Sign into an existing account

To change somebody's mind and you have got to do it before you make them emotionally publicly commit to a position. That's a very very tricky balance. But if you can get the fact into their brain to change their mind somehow before they have made a commitment publicly to a stance then their emotional defensive reaction won't hinder them from taking a new information.

One of the ways to do that is literally to tell them you have new information. What that does is let them be less emotionally attached to the previous information that they had so you're not fighting them on what they believe about something they already know. You're telling them no this is a new situation you have not yet made an emotional commitment to here is the new information.

Your last point is solid

Here's a thought.

Assume that emotional behavior and cognitive behavior are not intrinsically different for a moment. Instead, assume they're both constitutively social functions. Emotions are one way of sharing with other people (being in a relation to others) and language/concepts are another way.

The dualism whereby "logic" and "reason" become some metaphysical connection to more fundamental reality is probably nonsense. They're just different ways of relating to another social being.

And it isn't all good or all bad. It's not "either/or". There's no non-empty case to be made that the "higher" brain is good and the "lower" brain is bad (and vice versa). There are ways of relating to others linguistically that produce flourishing and may mitigate some of the utility of the emotional strategies. There are ways of relating to others emotionally that result in benefits that the concept-trading brain doesn't.

Extremes are probably bad. E.g., you get too conceptual, and the succor of life dries up. You get to emotional, and things can't be stabilized.

The difficulty arises from the fact that, while there is some overlap in utility, there are large regions of utility associated with both modes that are non-overlapping and competitive. Niggers will call you soulless. You'll call niggers stupid.

Investing too much in any strategy tends to result in bad outcomes. Look at what happened to Christianity beginning in the middle ages. They killed God.

The only answer is to decide what means the most to you and find people who are likeminded and prefer to act in the same ways that you do.

The "higher" brain is always serving the "lower". For everybody. There is no privileged access to some absolute: the "lower" brain doesn't decide so that the "higher" brain can rationalize the choice because the "higher" brain isn't a neutral logic machine. They both serve the same master: community and interpersonal relations. It's all social - connection to others is God. Your experience of God is your people and your shared language and practices. We evolved both "systems" or capabilities for the same fundamental service, the cognitive just expands us into a linguistic space that is less heavy-handed, slower, and adaptive when working in tandem with emotion than in the case of an organism that lacks a neocortex. (I think it is plausible that humans could become less adaptive under certain conditions where we become too voluntary and "too cognitive"). A bone saw and a scalpel both serve the same purpose generally speaking, but a surgeon who has both is better.

True, typically the closest they get is “well that would mean everything i know is a lie”
And instead of that waking them up, they use it as a reason to double down.

Actually, it can happen. Long time ago like 15-20 years ago everyone was not filled with mind viruses and everything wasn't politicized and i got such sentence out couple of times from various people, but thinking back now it wasn't about politics nor about current thing.