How to present advanced views to regular people?

[Davino]

I'm encountering the following problem, I've learnt to remain silent and keep things to myself but what happens when, while interacting, people directly ask me for my understanding on a certain topic. It happens to be the case that my views are quite different than those from regular folks, so I struggle to present my perspective so that it reaches the other mind.

Let's say we talk about sexism. The other person is stage green and feels so advanced for deconstructing male chauvinism yet I point out that genre/role deconstruction in this sense finally reaches a rock bottom and society will have to deal with that. In fact being that ground, the original primordial cause from which, like dust, social construction was built upon for millennia. Yet I get accused of being sexist. I'm aware this is the pre-trans fallacy and little more can be done.

My point is that right now, I've invested years of philosophical inquiry to have an accurate understandings of many facets of reality, while most people operate by group-think. I'm really contemplating how I can have conversations when people ask me directly. I definitely make them think twice about their whole worldview but it also comes with dangers to my persona and the challenge to work through many mind layers of the other person, or even worse, a group.

Do you have any advice? How do you deal with these situations? On the one hand, I don't wanna conform but on the other I can't be blunt either. How do you strike the right balance in these situations?

Edited Thursday at 06:49 AM by Davino

[aurum]

@Davino

Keep it simple and just try to meet them where they are at.

It's like being a good teacher in anything. You have to know what is and what isn't appropriate to share.

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:21 PM by aurum

[Hojo]

You need the personality type of fool/wise sage. Don't take anything seriously and don't be afraid to be seen as a fool. You can say whatever you want, if people ask for your opinion and then calling you names for your opinion, they are rage Baiting so call them an idiot.

I talk to people about controversial topics all the time and have never been attacked because I clearly state at the end,  I don't know anything and I'm a retard.

Ie

Trans people are mentally ill and cutting off your penis is fucked up. But I am an idiot and I don't know anything. 

Now they will agree with you.

If you talk to them alot and are smart they will see it with other topics you talk about.

Edited Wednesday at 10:12 PM by Hojo

[LastThursday]

It's often better to keep the level of abstraction down by giving examples, anecdotes or telling a story. Because, it's easier for someone to dismiss something they don't understand, either by entrenching their position or by not engaging with your ideas. But that does require more skill on your part. When you know ideas really well, there's a tendency towards abstraction and a belief that your audience understands you.

[Jacob Morres]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

@Davino

Keep it simple and just try to meet them where they are at.

It's like being a good teacher in anything. You have to know what is and what isn't appropriate to share.

 

I agree with aurum here. You might have to gently nudge them in the right direction. 

Like bring up a small contemplative question and see how they respond 

It seems more of a emotional & social approach 

Edited Thursday at 12:52 AM by Jacob Morres

[Carl-Richard]

Don't. Keep yourself as simple as possible and you'll fail at even that.

EDIT:

I only read the title. If somebody asks me "what do you think about sexism?", I don't know how to answer that. I don't think it's a question you usually get asked (feel free to expand on what you were actually asked). It's more the case that you talk about something and the topic of sexism comes up and they spin their story and then you just give a thought related to it. It doesn't have to be "the deepest most amazing" view, that's not what pops up in my mind.

When you usually talk to people, your mind naturally tunes in to their level, unless you feel some kind of drive or compulsion to share something else. And if you do and they look at you sideways, it was probably not for the right reasons. In a conversation, the focus is really always on what the other person needs or wants or thinks. If you present something way outside their wheelhouse, you're not really tuned in to the conversation. Just do whatever "feels" right. If it feels icky to present them with some odd view you have, don't.

Edited Thursday at 05:35 AM by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I agree with @aurum here. 

Adding on - ask lots of probing questions. You need to get a good idea of where the person is at, and be adept at altering your ability to teach a subject based on their knowledge/development. So much of teaching is your ability to meet the student where they are at.

It is a huge asset if you are a systems thinker, or very intuitive. The ability to view a topic from top down (the forest) and from bottom up (trees) is an asset, as some people grasp concepts from an overall perspective, and some prefer to work with details before they nut out an overall top view. If someone isn't able to grasp a concept, it usually stems from some foundational error they are haven't fully accommodated. 

The ability to switch perspectives and understand all sides to a problem is key.

Some people have hard limits to their ability - you will find these out when you start to try to teach them, after you have an idea of their basic knowledge.

If you are good at metaphor & simile this can often assist when someone cannot understand a concept.

My experience is based off being a maths tutor (algebra, fuck pure maths yo), general personal coaching & training others in construction management. 

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

My experience is based off being a maths tutor (algebra, fuck pure maths yo)

Why you hating on pure maths 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

56 minutes ago, aurum said:

Why you hating on pure maths 

HATES IT

I think it is because my brain just happens to like having real world problems described, and then working out variables & relations from there to solve an application problem. Also I went as far as second year physics at university - so most of my knowledge is in application. I very much visualise the problem and then break it down to solve. I have trouble visualising proofs... 

Proofs sent my mind in circles - although I am confident with time and practice - I would be able to master them.

But yes... HATES IT

[aurum]

46 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

HATES IT

I think it is because my brain just happens to like having real world problems described, and then working out variables & relations from there to solve an application problem. Also I went as far as second year physics at university - so most of my knowledge is in application. I very much visualise the problem and then break it down to solve. I have trouble visualising proofs... 

Proofs sent my mind in circles - although I am confident with time and practice - I would be able to master them.

But yes... HATES IT

Fine.

You avoid math jail this time 

[Davino]

7 hours ago, Hojo said:

I have never been attacked because I clearly state at the end,  I don't know anything and I'm a retard.

Trans people are mentally ill and cutting off your penis is fucked up. But I am an idiot and I don't know anything. 

Now they will agree with you.

I found this strategy hilarious 

[Davino]

8 hours ago, LastThursday said:

It's often better to keep the level of abstraction down by giving examples, anecdotes or telling a story. Because, it's easier for someone to dismiss something they don't understand, either by entrenching their position or by not engaging with your ideas. But that does require more skill on your part. When you know ideas really well, there's a tendency towards abstraction and a belief that your audience understands you.

You're so right. I encounter this problem often. In the spectrum from tangible to abstract my mind is very abstract. I feel like giving examples would enhance a lot my communication skills. It just doesn't come as naturally but it has worked me well when I've taken the effort to find powerful examples.

[Davino]

@Carl-Richard Maybe more context is needed. We were reading a 'philosophical' text on sexism in french and Italian language class. After the explicit understanding we went deeper and I was asked good inquiries on the topic. I wasn't directly called out sexist because I expressed myself more or less correctly, but they said my view could easily be misinterpreted as sexist and that I should be careful, which is true. So it got me thinking.

[Davino]

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Some people have hard limits to their ability - you will find these out when you start to try to teach them, after you have an idea of their basic knowledge.

If you are good at metaphor & simile this can often assist when someone cannot understand a concept.

I see. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

[Davino]

Another big factor is time. If we have 2 dedicated hours to discuss the topic, then I'll be able to present my nuanced view. However, most casual conversations are 10min long for topic at best. This presents a very hard restriction on high quality communication.

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, Davino said:

@Carl-Richard Maybe more context is needed. We were reading a 'philosophical' text on sexism in french and Italian language class. After the explicit understanding we went deeper and I was asked good inquiries on the topic. I wasn't directly called out sexist because I expressed myself more or less correctly, but they said my view could easily be misinterpreted as sexist and that I should be careful, which is true. So it got me thinking.

Even in that situation, I would probably not present something undigestible to someone. If someone is able to digest something, it should be obvious. But maybe it takes practice. I remember I used to always talk about whatever I was interested in without considering almost anything about how the other person related to it (which is actually described as "autistic thinking"). Then I deliberately spent a long time trying to only talk about things that were highly relevant to the other person's interests (and skills and capacities). Now I'm very acutely aware of how someone will handle something when talking to them. And over time, as I run into people who do exactly the opposite (and some who are indeed actually autistic), it becomes more clear that this is exactly what I did and that it worked.

 

16 hours ago, Davino said:

Another big factor is time. If we have 2 dedicated hours to discuss the topic, then I'll be able to present my nuanced view. However, most casual conversations are 10min long for topic at best. This presents a very hard restriction on high quality communication.

Yeah, duh. The only time I've talked about idealism with someone else is when we were in each other's company for a couple of hours.

[Thought Art]

I don’t even wanna explain anything to anyone. 

[Davino]

58 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

I don’t even wanna explain anything to anyone. 

So what do you do when they consistently ask you?

[Cireeric]

On 21.5.2025 at 11:15 PM, Davino said:

I'm encountering the following problem, I've learnt to remain silent and keep things to myself but what happens when, while interacting, people directly ask me for my understanding on a certain topic. It happens to be the case that my views are quite different than those from regular folks, so I struggle to present my perspective so that it reaches the other mind.

Let's say we talk about sexism. The other person is stage green and feels so advanced for deconstructing male chauvinism yet I point out that genre/role deconstruction in this sense finally reaches a rock bottom and society will have to deal with that. In fact being that ground, the original primordial cause from which, like dust, social construction was built upon for millennia. Yet I get accused of being sexist. I'm aware this is the pre-trans fallacy and little more can be done.

My point is that right now, I've invested years of philosophical inquiry to have an accurate understandings of many facets of reality, while most people operate by group-think. I'm really contemplating how I can have conversations when people ask me directly. I definitely make them think twice about their whole worldview but it also comes with dangers to my persona and the challenge to work through many mind layers of the other person, or even worse, a group.

Do you have any advice? How do you deal with these situations? On the one hand, I don't wanna conform but on the other I can't be blunt either. How do you strike the right balance in these situations?

Great question! I have wrestled with this question many times in my journey. Over time you develop an increased sensitivity of how you can point people gently towards the higher perspective. Oftentimes it is impossible in one single conversation and only works through continuous conversations, where you slowly place the breadcrumps just one step before their feet. So you can slowly and gently influence over time and allow for an organic growth of understanding in your partner.

One technique that is helpful is to point out how you grappled with a certain question yourself and shared a similiar view as your counterpart. You  describe how you undergone the process towards a certain insight and by describing it give the other the possibility to go through the same process. Questions in a spirit of open inquiry are also always a good way to start a process of understanding in your partner and guide him to realizing the limitations in his own perspective. In both of these you kinda avoid resistence by putting yourself together in the same shoes and not you pointing at him.

Of course a certain amount of open-mindedness is necessary in your counterpart otherwise it will be a very difficult job.

Edited 5 hours ago by Cireeric

[Davino]

4 hours ago, Cireeric said:

One technique that is helpful is to point out how you grappled with a certain question yourself and shared a similiar view as your counterpart. You  describe how you undergone the process towards a certain insight and by describing it give the other the possibility to go through the same process.

Absolutely, this is the piece I was missing. Thanks a lot @Cireeric