tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post2025092713480515518..comments2024-01-11T07:40:01.736-05:00Comments on The Stopped Clock: A Well-Timed InterruptionAaronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16523334580402022332noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post-52973332858538608182012-03-10T13:45:33.265-05:002012-03-10T13:45:33.265-05:00By "give somebody the facts", you appear...By "give somebody the facts", you appear to mean that you share factual information with a person who does not yet know the facts. That's the type of person I was talking about - somebody who has strong opinions formed in ignorance of the facts - and yes, there were a lot of them in law school. Including a few professors, as I recall.<br /><br />You're more likely to have a decent conversation with somebody who knows the facts - where you have a shared framework of the essential facts - even if you still come to different conclusions.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16523334580402022332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post-40824587781841398722012-03-10T07:53:52.001-05:002012-03-10T07:53:52.001-05:00"It's not necessarily easier to change so..."It's not necessarily easier to change somebody's mind if they know the facts, if that's what you hope to do, but at least you can have a conversation."<br /><br />I'm inclined to disagree. By way of argument I give you any number of "attempted and failed" conversations with various ideologues during law school . . . the key to having a conversation is finding someone willing to listen and think about what you are saying before they respond (not necessarily agree – but take it into account) . . . you can give someone “the facts” about a topic of conversation, you can’t make them listen or think . . .<br /><br />CWDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com