Oh sure, no doubt others are so wrong and the struggle is so real.

It is easy to see the flaw in others' arguments, but the true challenge is to identify your own biases and irrational worldviews.

> Oh sure, no doubt others are so wrong and the struggle is so real.

And sometimes you ARE objectively right. Truth DOES exist.

This false equivalence that social validation is equivalent to being correct is what got us to this point.

And that's the trick to finding your own biases. Which of your beliefs are based on "social validation" rather than any notion of evidence? Which of your beliefs requires you to dismiss actual facts to the contrary?

And what if you wouldn't be able to interpret evidence (either way) correctly because you don't have the skill for that ?

Because that's the case in 99.99% of topics, at least for me.

Additionally, what if one's education would, if honestly evaluated, conflict with widely held political views ? What if it is perceived that they may lead to policy changes ?

For instance, taking two points that are sure to be controversial here:

Among psychologists there was a long drawn-out fight about whether being shown violence (tv, video games) causes people to be more violent. That fight is over (there are extremely thorough and long duration studies available). The answer is yes, being shown violence, especially as a child, makes you more violent. Participating in violence does the same, but more so (ie. video games, and keep in mind these are decade long studies. We're talking about things like duke nukem (NON-3d version), and other ancient games, including believe it or not tetris. Not that one game was studied in isolation) (It also seems rather unclear how someone could honestly believe at this point that games like DOOM aren't worse). Participating, or being victimized, in real violence (ie. living in a bad neighbourhood) even more. Exposure to criminal acts makes people more criminal. And yes, that includes the victims.

> but the true challenge is to identify your own biases and irrational worldviews

You're right.

But it's been my experience that the people who harp on this point are the same people who insist that:

  - there is no such thing as objective truth
  - it is not possible to be unbiased or objective

They almost universally hold that those "truths" constitute grounds for dismissing inconvenient facts, as well as for denying incoherence/inconsistencies in their belief systems.

>However, you have to tell me up front what evidence you will accept that your position is wrong.

Do you reciprocate and state ahead of this what evidence will make you accept that your position is wrong?

This is a pretty ironic comment though. The article is basically arguing that our views, to a large degree, are based on our previous held ideas and that the way to remedy that is by taking a more complex and serious view of things. And now you're essentially saying "ignore that, here's what I think" in reference to the article.

Except that this doesn't work. Or, perhaps more appropriately, it doesn't work faster than the forces spewing misinformation work. Converting people one at a time doesn't work when the opposition is converting them via mass media.

> This doesn't address the problem of how to deal with someone who doesn't WANT to correct their worldview.

I found the article went to great lengths to explain why someone might not want to correct their world view. It then proceeded to give some examples of how you might work around that (avoid tribalism, change your own attitude, demonstrate that you're invested in/impacted by the question at hand). Empathy for the other person seems to be the general approach.

I found How to Win Friends and Influence People to be a good read for more examples. https://www.amazon.ca/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/06...