Any questions for Peter Boghossian?

[Xiaoxiong]

I'm about to go to a talk by Peter Boghossian - looking forward to what he has to say about how to have "impossible conversations" and of course the conflict between women's rights and TRAs is uppermost in my mind.

If anyone has any burning questions, I can try and ask!

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian

Is giving up trying to have "impossible conversations" ever the right thing to do?

I mean if the person you are trying to talk to is getting more dismissive or defensive and is clearly not really listening to what you are saying. Not that we should give up trying to have those conversations full stop.

I love listening to him gently exposing narrow group think with some careful questions.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/05/29/peter-boghossian-confronts-portland-state-students-on-the-issue-of-gender/

Does he find that people who are more secure in their opinions or people who are less secure in their opinions are more likely to want to discuss why they think what they think?

Bloody hell. That's frightening. Social workers!

@RainWithSunnySpells I got to ask him both your questions, with interesting responses. He said that there seems to be no difference between people who are more or less secure, both want to talk a lot but about different things. People who are more secure tend to have lots of reasons to defend their position but find it very difficult to come up with the reasons why people who have the opposite view might hold those views. And people who are not secure in their opinion want to talk through both sides of an issue a lot and kind of go round in circles unless helped by directive questioning.

On the defensive point, he said that his method is designed to get people discussing without getting defensive and the only topic he has ever found where his style of questioning hasn't worked is trans. He said that people can discuss pretty much any subject, no matter how divisive, using his methods but the trans stuff "literally has made some people refuse to use their ability to think". I suggested that it was because trans activists have attacked the entire process of debate, insisting that debate itself was transphobic, and he seemed to think that had a lot to do with it. Then I asked if he sees parallels with cults and "totalistic" thinking, and he said he definitely did and agreed that phrases like "trans women are women" were the kind of thought-terminating cliche that Robert J Lifton identified in the 1960s that prevented a true exploration of epistemology. ie. it's designed to prevent people interrogating ideas or exploring why we think what we think or considering why other people think what they think. (In fact I think anyone who looks at Lifton's 8 criteria for thought reform will recognise a lot of the tactics that we see being used by TRAs). As such, the form of questioning that Boghossian employs are seen as directly threatening the "sacred science" that is not to be questioned or debated.

I came into the evening expecting a Jordan Peterson type person who was going to tell us what he thinks. But in fact we spent the whole evening learning about his "Street Epistemology" method, and they have a new (free) online course launching soon to allow anyone to learn how to do it.

Sounds great!

Thanks so much Xiaoxiong. 😀The first reply is very interesting. In regard to the second, I think you can probably guess which subject I was getting nowhere with and yes, the thought terminating cliche was mentioned!

I really must get that Lifton book. I have seen it discussed before and have read quoted sections, but never read it in full myself.

I should probably look at the Street Epistemology course too. Thanks for highlighting that.

Thank you, I'm a fan although how he stops himself from grabbing some of these people by the lapels and shouting 'how can you be so stupid!!!' <slap> is beyond me. He's a saint, only explanation.

Yes, the video linked above is crazy! I'd forgotten just how crazy though.

Sounds great, OP.

I'd love him to come on MN to try and do a steel man type of thread.

Or maybe we can try and do one ourselves.

How odd that 'trans' is a uniquely difficult topic. I wonder why that is.

'suggested that it was because trans activists have attacked the entire process of debate, insisting that debate itself was transphobic'

Yes, that's why we had so much trouble getting past 'no debate'. I suppose on that situation you have to step back and ask about the 'no debate' policy and approach.

It’s really interesting watching people with inflexible thoughts being asked to justify them. Their total inability to move beyond ‘don’t upset anyone’ to discuss the belief.

I wouldn’t be able to engage in that experiment now without first defining gender. If it said sex, easy. If it said gender, I’d probably agree as there are clearly many

BUT they are all irrelevant.
People can have whatever gender they want and it’s of no consequence to me at all. I’m not going to expect different behaviour in relationships /performance at work from anyone because of their gender.

No one needs to know anyone’s gender. I mean, I guess it could be a MyersBriggs type thing- helpful in certain kinds of team building, perhaps.

As a mum, I’m not going to expect different things from my children according to their gender.

Sorry, long ramble there. I’ve moved on since the first time I watched the video, it seems.

How odd that 'trans' is a uniquely difficult topic. I wonder why that is.

I think it has something to do with the fact that it's such a patently absurd belief, and on one level or another, people know this. They are terrified of being tricked into exposing that.

This is really interesting - thank you for the thread.

Thanks so much for starting this thread and the links @Xiaoxiong . I’ve not come across him before but I found the video eye opening. I will sign up for the course.

I’ve just been reading about the Eight Criteria for Thought Reform. Fascinating and certainly rings true.
This begs the conspiracy theory-esque question, is someone/group behind this? Big Pharma is the one that pops into mind.

I really like Peter Boghossian, I watch a lot of his YT content. If anyone hasn’t seen this one, you might relate to the concerns of the molecular geneticist-

Never put down to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

The main movers in the Genderist movement are well documented. In terms of ideology it builds from the work of US universities and the work of people like Judith Butler.

The people responsible for Self-ID in the UK are a relatively small group who run a few Trans NGOs. People like Jane Fae have been working on a fairly coherent plan for years before the rest of us realised what was happening.

Certainly many companies and movements have figured out how to make money of this stuff but never forget that the key figures think they good guys.

We'll never win over the true believers. PB approach of having calm conversation is how we've come so far because it slowly strips away their followers.