bias trade arguments. Almost never bred in captivity its a rare creature to encounter.
Most day-to-day discussions between two none-experts in a subject are of the first type. Politics, facebook-arguments, etc, are type one arguments more often than not. When an expert discuss with a none-expert it is usually type two, and when two experts in the same subject discuss their expertise subject they can occasionally fall into type three discussions.
If you have an experience that tells you otherwise than the argument made, that your experience is that first-hand experience only very rarely makes us disregard arguments, then you are sort of proving my point.
The conscious mind is something philosophy have struggled with for a long time, but today it is solved conceptually because of an understanding of neuroscience. I do not know of a source where it says what it actually is, therefore I must write one myself.
Consciousness consist of a few needs to qualify as consciousness. To be conscious of self, that is you can move your arm, sense it as your body and mind doing the moving, and to determine a reaction accordingly. And most will also demand consciousness needs the ability to compare past events with current events and project what the future might hold. On some level or another.
To be conscious of self is something apes, dogs, humans and a vast amount of other species show strong signs of doing. We don’t punch an apple when we reach to grab it, the brain determine the intent to grab the apple, the brain determines how we need to move from comparing past events to current events, but more importantly by projecting how the future will be without further intervention, and then the brain projects what have to happen for us to successfully grab the apple. The brain then determines how much the arm has to move, signals muscles to move, the brain senses the actions of the muscles moving the arm, the eyes and other senses see how far the arm has come on its journey towards the apple, the brain compares it to past events and projects what will happen in the future with this trajectory of movement, and determines to change the speed at which the muscles move the arm. This is repeated several times, but seeing as humans generally only see about 24 frames per second, humans probably don’t go above 24 such cycles most of the time, though one cycle is probably a tad more complex than this example (Only in number of actions, as there are 85 billion neurons, so there can be trillions of firing actions in a single cycle). I will refer to each such cycle that happens in 1/24 of a second as “1 cycle” down the line.
Clearly consciousness is something that is common. Consciousness of self in the traditional sense, as in “I can think”, does not exist. It is merely an extension of the previously explained cycles, but with more sensory input sources, and more ability for comparing and contrasting, and last but not least, more ability to selectively choose what is and is not relevant to remember down the road.
For example, chess grand masters use the perhaps 1 cycle long reaction of a well-trained skier or fencer, and knows the optimal thing to do instantly. Those that are not good at skiing or chess, or not good at fencing, will have to compare and contrast with very few relevant past events, and subsequently a very low ability to project what will happen in the future with and without intervention, and especially bad at projecting what the body needs to do to get a positive future outcome. For example, a bad fencer or skier might know immediately that something bad will happen, like getting struck by a sword or falling down, and might even in spite of little experience be able to project which body part it will impact and how he will fall down on the skis, but it will be almost impossible to successfully determine how to react in a way that stops the impact of the sword, or which stops him from falling down while skiing. This can be shown in any number of ways in any number of species. Practice makes perfect, and just as you don’t remember every stone in the road, but lets say faces, a bee or mouse will only remember something relevant to its survival, like the smell of other mice, color of flowers with nectar, but it will forget most everything else, not because it does not have the capacity to remember, but because much of what the brain does is to forget unimportant things, things that have not improved chances of survival for any individual mice, bees or humans that remembered those things (it is about efficiency, life naturally evolve to not spend energy on that which costs more than it gives in survival ability, bees only do what bees do to survive, they don’t have board-room meetings or vacation days. In the case of humans such things have flourished because it did not decrease survival in later decades).
How this becomes more complex is for example by adding a sense that senses past negative outcomes, or more specifically, the actions that lead to negative outcomes. Then it is far more likely that you will not repeat an action that lead to a negative outcome twice, even if the action can be relevant in many scenarios. So if an action leads to a negative outcome in one scenario, you are hesitant to perform that action even if it is a rationally sound action in another scenario. So if betting on red at the tables in Las Vegas lost you a lot of money, you might be hesitant to choose a red car for no particular rational, intelligent reason. We observe this every day, when we choose one brand of shoes over another it is not unlikely it is because we irrationally hesitate to choose the other options because of memories from our past. We have an opposite sense, or perhaps it is considered the same sense, which sense what actions that lead to positive outcomes. But seeing as positive outcomes is slightly more difficult to sense, simply doing a thing today, and if you are here tomorrow, that thing you did today might be perceived as a good act more often than is healthy for us. So for example, if you ski at an early age, chances are higher that you will ski again in your life, even after accounting for variables that affect the statistics like having skis or living near snow. Even though skiing in itself give very little positive outcomes, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, simply doing something and not dieing will in some cases be more positive than negative. My hypothesis on the matter is that many species have evolved some form of actions that increase psychological well-being (skiing and many other physical activities make the brain release lots of reward-chemicals and subsequently increases what we define as happiness, and happiness is shown to increase level of activity, which means it helped the species with happiness to survive by making them have a high level of activity which made them happy which made them have a high level of activity). And familiar routines might be part of that, so that is likely much of the reason why you for example drink coffee, tea, neither or both, when you do and not when you don’t.
In consciousness there is often the “we can talk and communicate ideas” argument. But it is also an expansion of the cycles in the third paragraph. We say things that brought positive outcomes before, hesitate to say things that brought negative outcomes before. That is why we avoid certain words and use of language, like curses and certain subjects like tabus, and also why we often use certain words like greetings and subjects like the weather, that almost never give a negative outcome. The only difference in an ape doing this, by avoiding falling off a tree or avoiding to make the alpha male aggressive, and a human doing this, by avoiding to fall on the ice and to avoid making the boss aggressive, is only in that the language we use is different. As apes and many other animals have the larrings to form sounds like human language, they lack that genetic trait in their brains, to group feelings, images, groups of images, as remembered sounds, so they have far more reliance on body-language (though humans have more body language) and think by feelings, pictures and some sound, instead of words. For example, when they see a fruit, their favorite fruit, they probably have the ability to think “that is a good feeling, I must take it before someone else”, only it does it more in images and feelings than sounds of words (many, not all, humans think sounds, in the form of words, as well as pictures and sound like notes and noise). The ape also has the ability to think how it can get that fruit from its current location, where it must go, climb, who it must not alert etc.
The gorilla Koko could also communicate ideas, for example, it tried to claim it was its pet cat that ripped a sink off the wall. So it is apparent gorillas can lie too, which is far more complex than simply communicating a concept.
By the way, grouping feelings, actions, scenarios etc as sounds, what we call language, has a genetic basis in humans because we at some point began to make slightly less offspring if we had less ability to communicate, not because we’re somehow special or smarter, but simply because we were lucky some cultural phenomenon took hold many thousands of years ago.
Speaking of cultural phenomenon. Some use culture as evidence for consciousness, but young apes play, and cling to their mothers when their mothers gather food, that’s education. The apes spend much effort finding food, that is a job. Some look for dangers while others look for food, then they switch, that’s an economy (though not capitalistic I know, perhaps a bit communistic even). Give them several million more years to evolve, and they might think they’re the center of the universe as well, because that is after all how it looks to your perspective everywhere you stand.
To summarize, consciousness is a simple concept, a simple causal physical line of reactions, but its results are complex and you can probably continue to add angles to it for a thousand years. Like fractal mathematics, extremely simple, but if you let it run its course millions of generations it will form an image of borderline infinite complexity. But given the efficiency of life, since inefficient have a tendency to have a worse survival rate than what is slightly more efficient, it will never gain the kind of complexity we often believe about ourselves. Unless it is artificially imposed. In the future, we will make ourselves so intelligent and genetically superior to apes as we like to think we are today. But until then, we must realize why we avoid some things and seek other things. Like trying not to think about for example aging. If we thought about dieing every day, and talked about dieing, and what can be done to stop it, then politicians would not treat health nearly as a taboo. Scientists have working theories on how to stop almost 98% of the causes of death (2.84% of deaths in 2002 were intentional, war, violence, suicide, etc), and working theories on how to begin to stop aging as we know it from existing.
But even I, who often know exactly why I find some things uncomfortable, find it uncomfortable to mention life extension to those older than myself, those with less life left than myself. Because if I somehow make them snap out of the delusion that they have a soul that will live forever after they are dead, they might go bananas (and arguably ironically sometimes realizing ones own mortality leads to becoming suicidal, which I have close to zero understanding of thus far). I have not managed to find a way to make it ethically right to do such a thing. So that leaves my consciousness to trying to get politicians (most older than me) to focus on life extension, without making them realize they are mortal beings without souls or some form of eternal life after the bank account is empty.
Is an answer a valid answer if the answer fails to answer the obvious question the answer makes nessesary?
Example; Statement A is true because Reason B. Given this very common form of argument, can reason B ever be true, or considered true, if one does not also give an answer to Reason C, which makes Reason B true? Any reason B given must question itself by giving a reason C which makes reason B is true, and a reason D which makes reason C true and so on, and conceed where the end of reasoning has come in the argument. For example, if argument A is true because Reason B, because Reason C, because Reason D, but has no scientifically or logically valid Reason yet to make Reason D true, it should be pointed out, by the defending side of an argument (the one with burden of evidence), and any argumenter that does not do this readily, should be dismissed until such time atleast an end of reasoning is given. Though this does give room for Reason B1, Reason B2 etc so one can give more of one type of evidence (for example if a fossil is Reason B1, you can add more fossils as B2, B3 etc).
This should speed up argumentation in arguments that commonly only defend statement A with Reason B, without no thought to Reason C, Reason D, or that the line of reasons B, C, D, E etc exist at all (For example theism, tax-law, law, politics, psychology (those important psychologists without good scientific instruments still influence reasoning in that field heavily), public services (clamour for more money is rarely reasoned even as far as Reason B), lobbying (its very easy for anyone with time on their hands to say A is true because of Reason B, deregulate and tax corporations and the rich less (which is the problem in the majority of the economy-crisis -stricken nations)), corporate public relations and a thousand other things not too acsociated with the science of argumentation).
Psychology is often misunderstood, and all too often the word “mind” holds an almost theistic meaning. But there is a science behind what I must say in an argument with someone else, to get that someone else to change his mind, if what I am arguing is true or not only changes the difficulty.
For example, how do one get someone that believes in “chemtrails” to see reason, which is that the streaks after jet airplanes make the water in the air the airplane passes through to condense into clouds. How does one find a group of words that will be successful in convincing someone that does not believe this? Because if I say “this is rubbish, no one has ever found chemicals in these trails beyond what the fuel combustion releases”, it is almost guaranteed to not work. Because they have hundreds of opinions and beliefs they believe are facts about the world based on the one opinion that someone pays for filling up airplanes with thousands of tons of chemicals every year that they release all over the world from high altitude, and that no one on the inside ever dares speak of it. How does one make an argument that does not get rejected? The problem is not the facts or logic you convey, but how you convey it. I have for example found that most arguments get rejected not because of lacking logic or reason in the argument, but because the person who is told an argument think it will lower his/her social standing to agree, or a million other reasons that has nothing to do with what is being argued. A wrong use of the word “you” and the most well-spoken, well-reasoned, logical and scientifically proven argument gets rejected by the other side. This is merely a phenomena of human nature and nurture and should not be mistaken as “the one I argue with are all stupid and incapable of accepting facts”, because you also have this phenomena, the point you should take from this is that it is your mistake as an argumenter if you can not form a sentence that will get the other side to accept your argument. We are all subject to the laws of physics so rigid that a key can exist which never fits a certain lock, your words are as a key and the other person is like the lock, without the right key, the lock never fits, without changing your own lock, you never really understand what the other side is arguing, nor will you use the other side’s argument for all that it is worth, and without changing the key you try without the purpose of making a key that fits as a goal, you will fail. To argue merely to argue, without the goal to actually convince people of your view, is as useless as talking to yourself.
I hope you apply the science of forming an argument with the psychology of accepting arguments in your mind, because without it, ignorance will flourish as the children of ignorant people also adopt ignorant ways without us becoming better at arguing with ignorant people.
I also hope you keep in mind that we are born like blank slates, with nature-derived biases from evolution, but with no knowledge, and that we learn the same information at school (if we are A students, otherwise it will be some unique portion we do not know), so there should be a universal way of convincing someone to accept your argument, but only as far as for those that learned the same things in school. So people from different nations will be quite different, for good and bad. There will also be some difference from one class to another, from one town to another, from one school reform to another, and from one parent to another, from one grandparent to another etc. All the people and experiences in the lives of the person you are trying to get to accept your argument, will affect how you can get the person to accept your argument. So there will be some experiences that are very easy to base an argument from, easy as they will easily accept your argument, and there will be things that are very difficult to base arguments on, difficult as they will most often reject your argument regardless of what it says. An example; The trees are red, is an argument. They will reject this argument if they have experienced green trees, or if many people they know have said trees are green. So regardless of what you say, yellow trees, ultraviolet trees etc, it will be rejected. Most arguments for why trees are another color will be rejected no matter how much sense they make, how much evidence they present, and it is statistically almost impossible to get someone that believe trees are green to believe that trees are not green, if you use an un-enlightened approach to argumentation. It is the same with religion. They have lived inside religion, experiencing green trees so to speak, experiencing people they know and respect and trust saying trees are green etc. But, this does not mean it is impossible to figure out an argument that they will accept. Otherwise no one would have ever believed the planet went around the sun. Because the sky would look the same if the planet went around the sun or the sun went around the planet, both claims are to the senses of humans equally true. But somehow the facts were enough to change what the children experienced as truth from one to the other, perhaps without their parents accepting the new view and the children mostly only accepting the new view because the old view weren’t presented first. A study of how the world went from accepting an earth-centered universe to a sun-centered universe, could do wonders to the science of argumentation.