I’m not ignoring people’s irrational beliefs, or trying to incorporate them into my ideas. There some who are genuinely mistaken about what science means, for example. If they say that The Secret is scientific, I wouldn’t reply with: “Oh don’t be stupid, it has nothing to do with science!”

If he accepts the significance of science, I can explain to him why The Secret is unscientific, and what science actually means.

Please bear in mind that some people are ignorant (i.e. they lack the knowledge needed to form a rational opinion). Just because they are irrational (given what they don’t know) doesn’t mean that we must ignore them. We can provide them with the ideas they can use to re-shape their thinking.

I’ll write more about the issues you’ve raised in separate posts.

Thank you for the interesting points that you’ve raised

Read the posts in the Forum under ‘Right to Vote for President.’ The first post is by a guy named Max. He begins by telling me that he ‘even agrees with me…’ Now, what a nice thing to say, right? Notice how I respond.

He then proceeds to say two wholly irrational things (1. that he votes to secure his desired profession and 2. that America’s two party system is inevitable). Notice how I respond.

One line in particular, in relation to the two-party system. ‘The two-party system is not inevitable. Their existence, however, does depend on you thinking so.’ HIGHLIGHT the ignorance.

I think our main fracture here is the fact that I accept that not everybody is going to understand my arguement, no matter how rational it may be. I cut my losses. There is no point in spending valuable energy on a moron who will never understand, when that same energy can be spent with three people who already partially understand and are wanting to take the next step.

So, if I was in your situation, and someone started trying to explain how, in fact, The Secret could be a scientifically validated mechanism, I wouldn’t bother explaining how I do see some positive aspects of it, but the overall doesn’t cut it. I would handle it like my response to DrShredd. Because guess what? You are brilliant, but you will never be brilliant enough to get through to people if you allow them to hold on to their old, irrational thoughts. You aren’t breaking down barriers, you’re creating a labyrinth for them to run through. Bulldoze and re-build, bulldoze and re-build. Your mind is sharp enough to do the bulldozing, and more than creative enough to do the re-building. And like I said before, those who are worth the time to do it are not going to resent your efforts.

I do not know for sure, but it seems you do not want to offend anybody. It is impossible to have an effective intellectual debate without offense, for someone is bound to be wrong and must be shown it. Passive absorbtion of ideas is what has gotten this world into the mess it is in (which we’ll have to talk about some other time). I personally do not want someone to be able to read my writing and then be able to flip on the TV. I want them to get excited, or angry, or anything other than this passive zombie state that most of my country now operates in. If you want to help people then THAT is the way to do it- break down the wall that seperates them from reality. And stones do not fall quietly.

One last question: Is this a world of Truth, or a world of opinions?

For you to influence society, you will need to influence a sizable portion of the population. If 100 people abstain from voting for the reasons that you’ve highlighted, your movement won’t amount to the type of influence needed to change the nation. You need numbers to make your movement influential. This isn’t to say that those influenced by your ideas should begin preaching your message. You can have only 10 people who understand your ideas and become spokesmen on behalf of your movement. But those who act on your ideas need to be in large numbers in order to make your movement effective.

Now, should you simply appeal to academics, or do you need to appeal to the masses? Can you shun people for being too ignorant, and below the intellectual level you desire? Or should you make your message *accessible* to as many people as you can, according to how *relevant* it is to their lives? If your message won’t affect their lives, and you do not need their participation, nor wish to be an influence in their lives, then you can, by all means, ignore them.

But if you wish to change a nation, I don’t think you can afford to.

We will have to agree to disagree on the idea that you must ‘get your message across to’ as many people as possible. I do not think it is very important at all. Write, and it will find it’s correct audience.

You’re right, I usually use writing to refine my own thinking. Regardless of the topic, I usually write for myself before anyone else. But like I mentioned in the “Free Your Will” post’s comments, I have to take my audience into consideration if I wish to communicate with them.

The summary is to make my ideas more accessible to more people. Many people don’t have the time, or the patience, to read a long article. It may be bad judgment on their part, but this isn’t to say that I shouldn’t try to get my message across to them.

Finally, I know several people who appreciate my writings but have not left any messages on my blog. The fact that they haven’t left a message is no indication to their intellectual capacity. They may prefer to speak to me in person, or have too much to say that they can’t fit into a comment, or any of a number of possible reasons.

Thanks for all the day’s comments