Dear Foxy,

You wrote: "One thing I have learned is that if your intention is not
just to win the argument then you can feel good that you
have spoken your mind without malice or anger but just
from the depth of your own truth."

Can we have our own truth? We can have our own opinion, but does truth vary from person to person?

Dear David,

Of course truth varies from person to person.
People are capable of being thoughtful and
rational, but our wishes, hopes, fears and
motivations often tip the scales to make us
more likely to accept something as true
if it supports what we want to believe.

In reality, we rely on a biased set of cognitive
processes to arrive at a given conclusion or
belief. This natural tendency to cherry pick and
twist facts to fit our existing beliefs is
known as motivated reasoning - and we all do it.

In today's era of polarized politics and when facts
themselves are under attack - understanding this inclination
(and finding ways to sidestep it) has taken on new
urgency according to psychologists.

cont'd ...

Dear David,

People communicating the facts often do so with
the implication that the target is a bad person
at worst, or uneducated or misinformed at best.
However I have learned that the adversarial
approach is not likely to change minds.

For example, if you want to convince a vaccine
skeptic or a climate-change denier that immunizations
are safe or that climate change is real -
the key question is not - why do they disagree with
the science? But rather why do they want to disagree
with the science?

Answering that will probably require doing something
people in our increasingly polarized political
climate are loathe to do: Less talking, more listening.

There's a time for the middle finger.
And a time to put it away.

Dear Foxy,

One of the sources of conflict on this planet is equating belief with truth.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote: "For example, if you want to convince a vaccine
skeptic or a climate-change denier that immunizations
are safe or that climate change is real -
the key question is not - why do they disagree with
the science? But rather why do they want to disagree
with the science?"

I regard it as futile to try "to convince a vaccine
skeptic or a climate-change denier that immunizations
are safe or that climate change is real"

There is no key question that will convince them. If enough of them get together to control the government we all lose. Such is the case now. Both Libs and Labor support giving tax breaks to Adani even though almost all scientists have connected the dots in regard to the connection of burning fossil fuels and global warming.

Dear David,

Beliefs are inherently subjective. Knowledge is a
belief that can be verified and understandably
caries with it a high sense of certitude -
1) of being a belief
2) of being true and
3) of being justified.

The truth I originally spoke of was subjective truth
from my own experiences.

I am more optimistic. In Victoria due to public pressure
children have been forced to get the "jab" in order to
go to childcare and school. "No jab - no play".

The same has to happen with enough pressure on the
government to do something about the effects of climate
change. Politicians ignoring voters on this matter will
do so at their own peril as Tony Abbott found out when
he lost the seat of Warringal to a pro-climate change
advocate.