How to Deal with Zealots Who Tell You that Your Way of Thinking is Wrong.

[mahagonny]

I had a friend who would deal with a zealot by listening closely, nodding, and then if there was a pause, finishing their sentence. Then smiling a little. She was able to do this because she'd already heard all of the points and arguments. The zealot thought she was agreeing. My friend let her think that. The zealot, not having an opposing view to oppose, was neutralized.

[clean]

My friend let her think that. The zealot, not having an opposing view to oppose, was neutralized.

In this thread, I am so reminded about Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.  I have already provided my best answer, above, but I will suggest that reading that book will help.  IN particular, Dale Carnegie would have said essentially the same thing.  It is hard to argue when someone is agreeing with you.

Personally, I have tried to end arguments with, "I see your point. You are absolutely right".  And when the other continues, I simply repeat, "You are absolutely right".     (Some know what that means when I say it).

However, I probably would prefer to quote Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

[Anselm]

My friend let her think that. The zealot, not having an opposing view to oppose, was neutralized.

In this thread, I am so reminded about Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.  I have already provided my best answer, above, but I will suggest that reading that book will help.  IN particular, Dale Carnegie would have said essentially the same thing.  It is hard to argue when someone is agreeing with you.

Personally, I have tried to end arguments with, "I see your point. You are absolutely right".  And when the other continues, I simply repeat, "You are absolutely right".     (Some know what that means when I say it).

However, I probably would prefer to quote Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

That book was the manual of subversion used by Charles Manson to recruit and manipulate people according to biographer Jeff Guinn.

[mahagonny]

My friend let her think that. The zealot, not having an opposing view to oppose, was neutralized.

In this thread, I am so reminded about Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.  I have already provided my best answer, above, but I will suggest that reading that book will help.  IN particular, Dale Carnegie would have said essentially the same thing.  It is hard to argue when someone is agreeing with you.

Personally, I have tried to end arguments with, "I see your point. You are absolutely right".  And when the other continues, I simply repeat, "You are absolutely right".     (Some know what that means when I say it).

However, I probably would prefer to quote Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

That book was the manual of subversion used by Charles Manson to recruit and manipulate people according to biographer Jeff Guinn.

Not hard to believe. The most affable person I know is also the most unscrupulous.

[clean]

That book was the manual of subversion used by Charles Manson to recruit and manipulate people according to biographer Jeff Guinn.

So there is actual evidence that IT WORKS!!
Read it. Learn it. Live it.

(Hell, even if you think it is a manual on the best way to brown nose, you should read it to KNOW when someone is nosing around to manipulate you!!)

[kaysixteen]

Thanks for recommending the Gospel Coalition essay.  I am on the GC mailing list and most of the folks in our church, those who would know of it, would generally affirm it.  We are 'Reformed Baptists', and as such, are more or less simpatico with the general philosophy of the GC.  That said, I will not recommend this particular essay to anyone here, most especially the pastor, because the author essentially asserts that wearing the mask may well placate those brethren  with a 'weaker conscience', and as such we all should accede to it, even if one has a stronger conscience and knows, asserts, or believes that masking is essentially useless.  Mamselle correctly notes the biblical context of the 'weaker conscience' argument, but of course the biblical argument is case-specific, and this ain't the case.  Indeed, over the years I have seen this passage abused often by those who want to argue that whatever 'Christian liberty' practice they choose to engage in, no matter how foolish or inconsistent with serious biblical praxis, in opposition to those who argue that doing so is sinful or stupid, means that the libertines have a stronger conscience, and if they refrain they would merely be humoring those who are of 'weaker conscience'.   This is an argument I have little time for, especially in this particular case, as wearing the mask is pretty much the opposite of this, and there are numerous other good reasons for doing so, including looking out for the health of your fellow church members, being a good testimony to visitors to the church, esp those who may not actually be Christian believers, and...

the part about obeying Caesar in all things save what God forbids.  This is standard NT teaching.  Peter explicitly teaches Christians to obey God rather than man, which is why he refused orders not to preach about Jesus, but Peter, Paul, James, etc., all really teach that we should do so.  This is pretty standard amongst reformed/ presbyterian teaching, though not necessarily in its most extreme form, and it is especially standard and pretty no-holds barred amongst (ana)baptistic believers, such as our church.  It really is, and if the orders to wear masks had come from Donald Trump, the pastor would eagerly be advocating obedience, and might even rebuke those who wanted to disobey.  That the orders are coming from centrist GOP governors and Democrats, however, brings obedience to those orders into conflict  with the ever-increasing libertarian notions that have been infusing this church and many other churches and individuals like it, ideas that have been percolating slowly for many years by now and sadly have much more in common with the Gospel according to Ayn Rand than anything  in the NT or in any of the traditional confessional and devotional documents of our tradition.  Now if only I had a way to demonstrate this to them...

[financeguy]

I'm a big Carnegie guy and can say that yes it does work and like many things (taking up a contact sport or a sales job) it will change your own habits in general, working its way into your general behavior. The pitfall to avoid when letting people discuss themselves as a "net" to get someone in is that you can easily attract more of the people likely to abuse this trait than you would like to have in your life. If you are going to go "full Carnegie" and take all the advantages that come with the ability to pursued that comes with it, you must be prepared to cut people off who are in search of a professional monologue assistant, otherwise you will be a magnet for them.

One thing to look out for is the person that doesn't just want to talk about "their topic" but refuses even the accommodating"tee up" question on their topic, "So, you mentioned that one of the advantages of this strategy is y. What challenges should one prepare for when implementing?" A reasonable individual who is interested in a discussion will realize the valuable gift that they are being given to discuss "their thing" and will answer the softball "teed up" question you've given, potentially pivoting to where they'd like to take it. The person disinterested in any actual interaction at all will not be appreciative of the "conversational gift" because they don't see it that way at all. You're talking. Even if about their topic, this is not your role. The rambler does not want interaction at all, they want an audience.

I do think everyone would benefit from the social skills that can come from having had one sales job in their life. You will realize very quickly how presenting someone with excellent points of your own is much less successful than asking their wants/needs and then framing a response in such a way that you've heard and addressed them. This Carnegie based approach is now often called "consultative selling" which we're all doing even if the "sale" is of an idea.

[Cheerful]

I do think everyone would benefit from the social skills that can come from having had one sales job in their life. You will realize very quickly how presenting someone with excellent points of your own is much less successful than asking their wants/needs and then framing a response in such a way that you've heard and addressed them. This Carnegie based approach is now often called "consultative selling" which we're all doing even if the "sale" is of an idea.

I learned from your post, thanks, financeguy.  Makes sense.

[apl68]

I've never heard the interpretation of the Caesar line to imply that one is to obey the orders of a government so long as they do not contradict faith, but I'm certainly not a religious scholar.

Jesus' command to "render to Caesar those things which are Caesar's" was specifically about paying taxes.  In Romans chapter 13 Paul of Tarsus extends this principle by urging Christians to submit to civil authorities by obeying laws and showing due respect.  He appears to have written this during the reign of Nero--who had Paul himself imprisoned and later, most likely, executed.  The point Paul was trying to make is that civil authority is necessary for society to function.  Even if society has a bad ruler, that is no excuse to show disrespect, or to refuse to obey laws when compliance is not itself evil.

This is why I've always been annoyed at the endless expressions of disrespect toward leaders--democratically elected ones at that--which has become such a standard part of our political discourse.  It's why even though I find President Trump quite revolting I try to show the respect his office is due--and to avoid gratuitously disrespecting or demonizing those who have allowed themselves to be deluded into supporting him.  And have done the same with his various predecessors, whatever my own feelings about them.  If early Christians could be expected to obey a Nero most of the time, then we today can surely put up with a Trump or a Clinton.

[mamselle]

Thanks for recommending the Gospel Coalition essay.  I am on the GC mailing list and most of the folks in our church, those who would know of it, would generally affirm it.  We are 'Reformed Baptists', and as such, are more or less simpatico with the general philosophy of the GC.  That said, I will not recommend this particular essay to anyone here, most especially the pastor, because the author essentially asserts that wearing the mask may well placate those brethren  with a 'weaker conscience', and as such we all should accede to it, even if one has a stronger conscience and knows, asserts, or believes that masking is essentially useless.  Mamselle correctly notes the biblical context of the 'weaker conscience' argument, but of course the biblical argument is case-specific, and this ain't the case.  Indeed, over the years I have seen this passage abused often by those who want to argue that whatever 'Christian liberty' practice they choose to engage in, no matter how foolish or inconsistent with serious biblical praxis, in opposition to those who argue that doing so is sinful or stupid, means that the libertines have a stronger conscience, and if they refrain they would merely be humoring those who are of 'weaker conscience'.   This is an argument I have little time for, especially in this particular case, as wearing the mask is pretty much the opposite of this, and there are numerous other good reasons for doing so, including looking out for the health of your fellow church members, being a good testimony to visitors to the church, esp those who may not actually be Christian believers, and...

the part about obeying Caesar in all things save what God forbids.  This is standard NT teaching.  Peter explicitly teaches Christians to obey God rather than man, which is why he refused orders not to preach about Jesus, but Peter, Paul, James, etc., all really teach that we should do so.  This is pretty standard amongst reformed/ presbyterian teaching, though not necessarily in its most extreme form, and it is especially standard and pretty no-holds barred amongst (ana)baptistic believers, such as our church.  It really is, and if the orders to wear masks had come from Donald Trump, the pastor would eagerly be advocating obedience, and might even rebuke those who wanted to disobey.  That the orders are coming from centrist GOP governors and Democrats, however, brings obedience to those orders into conflict  with the ever-increasing libertarian notions that have been infusing this church and many other churches and individuals like it, ideas that have been percolating slowly for many years by now and sadly have much more in common with the Gospel according to Ayn Rand than anything  in the NT or in any of the traditional confessional and devotional documents of our tradition.  Now if only I had a way to demonstrate this to them...

I guess I wasn't as clear as I might have been in my interpretation of the citations I was applying to this issue.

Apologies.

I don't believe anyone has a "right" not to mask unless they have a doctor's excuse. Otherwise, it's just plain selfish.

I didn't mean to imply that it was optional; I was using the citations I pointed out to show why it should be expected: you can harm others, whether or not you perceive any potential harm to yourself, and that's not cool.

I didn't realize it had come across as a "suggestion," that might be ignored or taken as a relative pronouncement on the issue. I don't read Paul as saying it in that light, either (I don't know of the Gospel Coalition, so I wasn't referring to anything by them--sorry)

I don't think our options are that expansive here, and I think the pastor in question is 'way out of line.

We're talking about others' lives.

Get a video camera and sign up for a You Tube account.

(Which I'm about to do, in fact, for the tours I usually give in person in the summers. I'd love to do them as usual, but it just seems too irresponsible to me, even if the city historical commission would allow it--and I'm glad they won't.)

M.

[mahagonny]

I've never heard the interpretation of the Caesar line to imply that one is to obey the orders of a government so long as they do not contradict faith, but I'm certainly not a religious scholar.

Jesus' command to "render to Caesar those things which are Caesar's" was specifically about paying taxes.  In Romans chapter 13 Paul of Tarsus extends this principle by urging Christians to submit to civil authorities by obeying laws and showing due respect.  He appears to have written this during the reign of Nero--who had Paul himself imprisoned and later, most likely, executed.  The point Paul was trying to make is that civil authority is necessary for society to function.  Even if society has a bad ruler, that is no excuse to show disrespect, or to refuse to obey laws when compliance is not itself evil.

This is why I've always been annoyed at the endless expressions of disrespect toward leaders--democratically elected ones at that--which has become such a standard part of our political discourse.  It's why even though I find President Trump quite revolting I try to show the respect his office is due--and to avoid gratuitously disrespecting or demonizing those who have allowed themselves to be deluded into supporting him.  And have done the same with his various predecessors, whatever my own feelings about them.  If early Christians could be expected to obey a Nero most of the time, then we today can surely put up with a Trump or a Clinton.

Interesting, but how many nations existed at that time, with a Constitution like ours? We are asked to alter or abolish a government that no longer serves the people. 'Consent of the governed' and all that.