It's a question of moral responsibility. If you cause someone to make a major change in their life, surely you'd agree that you bear at least part of the responsibility for the outcome. It's the same with changing govt. Doesn't necessarily mean the only choice is doing nothing. But that you must weigh outcomes realistically, not idealistically.

I have to disagree with this point in this context. "Changing someone's mind" is a collaborative act. If you change someone's mind about something important, they are more responsible for the change than you are, because they have more power than you over the change. You don't own the beliefs of others.

Share information when you have it. Maximize peoples' opportunities to hold informed beliefs.

It’s sounds like you simply misread the comment you replied to, and the two of you agree.

No. Parent was saying you have to weigh the consequences of changing someone's mind. That's the part I disagree with, unless of course they're children. You shouldn't censor your ideas for fear of harming adults, in the name of "realism" or otherwise.

They said the instigator bears some responsibility, you replied the majority of the responsibility lies with the one whose mind was changed. These views do not seem in opposition to me.

Surely one must weigh the consequences of changing another’s mind. If there are extreme detrimental effects, perhaps it is not proper to do so.

That is inherently paternalistic and sounds reminiscent of colonial attitudes. The claim is that we're protecting the listener from the impact of their own decisions on their own life.

If you believe you can change an adult's mind in a normal situation (for example, we are not including someone isolated through prison, cults, etc. or of diminished mental capacity) then you're claiming the ability to change their mind to their detriment and their inability to see the impact of that change.

In this situation, you have done something to them like the Pied Piper, leading them away from community...except that the pied piper was only able to lead children.

I imagine the line is different for different people, but it could very well impact more than just their life. Say, for example, you have a colleague who is convinced his wife is faithful, but by coincidence you saw her at a bar with a gentleman and quite clearly it was romantic in nature. Do you mention it? When he doesn't believe you, do you try to convince him? What if he is short tempered and known to have a violent side? To be clear, I am not advocating any particular course of action here, just acknowledging there are situations where it is tricky.

The majority of the parent comment is focused on situations where you look to change someone's thinking in an expansive way. New ideas, new philosophies, new ways of thinking...

We could push the boundaries of this and say I am trying to convince a man of something that may or may not be true for his own good.

In the hypothetical you allude to: with just one observation, no matter how compellingly I've stated and restated it, his actions are his own. Otherwise you're suggesting that I told a man I saw his wife at the bar with another man and his actions are attributable to me. At that point how does one even interact in society? Frankly, anyone might be a powder keg given the day.

If we go back to some concerted effort to prove my observation leads to my conclusion which I'm pushing him to believe, I think we've exited "gentler, better" to straight up malicious.

> They said the instigator bears some responsibility, you replied the majority of the responsibility lies with the one whose mind was changed. These views do not seem in opposition to me.

I'm saying you bear no responsibility for the beliefs another develops based on information you offer, provided that said information isn't intended to manipulate or mislead. It is not a scalable perspective no matter the degree. Artists, for instance, can't worry about the mental state of every member of there audience, even to a tiny degree. This is in opposition to the parent's point.

Changing someone's mind is not equivalent to making them take action that will have negative consequences.