Mormon polygamy is not normal. Mormons donating 10% of their income also isn’t normal. Mormonism has enough impact on a person that some Mormons can identify other Mormons.
And I think religious weirdness is one of the kinds of weirdness that people see past the most easily.
The thing that distinguishes religious weirdness is that it comes from a highly motivated place and isn’t a random whim.
if one aims at public advocacy
I’m not exactly sure what you mean with “public advocacy”.
Mormons don’t practice polygamy anymore, and they haven’t for a long time (except for small ‘unofficial’ groups). Most Mormons I know feel pretty weird about it themselves.
Mormon polygamy is not normal. Mormons donating 10% of their income also isn’t normal.
Good point. But, if I recall correctly, don’t they go to a good amount of length to not talk about these things a lot?
-
The thing that distinguishes religious weirdness is that it comes from a highly motivated place and isn’t a random whim.
I don’t think it’s just a highly motivated place, but rather a highly motivated place that other people can easily verify as highly motivated and relate to.
-
I’m not exactly sure what you mean with “public advocacy”.
Bringing up an ingroup idea with people outside your ingroup.
For example, I’d love it if people ate less meat. So I might bring that up with people, as the topic arises, and advocate for it (i.e., tell them why I think not eating meat is better). I still envision it as a two-way discussion where I’m open to the idea of being wrong, but I’d like them to be less affected by certain biases (like weirdness) if possible.
I don’t think a conversation at a birthday of a friend qualifies as “public” in the traditional sense.
So I might bring that up with people, as the topic arises, and advocate for it (i.e., tell them why I think not eating meat is better).
I think that’s seldom the most straightforward way for changing people through personal conversation. It makes much more sense to ask a lot of questions and target your communication at other person,
Status also matters. Sometimes doing something weird lower your status other time it raises it. It always makes sense to look at the individual situation.
I don’t think a conversation at a birthday of a friend qualifies as “public” in the traditional sense.
What did you have in mind? I think this advice applies even more so to “public” venues in the traditional sense (e.g., blogging for general audiences).
Mormon polygamy is not normal. Mormons donating 10% of their income also isn’t normal. Mormonism has enough impact on a person that some Mormons can identify other Mormons.
The thing that distinguishes religious weirdness is that it comes from a highly motivated place and isn’t a random whim.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean with “public advocacy”.
Mormons don’t practice polygamy anymore, and they haven’t for a long time (except for small ‘unofficial’ groups). Most Mormons I know feel pretty weird about it themselves.
Good point. But, if I recall correctly, don’t they go to a good amount of length to not talk about these things a lot?
-
I don’t think it’s just a highly motivated place, but rather a highly motivated place that other people can easily verify as highly motivated and relate to.
-
Bringing up an ingroup idea with people outside your ingroup.
For example, I’d love it if people ate less meat. So I might bring that up with people, as the topic arises, and advocate for it (i.e., tell them why I think not eating meat is better). I still envision it as a two-way discussion where I’m open to the idea of being wrong, but I’d like them to be less affected by certain biases (like weirdness) if possible.
I don’t think a conversation at a birthday of a friend qualifies as “public” in the traditional sense.
I think that’s seldom the most straightforward way for changing people through personal conversation. It makes much more sense to ask a lot of questions and target your communication at other person,
Status also matters. Sometimes doing something weird lower your status other time it raises it. It always makes sense to look at the individual situation.
What did you have in mind? I think this advice applies even more so to “public” venues in the traditional sense (e.g., blogging for general audiences).