I'm very open-minded and you can't prove I'm wrong

Me: I like to think I'm pretty open-minded. Braincraft: "Can I change your mind?" Me: lol no good luck with that. I'm stubborn as hell.

You forgot step 0: be calm, and if you're not, calm yourself down. When we're not calm we tend to fall into tribalism, are less open to changing our mind, have stronger confirmation bias, have less empathy, etc. etc. Being mentally ill (depression, mostly), I know I'm affected by it, and I'm glad therapy helps me be able to be more open-minded - it's something I've had much more before and missed having - and I still learned from the video I had and have room for growth - thank you!

It's fascinating how your work ended up demonstrating the outgroup homogeneity effect in action! I think we become so entrenched in the representations of lived experiences that we see through statistics, news, social media, articles, etc. that we forget how much nuance there really is in every process and way of living. When we're face to face with someone who represents more than just the isolated ideology that we disagree with, it becomes so much harder to "prove" our perceived intellectual/ideological superiority.

I spent 12 months learning about a new area of psychology to try and change minds. But am I the asshole? Lol idk lmk

I like Ryan. He seems like a pretty cool guy.

I'm moderately open-minded - not to the point my brain falls out, though ...

This is so interesting! You put words to some things I've been thinking and it was really interesting to watch you navigate all of this. I loved all of this

Fantastic video as always. Love the longer format. Worth the effort!

Based on what I've seen, the focus on storytelling in this episode doesn't focus enough on the root of things: social identification. The farmer did bring up early the social concern about someone not from his social circle trying to influence his dietary choices - so the "storytelling" approach probably needs to not just be about telling personal stories and learning, but actually inviting people to enter social groups. He also mentioned developing a relationship with a farmer that we trust - do you actually have a relationship with him? Are you buying his wares? Going to the same church? Hosting him if he travels for work trips? This is not just about "open-mindedness" - this is addressing more fundamental human needs.

Best video on your channel in years! Thank you!

The cows are the most intellectually humble character in the video

I believe the first sign of intellectual arrogance is trying to change someone else mind (unless they ask). Before judging why people think in a certain way, be curious about why they think in that way. It is important to know about data and statistics but also talk with people face to face. There's always a reason why people do what they do. By the way, I love your channel, very educational. 👌👌

This is a very interesting topic! I can be confidently wrong about things very often, and I have been struggling to learn how to approach such disagreements properly, because usually I will just avoid them. Your conversation with Ryan is a really good, authentic example of what humility looks like! Thank you for sharing that, and all the advice!

After many discussions/arguments with no productive outcome, I've kind of set an internal alarm. After a certain amount of time, if the other person hasn't even attempted to see it from my point of view, then ill just concede everything and exit ASAP, its a waste of time trying to convince someone who cant be convinced, or who at the very least arnt willing to engage with you. I think I've only once successfully ended a discussion where we both agreed on the fundamental belief we disagreed with that led to our opposing stance on so many issues. That was nice. Its hard to get to actual fundamental beliefs on how we think about things and perceive the world from hot button issues. Its the 'why do you believe what you believe' that is more interesting to compare.

From the outset, the premise is being Open Minded - and then you try to "change someone else's mind" without any thought that maybe your mind might be changed... I am not going to get into whether a plant based diet is better or worse, but you went into this with the opinion that it is better. It was an awesome video on how difficult it is to allow for one's opinions to be open to change.

I've changed my mind on many hot-button issues in the past. (Or at least become more nuanced in my thinking.) I think, however, that it's important to having guiding values, even if you don't have guiding beliefs. Things like "I want to make the world a better place," or "I don't think people should be punished based on aspects of themselves that they can't change," or "children deserve to be safe and loved" are all things that I don't think anyone could change my mind on - those are core values. How we work towards those values, however, are totally things that can change. You're not going to change my mind that children deserve to be safe - however, I'd be open to a discussion of whether, say, there's a way to responsibly keep a gun in a house that doesn't endanger the children living there. (I personally don't think there is, but I'm willing to have that conversation.)

Awesome video, Vanessa! I'm a PhD candidate in Political Science, and I have conducted a similar research to explore how overconfidence in political knowledge can affect democratic attitudes in Latin America. Being overconfident is associated with an increase in the odds of endorsement for authoritarian measures of 13%, and of ideological extremism of 19%. In other words, it could be stated that being humble about your knowledge on politics makes you less prone to political extremism. I see a lot of similarities with the original Dunning and Kruger study, popularized as the "Dunning-Kruger effect". Just food for thought.

Being more intellectually humble, as you put it, is something that I've been working hard on recently... And it is _hard work._ With any given topic, it takes a lot of effort to get your mind past the point where you think you have the answer to a question you can't even actually define. Open-mindedness is something one has to actively do, not just some character trait to rely on.

I thought I was in need of intellectual humility when I read that tablet you opened, but when you got to the discussion with the doctor, I realized I was already doing it to a high degree. I have room to grow-I have arrogant feelings, which I'm sure shows, though I try hard not to let it-so I want to do more of what I'm already doing in regard to seeking to understand the other's viewpoint and looking for reasons to change my view and to learn and grow. I think back to the times when I leaned into this the most and people were the most receptive to my thoughts because I was keenly interested in theirs.

I think being open minded is a thing where you need to find a balance. I believe most people would benefit from being more open-minded but there are some people and some arguments that just do NOT deserve to be heard out. That's where i think a lot of people get lost with things that are usually really good. There are just some people out there who do not deserve your sympathy, do not deserve a second chance, do not deserve to be heard out, do not deserve your generosity, do not deserve your loyalty, do not deserve your patience, do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, and do not deserve your love. There are people who will take your willingness to give them those things and use it to repeatedly hurt you and others. You can still behave in a way where you afford those things to the people who deserve it but we as a society have got to stop enabling people who abuse us by affording them treatment that they are not affording us.

I wonder now if the mood improvement really came from the food. Don't get me wrong, plant-based diets can be healthy. However I wonder if the feeling can come not from the food itself but from gaining a sense of control over one's life. That changing my diet is something I decided, without any direct external pressure, that I know has health benefits for me and the planet and that it makes me feel good that I can be part of it.

This was great, really

My personal experience with trying to change others minds is.... don't. People don't change their mind based on knowledge in areas where they already have a strong opinion, they only do it based on experience, and then only incrementally. The best you can do is actually demonstrate one small change that works better for them and hope they pick it up. They have to be free to change their own mind, based on their own experience.

Excellent information and well presented.

I'm a simple man. I see a sauropod skeleton in the wall, I like.

Super interesting!

I thought I was more open-minded as well. (My answers were similar to yours on the test.) At least now I can learn and grow with this new knowledge and become as open as I thought I was. Thanks for making a video that can help me become a better person

Yeah, I used a version of this when I did customer service (where you get shouted at and have to explain when things can't be changed). It's effective. Shortcut is "I want an unhappy person to stop trying to make me unhappy," when you're call handling.

I believe John Stuart Mill had the idea that we should encourage others to disagree with us. That really stuck with me, and I think the extra concepts added here (awareness of intellectual arrogance, finding common ground etc) are really worthwhile :)

Great video! Trying to get someone to change their mind is quite a challenge. Especially when it comes to someone's core values. Getting a rancher to go vegan... Then you may be taking a lot of hay on your fork. What would be very nice is if people come to the same conclusion, which you mentioned at the beginning: The willingness to acknowledge that your beliefs may be wrong. That's a giant step for some people.

Great topic, great video. I'm probably arrogant as well and can certainly improve a lot.

The first thing I thought about when I saw the cattle farmer, was that it was a small farmer and that those make produce locally and your ideas wouldn't catch. There are stark differences between a farm like that, (technically an extensive farm) and a macrofarm with intensive farming where things are run like a tight ship and looking at the numbers and not at the animals. I don't think that farmer had more than 100 cows or 100 big animals counting the llamas and horses, and that is manageable and they have good space and conditions, however, if you search for intensive farmers, where most of the meat is derived from, the animal conditions are worse, there is less space, and truthfully, wou wouldn't have gotten access. PS. I'm a vet student and I have seen both types (although at a smaller scale because there isn't much intensive animal farming where I study)

Over a long period of time I have changed my mind quite a bit, but over the last few years I have been hardening my mind instead. It is hard to be open minded with people who do not want me or the people I care about to exist. People who want to restrict the freedoms of those I care about ate just not worth my time and I find myself not having the energy to even talk to them. So, while in 2019 I had a great discussion with my classmates over what we should do with restrooms, I cannot even imagine talking to the "Anti woke" crowd, the "Ban abortion" people, and the "Don't say gay" masses that have been growing as of late. I have to fear for the lives of the those closest to me, I have no time or energy to try to change the minds of people who genuinely want me and dead. This isn't a left vs right thing anymore, we aren't debating over economic strategies or institutional systems, but if trans people can get their medication, if gay kids can stay with their families, and if women should get the death penalty for abortion. What the hell is going on?! How can I try to change someone's mind when they want me gutted? How can I feel safe travelling to a red state when my life is in danger? My faith in humanity keeps getting lower every time I listen to the news and it is so distressing I cut out most of it from my life. I am so fortunate to live where I am and am terrified every night listening to the terrified voices of my friends who live in conservative areas and cannot afford to leave. And it isn't just the US or even Canada. I just do not have the energy, the patience, or the ability at this point to do what you are trying to do. The last time was about the sisters of perpetual indulgence and it almost came to blows. Yes I didn't approach it with the calmest of attitudes and I could have prepared better but the sheer hate my dad had for them for "daring to mock christianity" was so vicirol that I met him at that level and I couldn't hold back my anger at his hatred and it just left both of us bitter. But, I do not think I could have changed his mind. The acts themselves he saw were blasphemous and I cannot say they didn't do them. He took it personally and no matter what I couldn't remove that hurt he had from what they did and he couldn't convince me that what they did was wrong. I appreciate you for trying, but alas I cannot follow in your footsteps.

This is a really interesting topic. I guess the intellectual humility is something that come and go based on how mindful you're being or if you're feeling defensive?

Some things are not a belief. A distinction must be drawn between objective and subjective reality and the people who consider reality to be objective or subjective.

I do hope this helps people in becoming more accepting or open to opposing stances.. of course, so long as they choose to apply this in their way of viewing things. I can understand where zealous people are coming from at times, and why they may feel they would rather opt out of this mindset.. but it really is a shame when it results in conflicts where, from my point of view, there needn't be one.

Being able to discuss and evolve your and other opinions is very important! That said, I think there are some aspects it is important not to be open minded about. Same way as being too humble can be a problem, too much flexibility in discussing a problem can bring down the whole system. I come at this from a mathematician's perspective. To come to any conclusion, you need at least some assumptions, some base ground you start on to reach a conclusion. One of these for example may be that it is one's duty to leave the world a better place. How and what should be done to do this can be argued, however it is not necessarily something everyone will agree on, and not really something you can argue for using facts or statistics. Although what you say about changing people's minds is definitely true, and I am sure these tactics can also be used for the base assumptions I introduce above! What I'm trying to convey is the "mind changability" factor of an argument doesn't really affect its truth. The way I prefer to reason whenever some of my opinions are challenged is to work upwards from my base assumptions, and the way anyone can change my mind is to challenge some step in the "path" I've built. But I know most people do not reason this way!

Love this video! Its beautifully done and sincere. The questions you asked him we great, you could tell he had to think through his answer, he wasn't in automatic mode like in a debate. much more constructive. I think that when we craft questions that provoke this metacognition we really help the process of "persuasion" through IH. Similar to epistemic dialogue Would love to talk to you about this project on my channel, its ALL about how to have constructive conversations in our polarized world. And would love to know which scale you used in the video. I can't seem to find it. In Cognitive and Interpersonal Features of Intellectual Humility authors used a different one and then there is much longer one developed in The development and validation of the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale but I much prefer the one you used.

I think the whole objective of trying to change someone's mind goes against the idea of intellectual humility, as you start with the assumption that your side is the "correct" one. I would have loved to see you approach the conversation with the mission to understand exactly how and why your opinions differ. I was going to end this comment with the words "Change my mind", but no. If you disagree with me, let's figure out how and why. One of us might end up changing their opinion, and I don't mind if it's me.

There are many ressources on French KZfaq that taught me a lot of that. Méta de Choc focuses on metacognition, thinking about the way we ourselves think, why do we think such things, what are our biases and conditions that influence our own thinking. And there's Hygiène Mentale who taught me Bayesian thinking which is based on mathematics but we don't actually need to make so calculations to practice it. It's just that instead of having solid opinions, we have to think about the certainty we have toward that opinion in terms of percentage and for each good argument against that opinion, we tell ourselves that we readjust our belief in that opinion, but a good argument is rarely enough to completely invalidate it, so we can still hold that opinion and that's fine, even if we're wrong, because next time we hear an argument about it, we will readjust our own belief again, and again etc. What it does is that it prevents us from solidifying our beliefs without having us completely reject them. And of course, we can hold an opinion true, then heard arguments, think it's false, then hear some more and think it's true again. Another thing is that we have to really admit that people teaching us those things, even scientists, doctors, teachers and journalists can be hold wrong opinions that their own critical thinking skills should prevent them from having. And if they can be wrong with such skills and knowledge then so can we! So we really have to keep it in mind, both that the "authority" can be wrong but we also. So if we don't trust an authority we have to fact-check. And hen we fact check, we have to reeeeaaaaally try to resist our own bias, and that's the hardest part, we really need to practice humility for that. I practiced humility by admitting I am wrong, and I still lack that humility often. To do that, I motivated myself by thinking it's a way of displaying wisdom and reasonableness rather than looking like a stubborn insufferable pedantic fool. What I do when I lack the humility to admit that I'm wrong or that I don't feel so certain I'm right is that I just quit. I let myself the time to process things instead of becoming defensive and completely refusing to change my mind, I think it's also important to be are of the fact other people do that too so we really need not to be too insistant when we notice they start being irritable, it's just better to leave it at that. Because we don't radically change our minds on anything. It requires to doubt ourselves and then process that doubt and be exposed to new information on the subject. Even when we admit we're wrong, we don't really actually get convinced of our new view instantly, we need to process it by going on about our lives. And then, there's La Tronche en Biais which has done some great things, some other things not so great, but they've taught me Socrate's maieutics method which they renamed epistemological interview. Trying to quiz people on the reasons that justify their beliefs. They did advise against insisting too much as it can make us look pedantic and the whole process of being quizzed makes people uncomfortable. But the thing is that if someone holds a wrong beliefs, they will fail to justify them correctly. So it lets people expose their reasons willingly and at that moment it causes self-doubt. A correct belief is more likely to be succesfully justified. Another thing, I think don't remember where I got it from, is to gauge if the person is willing to change their mind before trying to debate anything. Asking them what kind of reasonable proof they think they would need to reevaluate their belief is a good way to do that. Because if you provide the proof they themselves asked for and do not budge, then there is no point in debating further. About the story thing, I don't like that since it's based on emotions and personal anecdotes so I personally would reject stories without giving them a thought. I really love studying critical thinking and learning about psychology. However, I am definitely not always willing to use my knowledge to discuss in good faith, more often than not, actually. I only do it when the environnement is favorable (no trolls, no dogpiling), and if I judge the person is agreeable enough/seems honest enough to actually debate. And I try to be warry of rhetorical traps, in politics for example, there's the idea of "concern trolling", a person claims to only have simple concerns, simple concerns which can easily be agreed with and when given critical thought, they are unreasonable, but people rarely invest that much effort into it and it primes them for the radical ideas. That's how hatred politics arise. It first starts as simple concerns and over the years, the same people who pretended to be reasonable and to only hold simple concerns are now the most radical individuals. PS: sorry, when I really like a topic, I tend to info dump.

This was a great discussion, and I really liked how you showed the value in being open to the experiences of other people. I'm a vegan, and it frustrates me that some vegans think they can change other peoples' minds by being abrasive and abusive - it just makes everyone harder-edged! I do however feel that the farmer you're engaging with is not emblematic of the 'other side' in this discussion. I think vegans in general would be far less angry if this sort of scale of farming represented the norm, but it doesn't - the meat needs of the world require factory farms, and the ethical and environmental considerations that Ryan cares about are not considered in large-scale feedlots.

wow, very interesting video. I am surprised it only showed up so late in my recommendations but I am glad it did. I hope this comment helps this video be recommended to more people!

Loved the video! If you want to further practice your intellectual humility regarding the mentioned topic, I challenge you to explore the best high quality source I know of, of the opposing viewpoint to yours, that I ever came across, youtuber "What I've Learned", check out his videos: "Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why", "What if Cows were NOT Bad for the Planet?", "Protein is not protein. Here's why", 'Vegan diets don't work. Here's why". His videos tend to some of the best researched science content on youtube, and if you can find some flaws in the way he covered those topics, I would be more than happy to watch your videos on it!

Smartest people I know are also some of the most humble.

We need to humbly seek truth, rather than try and actively change other peoples minds. Winning isn't the other person agreeing with you, it's having your beliefs align with the truth/reality. If my beliefs are wrong, I want to know about it, so I'm asking people who believe differently to me to explain why they believe that so that I can find out if I have some misunderstandings and false beliefs.

Being able to change your mind is a good thing! It's why I don't really understand the trend of digging up dirt on people from years or decades ago. Sure, people may have done or said questionable things in the past. But the important part is, have they made an effort to improve themselves? Okay, you don't want, for example, a politician flip-flopping every 5 minutes just to pander to their target audience, but it is absolutely OK for people to feel differently about things at different points in their lives.

A lot of things, there isnt a right or wrong, what works for you may not work for them, so neither person is wrong or right, they're just doing what suits them best....

While watching this til the end, I was hoping that the question I most wanted an answer to would be addressed - The why. The first question one should be able to answer when they endeavour to change minds is what are the underlying and or motivating reasons they want to change someone’s mind about a subject. When the Why has been explored honestly and comprehensively, only then can the discussion begin. Thoughts?

When needing to be humble, I approach discussions thinking about "what realistically needs to be said or done for me to change my mind?" I stole this idea from early episodes of the Podcast: Oh No Ross & Carrie! They approached every episode with that open mindness. And when I ask that question of the other party then receive the response "nothing", I know that the discussion is not a argument but a disagreement where I hope to learn as much as I share.

I honestly think what people say about scientists being "close-minded" is a reflection of the inability to discern between good quality information and poor quality info. However, I understand now that showing data only increases people's bias.

In general, I think scientists are more open minded because they know that new information can always change what we currently know. Many truths have become obsolete based on new findings.

I'm the best at being humble

I don’t think I’ve ever yelled ‘duh’ so many times at a yt video.

Proverbs 3:5 comes to mind for intellectual humility.

I am humbled by this video. (I had forgotten you mentioned the bout of laryngitis, back then.) Are you and Priscilla "pen pals", now?

After doing my own research and from my own experience, I came to the conclusion that just as people can be vastly diverse in every way possible to each other, the optimal diet for each person can also be as diverse. Some thrive as carnivore, others as vegan- there is no "one fits all" formula, and the idea might be very dangerous. What doesn't fit in any "eating formula" though, is eating specific types of processed foods. For instance, processed meat is proven to have potential hazardous effects to the health, but this also applies to the majority of foods that you can buy from a store, including a potentially bigger amount of vegan products (and products marketed as "vegan" are not always an exception).

15:49 yes, but self-realization is necessary for self-improvement.

It seems like the first problem is that someone who has decided, for themselves, that eating a vegetarian diet is better for them and the planet is not a war on beef.

It's all stories that we make up.

Mordcha: Why should I break my head about the outside world? Let the outside world break its own head. Tevye: He's right. Perchick: Nonsense. You can't close your eyes to what's happening in the world. Tevye: He's right. Avram: He's right and he's right? They can't both be right. Tevye: You know, you are also right.

15:08 we city people can't find 'farmers that we trust'.

I enjoyed this video thank you very much.

7:33 Now I feel like rissoles ... and it's 5am :P

Wow

It's also a liberal, centrist belief to assume that less polarisation is a good in itself rather than potentially creating a majority position around a damaging belief.

I consider myself to be an open-minded person, unlike most of my family who are closed-minded bigots. They don't seem to even understand what "open-minded" even means; it's kind of sad. The thing that is important to understand is that you don't have to change your mind to be open-minded, you just have to be WILLING to change your mind. You have to also be willing to admit you were wrong (another thing my closed-minded family minders find very hard to do). AND you have to be willing to at least listen to other ideas and consider them before making a decision about them. But, you can still decide to reject other ideas! It would be ridiculous if you had to accept every idea you come across just to be considered open-minded. Finally, you have to be calm and civil when exchanging ideas with others. You can't be hostile or loud like my family members are. Meanwhile, I have noticed that most people are not very open-minded, unfortunately, so I never even try to change anyone's mind for any reason anymore. It's a waste of everyone's time and only leads to frustration and anger.

If we had more Ryans the environmental impact of meat would be not so dire. It may be my ignorant bias but he seems to be the exception in comparison to the big producers

Never mind

+1 for trying to convince someone of the positive health effects of a plant based diet while having a sick sounding voice, trying to speak and not to cough 😅 Definitely just random, but probably upped the difficulty rating somewhat, hehe.

Yep, he is doing what he is meant to be doing. As farmers do not like it when the world burns as they use the world as their workplace. Without the animals who live off and take care of the native (and non-native) plants farmers would not have a livelyhood. So, yeah, he is doing what he is meant to be doing. Really, the best you should hope for in a debate is to find common ground. Not to convince someone else but to understand the other person and vice versa. Wait, that is what the professor I forgot the name of said...yeah, he is correct. Also, also, yes, what Ryan said. Pretty much everyone agrees on most things. Just the things that we have been told to care about _Deeply,_ to the point of anger, are the things that everyone focuses on. And not the 99% everything else that they agree on. Also, also, I am horrible at conflict because I get really stressed. Also, also, also, I am really bad at the not just giving people straight facts and not using experiences. Personally, I value statistics and science way more than just someone's personal experience because objectivity is cool. Probably makes me really bad at convincing people things because most people do not care that technically something is better than the other thing that they think and therefore they are factually wrong. I like being called factually wrong though, it is great!

The farmer seems like a good dude.

Are the subtitles late for anybody else or is it just me?

I'm not convinced he understands the definition of sustainable. It literally means to be able to maintain at a certain rate or level. If it's growing or shrinking, that's by definition not sustainable. Him saying his cattle farming is carbon negative doesn't make it literally "sustainable". Then there's the meaning the word "sustainable" has started to be associated with where it means not actively bad for the environment. Given enough land and a low enough density of cattle, it is certainly possible to have a sustainable cattle farm by either definition. His ranch didn't look like the kind that intensively farms cattle and buys in monoculture irrigated feed. His ranch could be a sustainable option. I think that's the nuance: the entirety of humanity doesn't need to become completely vegan to be sustainable. But we do need to drastically cut down on these post industrialisation levels of animal product consumption. You don't need hard rules where you fail when you accidentally had a non vegan beer. If you want ribs on your birthday then you can. Just maybe explore the incredible vegetarian options that are available. I quite regularly cook something then realise later it was vegetarian or vegan without even trying.

Sit down with Louder With Crowder. He's extremely arrogant and ignorant but it would be a fun way to test your skill. He won't change his mind because he's not trying to have a conversation and learn but, he's just trying to win.

Oh Vanessa, you were way too hard on yourself. You are ver open-minded and respectful of others. I like the way you cut back to the farm three times. I hope you eat a few eggs (Eggland's are the most nutritious and humanely raised) and some fish for your omega 3s

First! You need a saw. Then, get a REALLY big ice cream scoop. Third... OOhhhhhooohhhhhh not... not changing a mind like THAT... hahaha... I'd never do that, right Doctor Frankenstein? 😅

People often tie their identity to their beliefs which makes it hard for them to objectively think about if their beliefs are sound. Example: "I'm a republican" or "I'm a labour supporter". Any criticism of labour or the republican party could be interpreted as an attack to be defended because of your self identification. This neo tribalism of "us vs them" self identification with groups you have no control over leads to situations where you feel compelled to defend actions you may not otherwise agree with. It drives division as you can try and identify the person with different beliefs as a member of the opposing group and just write them off as brain washed, or simple or whatever. The world will become a better place when we break down these fabricated tribal identities and see each other as nothing more than people. Imagine every other person on the planet is you reincarnated and their beliefs are due to their environment and experiences growing up. That makes it a lot easier to try and find out how they came to believe what they do, and that you might be wrong, because it's "you" who is presenting an alternative perspective.

The idea that a couple hours on google would make you more knowledgeable on a topic than someone who has been living and breathing that topic for years is incredibly arrogant. "Lets see if I can teach this cow farmer about cow farming" is such an absurd thought to have for anyone who isn't an expert on cows or farming.

I don't think a regenerative farmer is the type of farmer that is opposed to plant based diets as an extreme in the 'war on beef spectrum'.

omg im excited hello 🤭

Being open minded is great and all but what about changing other people's minds?

How can you dare to go into this with the claim to have humility when you're going to try and tell someone that you are right and they are wrong? What about that is humble? It's arrogant.

Subs are out of sync🙃

Is anyone open-minded? As long as you are not a walking research paper and have some unproven/unaccepted opinions, you are effectively closing your mind. Consider a scenario where someone types a grammatically incorrect but otherwise an amazing comment and there is this one dude who corrects his grammar in the replies. People can't help but bash that dude who corrected his grammar even though that dude is right. Correcting mistakes is independent of the context of the situation but people can't digest it.

I didn't become vegan because someone told me a story. I became interested in switching because of the moral philosophical arguments around it which is backed up with stats etc. I wasn't open to seeing where food came from before this because I knew I would be disgusted by it. Catching people where they didn't expect to see it is also super effective for this reason and why showing the public on the street footage of it is really effective for making them stop to consider their contributions to animals suffering. So much of it is culturally conditioned cognitive dissonance and a lack of understanding that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should, which is the most common empty defence people will claim. I think stories are a useful way to package in all of the necessary components though.

There are two different kinds of actions here: There was your approach during the conversation, and the way you expanded your perspective following it, which was actually commendable and graceful. And then there was your idea of travelling with a set of cameras to change someone's mind for a matter that he has obvious defended multiple times in the past, and expect him to change because of a four-point powerpoint slide masqueading as a "framework". That was not humble at all. Mostly because it starts from a position of moral superiority. A more appropriate experiment would be to try to convince someone of an idea that infers no moral load on its owner. String theory vs quantum mechanics for example. Everybody is looking for an opportunity to be convinced!

Pretty weird video. I don’t like when someone assumes the higher ground then goes out to “educate” others. It comes across as condescending and sours the discussion right off the bat. I like the idea of sharing personal perspectives to show how someone formed their opinions. If they’re intellectually humble, they’ll come around at their own pace. Otherwise there’s no point trying to change their mind. At the very least, you’ve got one more data point of the opposing view to consider :^)

You...should be changing your own mind.

Why should changing someone else's mind be your aim? Maybe a better place to start might be How to Change Your Mind :-)

Just an observation, but it seems like you set yourself up to fail when you decided to change someone's mind with intellectual humility. One might even say: "Intellectual humility -- you're doing it wrong!" I predict that now gazillions of people are going to attempt to use the techniques of intellectual humility to fix other's opinions instead of fixing themselves. As evidence to support this prediction, I hold up the specter of the "filter bubble". Once people learned of filter bubbles they all began accusing "the other side" of being trapped in a filter bubble instead of looking to see that they themselves were as trapped as anyone. But... YMMV.

I respect people's choices and opinions enough to not want to or try to change them and I expect the same from others. When they don't, I prefer to stay away from such individuals. I have visited slaughterhouses, factories where meat and sausages are packed, all of it. Despite that, I have come to the conclusion, that I will not stop eating meat, red and white, until I die. Unless of course, someone does a miracle and turns every carnivorous animal on the planet, into a vegan. It is my choice and I expect it to be respected. As far as statistics go, unless there's confirmation bias in the individual, they would see both sides. There is plenty of data on how plant-base meat and fake meat is also harmful to the environment. There is also data on how much water and other resources are consumed to grow soybeans, which are also harmful to the health, and almonds, and avocados, along with many other vegan foods. Even synthetic foods are horrifically disastrous for the environment. This, not even including the nutritional data on the benefits of meat and the dangers of pure vegan-based diet. So, unless, we're all prepared to go back to the paleolithic age and start eating truly organic, meaning picking them off of a bush and tree or just hunting and eating wild animals, (albeit washing all of it first), there will always be almost the same amount of carbon footprint of us eating food of any type. What we do need to focus more on, is the cobalt batteries that we use in the so-called "green" vehicles, and other batteries we use in our devices, including the one I'm typing on, which come from child labor and slave labor in nightmarish mines. If someone is willing to address that, then there would be an ounce of merit to the "going vegan" argument. Until then, I will not eat vegan. The reason my comment focused on the topic of meat, is because I saw the video focus on it as well. This is not an attack on vegans or vegetarians, or Vanessa. In fact, it's the opposite, I love this channel, been subscribed to it, since like 2014 or 2015 IIRC.

Trying to be open minded here. Can I ask why you are plant based and not vegan? Does the ethics of veganism not align with you? Why and why not.

I don't understand how one can "respect" animals and then send them to a slaughterhouse.

I am open-minded, but you failed to convince me. I am happy eating plants makes you feel good, but all the research I have done along with my own anecdotal experience points to meat being the far superior food for health. Also, most if not all of the claims that raising livestock is more damaging to the planet than growing crops is cowshit. ;) Little joke there. All food studies that attack beef utilize questionnaires that expect people to recall how much of what they eat in a year. And beef is usually lumped in with burgers which include sauces, buns, fries, all the highly processed carbs and seed oils that are killing us. Beef is the scapegoat for what they are doing to us. Look at the people healing on carnivore or keto diets. The mainstream media never covers that group because it goes against their narrative.

Just give you a hint on your open mind research, go talk to a Jehovah’s Witnesses and try to change their perspectives or beliefs.

I'm pretty sure I can be convinced with facts... As long as I can't think of a way how those facts were misrepresented, or can't prove that they are lies. For example your statistic about water consumption of various foods was a misrepresentation. You said 8% residential use, and 32% for meat production. But you did not mention how much is used for plant based food production (especially if you normalize for energy/nutrein density). Also the thing about health benefits is cherry-picking. There are studies that show that eating high quality protein has massive health benefits, and plant based diets do not give you enough of such proteins. And even if you use suppliments, they prevent you from digesting the proteins in your supplements, which requires you to eat significantly more of those proteins to be able to have the same health benefits. And when someone tells me a story, I tend to dismiss it as anecdotal evidence. In fact I perceive people who answer to my numbers with personal stories as people who can't tell the difference between a data point and a statistic (basically politicians/activists that try to convince me of anything). The only kind of story that has the potential to work is the kind of story that shifts my perspective, but even then it has to be a perspective that I hadn't considered, and one that I agree is valid. It might in fact be easier for you to prove that a statistic isn't misrepresented/fake than to come up with such a story. And you don't need a story to present that other perspective either. Also beyond the matter of convincing someone there is a matter of making them act on that realization. Even if you convince someone that eating meat is evil, there is plenty of necessary evil that we deal with in real life, so they could just put it in the same category and change nothing about their life. Furthermore, if you can convince someone with a story about one position, you can do the same the next day with the opposite position. That only works on people who haven't looked that deep into it. It works on the masses, because most people don't have a strong opinion on most things, since most things don't affect them (and if you think otherwise, it's because whenever you start a topic, you tend to deal with the people who want to talk about it, which usually are not the disinterested masses). And that's what propaganda is generally targetting. That's why you only need about 10% of people with strongly held beliefs of the opposite position to start a revolution.

I see so many wrongs in your beliefs. Vegetarian/vegan is a nutrient deficient diet. You should thank your parents that you had meat heavy diet, which allows you to do vegan diet now without adverse effects, which will slowly appear if you continue. You don’t even need any evidences to prove vegan is BS, yes you are eating a BS diet promoted by SDA directly and Ancel Keys indirectly, just some logic and connect dots from some known nutritional facts. There is no environmental concern for eating beef at all. Cows are fed on agricultural leftovers, all those things you simply can’t eat. Without cows, the problem of agricultural waste will pop up immediately. You eat a pound of carrot, likely you will have another pound of waste go with it, and cows take care of them for your irresponsible diet. Ranchers are not the problem, feed lot is the problem, agriculture is the problem. Check out Alan Savory’s book or his video please at least, please.

Did you fing Emmanuel ?

is this a scientific breakdown of why nobody likes a know it all?😄