“Entitled” to an opinion

People experience  as a result of the process that they go through when they encounter information that contradicts their preexisting beliefs.

When people argue strongly enough against unwelcome information, they end up, in their mind, with more arguments that support their original stance.

If you’re trying to explain to someone the issues with their stance, you can mitigate the backfire effect by presenting new information in a way that encourages the other person to consider and internalize that information, instead of rejecting it outright.

In order for you to contribute to an ongoing discussion, you must be paying attention to the points that your classmates are bringing to the table. 

Remember how it felt when others were actively listening to you by showing the same respect to others when they speak.

If you notice that you are speaking up more than your classmates, take a step back to allow others’ opinions to be represented. 

If you notice that you are offering fewer points in the discussion, speak up — your opinions are valued.

Though science has helped humanity for centuries, it is not fully trusted. Part of the reason is that scientific knowledge is incomplete.

It is often resisted by a section of people, who don’t believe in vaccines, climate change, or the man-made genetic advancement in crops. As an example, many families believe vaccination causes autism in children, and no matter what is done to counter it, the belief is stuck in people’s brains.

Many people from all sections of society do not trust in science, as they don’t trust the authority of the scientific community. The Pseudo Scientists try to debunk science by:

• Arguing that the entire scientific consensus is a conspiracy.
• Getting fake experts to produce information that contradicts scientific findings.
• Argue using selective data, and using a small example to discredit the entire field.
• Deploying false analogies and other fallacies that appear logical.
• Setting impossible expectations and counter-arguments towards the scientists.

Rather than be opinionated, we should strive to be informed.

We should know the other side’s argument better than they know theirs. Instead of attacking a straw man, aim to knock down the strongest version of an argument you disagree with.

“I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don’t know the other side’s argument better than they do.”

This is a weak case (similar to the Straw man arguments) attributed to a non-existent group: Someone will fabricate a viewpoint that is easy to contradict, then claim it was made by a group they disagree with. Arguing against an opponent which doesn’t exist is a pretty easy way to win any debate.

People who use hollow man arguments will often use vague, non-specific language without explicitly giving any sources or stating who their opponent is.

It is designed to be resistant to attacks by a defier.There arguments are difficult to avoid because they have a lot of overlap with legitimate debate techniques.

A person using an iron man argument will most likely make their own viewpoint so vague that nothing anyone says about it can weaken it. They’ll use jargon and imprecise terms. This means they can claim anyone who disagrees didn’t understand them, or they’ll rephrase their argument multiple times.

Denial refers to the rejection or diminution of a phenomenon that has a large and even overwhelming body of supporting evidence.

Cognitive dissonance is a negative, tensed emotional state that is caused by holding beliefs or behaviors that are inconsistent with one another.

Because cognitive dissonance brings discomfort, we try to escape it. There are 2 options to get rid of it: to change a behavior or to change a belief. Most people choose the second option.

Things that are rare and dwindling become more attractive and are perceived as more valuable. The less we write, the more valuable our writing becomes. 

Refrain from responding immediately. If another recipient should answer, give the person the right of first response. Ask yourself:

• Do I need to send this now?
• If not, do I need to send it at all?
• If so, does more than one person really need it?

We long for clarity and for other people to say what they mean in as few words as possible.

Making wordy sentences that lose their fluency due to needless complexity in a text negatively affects the receiver of your message. In short: big is bad.

• Suspense and “cliffhangers” allow you to create an addictive narrative;
• Creating detailed imagery;
• Using literary techniques for turning simple stories into memorable works of art.
• Change made easier by providing an example.
  

• Delivery: matters as much as the content.
• Imagery:  the brain “lights up” in reacting to imagery, truly transporting the reader to the events being described. 
• Realism: poeple need a “human” element in the story that is easy for them to imagine.
• Structure: people prefer stories that follow a logical manner.
• Context: significant impact on the persuasiveness of a story.
• Audience: determine who you don’t want reading your content along with who you do.

Our existence is invaded by science and technology as never before. For many of us, this brings comfort and rewards, but this existence is also more complicated and sometimes agitated.

Our lives are full of real and imaginary risks, and distinguishing between them isn’t easy. We have to be able to decide what to believe and how to act on that.

“Science is not a body of facts. Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.”

We hate being wrong, but mistakes often teach us the most and allow us to innovate.

Think of the pros and cons of trying something and then free yourself to do it. If it doesn't work, take what you learn, and try something else. 

The persona of the fool allows the truth to be told, without the usual ramifications that might come with speaking against social conventions. Give yourself permission to be a fool and see things for what they really are.