8·
20 hours agoI get what you mean, but to follow on what @woodscientist said, I think your persistent ego is essentially a subjective impression you have.
Your sense that the “you” of today is a direct continuation of the you of yesterday is a feeling you have. If someone simulated your mind, that construction world presumably wake up convinced that it was a continuation of your ego just as you do every day. If you were still around, you’d probably insist that you were authentic and it was false. That assertion is intuitive, but ultimately neither of you can be proven correct. Both interpretations are subjective and equally valid.
There is a way to deradicalize people. It’s not easy, but it’s possible. I’m surprised this isn’t more common information now, but here it is.
You need to understand that each of us builds our beliefs on a set of ideological structures. We believe in policies because of principles. We believe in principles because of foundations. All of these ideas reinforce each other and create our sense of self. Preservation of the self is the highest imperative, and so people resist persuasion with increasing ferocity the more foundational an idea feels to their sense of self.
The way around this is to convince them that their foundational beliefs support a different concept. In many ways, it’s actually a bit like the premise of the Christopher Nolan film “Inception” without the technology: the person needs to essentially feel like they themselves discovered whatever idea you’re trying to convince them of, based on their existing beliefs.
This means first understanding what their core beliefs are and why they feel that these support the policies and identies you’re trying to change. Then you need to identify what can serve as a replacement, and find a way to get them to see the replacement as more appealing.
To put this into practice, can you tell me what you’d describe as their underlying principles? What are their fears and desires that shape their values? Common examples for conservatives include fear of change; a belief that life is a ruthless zero-sum game, and that we all most look out for our tribe or we will be exploited and subjugated by our adversaries. Conviction that tradition is a guide to keep us safe from reckless thinking, and that prescribed social roles and hierarchies are essential for our very survival.
If that’s the case, you can’t argue for progressivism by trying to convince them that we should all just love each other and welcome immigrants and that gender and sexual freedom are socially good. It’s like trying to talk them into jumping off a bridge. Instead, you need to explain how if you want to look out for yourself and your family, you should do it in a different way. And these politicians who sound so convincing are secretly the kind of people that they already don’t trust.
Keep in mind that replacing their faith in these kinds of leaders with your preferred political leaders is likely folly. People don’t invert their ideological identities. You need a replacement that is a good match, and because politics are often polar, a better substitute for dangerous political attachments are often simply outside of politics entirely. This may be non-partisan faith communities or sports teams or local social clubs. But if you can find a new story that fits into their existing theory of the world and satisfies their ideological needs better than right-wing politics, you CAN get people to slowly stop watching YouTube conspiracy videos or stop spending their time in far-right Facebook groups in favor of something healthier.
All of this is hard to do, but it CAN be done. I find it very frustrating that this info is still somehow obscure considering how essential it is these days.