These three are, it seems, the keys. People need to be convinced, persuaded or cajoled before they will try something new, or do anything. It is as if someone has to play the role of patient parent to get things done. There is a need for guarantee or proof. There has to be a long list of convincing reasons why, a persuasive argument accompanying and some buttering up or cajoling. Others like to argue the toss because that is clearly the sign of an intelligent if opinionated being. Insofar as I can tell there are many beings on this planet who seem to enjoy arguing the toss. Having a discerning mind is one thing, but surely a part of discernment is to know when to argue the toss and when not to.
As a rule of thumb, the moment I sense that someone likes arguing the toss, just because….my first port of call is to leave them to their own devices. They can always find someone else who enjoys this pass time. Maybe they should go into politics or debating?
There is no way that one can convince, persuade or cajole someone into believing that this kind of approach can lead to missing stuff and missing out in general. The moment they are in stance or posture, that is it, end of. The default is operational. It doesn’t occur that in winning there can be significant loss. That demand to have things sold to is OK for those interested in selling and buying. One can make a bullet point list of advantages and scroll through the sales script. This is good for you because…..
The trouble with this is that the hard-sell only comes from those with an ambition to sell you something.
This “prove it to me” mentality abounds. I guess each much have their own journey.
Here is a philosophical question:
In the absence of a theory can there ever be a proof?
What nature of reality does proof actually have?