[DyslexicAtheist]

there is a logical fallacy (not just in the title). It ignores that curiosity will always result in a judgement, and even it's a "positive judgement". If only we stick around long enough we'll need to tear down our original belief (only way to avoid it is not to grow). Being loud (judgemental) makes us look like we have done the leg work (of curiosity). But curiosity is a lot of work and it's easier to get reward by simply looking competent (judging loudly). Exploiting this is easy because it's hard to tell if a stranger has actually put in the legwork and earned their "right" to judgement. And it's also easy to dismiss judgement as "Don't judge just be curious", when in reality, staying curious is impossible once you have a full grasp over a specific topic. (being curious here would mean move on to new things to be curious about).

I'm probably overthinking it. Last weeks I was working on designing an IIoT device (EV charging point) where the customer insists on using the outdated protocol, and not spend the money or time to bother with security. Hardware constraints will rule out there is a future in which this device will be secure (or maintainable). So when I read this:

> By being curious, not judgmental, we can start to understand these peculiar things around us. Only by understanding, we might even find a way to make them better.

It drives me up the wall. Almost impossible for me not to immediately judge and ridicule them, for sloppy thinking, but also for forgetting that a system/idea will only get better by stressing it. And it would be a shame if somebody destroyed their echo chambers, or took a dump in their "safe-space". Perhaps I'd understand the situation a bit better (have empathy) if the people being attacked and ridiculed were unpaid tinkerers or engineers (e.g. FOSS). But a big company like GE? And especially a topic like IoT - I don't think so.

[chillacy]

I’ve been contemplating this topic as well, though more for social issues which I think that I’ve thought deeper on than the other person. The end state is that I believe that I know more than them and therefore my conclusions are “more correct”. It results in a physiological response and I end up in an argumentative state trying to get them to see my position but in the process, failing to query their point of view.

I’m torn because I think there are genuine cases where I do have more information, but I don’t want to become an argumentative person, and logically if offered a 1% choice to possibly learn something new, it would be more beneficial to learn than to not.

I was thinking next time I could try to guess their assumptions and reasoning and they can fill me in on the difference. Then point out and see if they accounted for any extra information I had.