How to present advanced views to regular people?

[Keryo Koffa]

Empathy, Patience, Humility appear to be good starting points but perhaps
you'll appreciate my post on this question I myself contemplated with GPT.

[Infinite Tsukuyomi]

Instead of presenting the advanced view to them, try:

-Asking them powerful questions

-Putting them through a visualization 

[LambdaDelta]

Miracles such as reaching an actual understanding might be a bit much to hope for. The next best thing is to say your piece in a way that can inspire curiosity without causing conflict. For both your sakes there must be complete detachment from the outcome. On the off-chance someone is at all receptive to begin with, they might reach entirely different conclusions in the end. All your focus on avoiding conflict should be directed at the other person. Whether you yourself are viewed as sexist or deluded is of no consequence. If you possess the truth, then that's unshakable and unchanging, nothing can cut it, you can listen to all they have to say calmly. Sometimes that might entail appearing as an ignorant fence-sitter that has no particular opinions on anything, but what of it? Instances where the other party is in such a bad epistemic position that breaking down their fantasy by force is the more loving course of action are few and far between, it's more likely that unnecessary insistence will cause discomfort and further close down the mind. That's something everyone instinctually knows, the more fervently one argues for their position the less they themselves are confident in it. 

An important distinction is whether the communication is not working due to your own failures, or the other person's narrow-mindedness. How would you truly tell the difference? It's rarely as apparent as it might seem. If nothing else, use them as a feedback tool to consolidate the understanding clearer in your own mind, chances are you'll close some gaps, find a simpler articulation, or come up with poignant examples/metaphors. 

Unless dealing with a serious person that does radical independent inquiry, expect any progress reached to be undone, sometimes in a matter of days. Survival pressures and pre-existing beliefs will overwhelm it in a flash. In one ear and out the other. Length of the session is irrelevant here, you could be talking for 3 hours straight and the result won't change. It's an issue almost too fundamental to overcome. Hardly any topic you can bring up will be seen as life-changing to seriously consider, at best it's intellectually stimulating. We might live and breathe philosophy, but everyone else does not. And if it can be considered life-changing, then it's going to be perceived as a threat and shut down. If truth is not already held as the highest value, at least unconsciously, then you're at an impasse. 

[Wisebaxter]

I think that learning the levels within spiral dynamics would help. Discovering how that person's non objective processes work. Harder to do if they're a stranger and you're limited for time. The key could be asking a lot of questions so you get them to solve the problem themselves. 

I'd love to be able to do this masterfully. 

[Basman]

On 21/05/2025 at 11:15 PM, Davino said:

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.

At least in this example you lack full context to what you mean. You could easily read this as sexism being good in of itself since you don't seem to fully explain how social construction relates to survival. Like a sort of naturalism argument which is an ethical justification, but is of course not what you meant at all. 

It is worth remembering that for non-philosophy freaks like us concepts like levels of development, moral relativity, how the mind creates reality, etc. are completely foreign. It took years of watching Actualized stuff and your own contemplation to reach your level of understanding, so without presenting the whole context of your ideas they will tend to get lost in translation with people who's philosophy is predicated largely on cultural memes.

I hope I didn't come off as too preachy. This is a suggestion as much for myself as it is for others.

 

[Ulax]

On 21/05/2025 at 10:15 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?

Here is my take.

Firstly, focus on asking open ended question and validating there response. By validating you don’t have to agree, you can just show that understanding of why they might have a certain attitude. For example, if someone says they ‘hate right wingers because they always talk about immigration and it’s really just them being racist’, you can say ‘I see. That makes sense to me why you might feel hatred towards people who you believe are acting in a racist way’. 
 

Secondly, with the open ended questions you can ask them questions whose answers require exploring why these people that they judge act in that way. Ie ‘they believe that because they are racist’ then ask ‘where do you think their racism comes from’. And now you slowly introduce the frame that there is always some understandable cause for why people act or think as they do. Therefore you shift the discussion into tier 2 territory. 
 

Thirdly, you you start pushing the discussion towards what factors could cause people to engage in better behaviour. Now you are moving more into discussion of how to change systems of course and effect. For example, can say, “I wonder where racism actually comes from. Is it something learn from where they grew up? What do you think?’.
 

Fourthly, continue the discussion and every time they fall back into judgment, validate their belief without agreeing with it and then shift back into questioning where that behaviour comes from and what factors are needed to change that behaviour. For example, they say ‘They just grow up in communities full of horrible, backwards people I think. It makes me sick!’ You can reply, ‘It makes sense to me why you would feel sickened by the thought of those sorts of communities [validation]. The idea of that sort of community sounds horrible to me too. I wonder how communities even get like that. How can some places produce cultures of inclusivity, eduction and equality, and some produce cultures of hatred, and exclusion. I wonder what factors make the difference. [shifting frame from judgment to understanding cause-and-effect relationships].’

So, without ever even challenging any of their points you have had a discussion that has led to the other person to start to think about root causes of behaviour and systems of cause and effect. 

Fifthly, you can then bring in your own stage yellow and above models now that the discussion has the underlying frame of systems thinking. 

This is just me theorising. But I think in hypothesis it could be a useful model.

[Rafael Thundercat]

One day I had a encounter with two Mórmon missionaries and when they told me that the Book of Mórmon is True I agree with them. I held the book in my hand and said: See, is true  is here, i can rotate it,flip  it have colors a shape and a sound when I hit it. 

I was trying to bring awareness to direct consciousness but they could not grasp it. Was like I was being to obvious.