I don’t post the links to change their mind, I post the links to show the rest of the world why they’re wrong.
I’m sure everyone here has seen people change their minds when confronted with information that runs counter to their narrative.
If it’s one to one communication, it’s probably not going to be productive, but worth a shot, just don’t waste too much time.
In a public forum, it’s more about giving the lurkers something to process, those that might not have gotten emotionally attached to one side or another, or just need to see there’s a diversity of thought to avoid getting too sucked into one thing or another.
I may be misunderstanding, but are you approaching this from the perspective that anyone you’re debating with on a public forum is emotionally attached to one side or another?
If someone is proactively expressing an opinion or responding, they are frequently pretty attached to the position they take if it is vaguely important.
It’s not universal, but it’s probable that if you make a strong statement towards the Internet, your view is kind of set and certainly some text from some anonymous guy on the Internet is supremely low on the list of things that are going to change your mind.
By virtue of being somebody who argues on the internet, shouldn’t you then reason that all of your beliefs are suspect, especially the ones you believe most strongly? You must surely expect that you are as unreceptive to new ideas that challenge your beliefs as anyone else. In particular, any evidence in favour of the idea that people can change their mind when confronted with new information you would simply discard.
Sounds like they are. If you are willing to debate, you are very likely “emotionally attached” to the side you are advocating for.
Hmm, I guess it stands to reason that people willing to argue with you about the subject are more likely to be emotionally invested in it. I wouldn’t say that’s overwhelmingly true though.
People become emotionally invested because they argue. Arguing fortifies their emotional stance.
This I honestly don’t believe in.
It at least holds true for a lot of people, and is even enforced in some forms of leadership training. Some folks believe the worst thing is to be perceived as ever being wrong and will push hard against that outcome no matter what.
If you weakly hold an opinion, it’s more malleable, but you are also unlikely to express that opinion strongly.
It can happen, but often you can predict when someone will be utterly unwilling to change their mind, despite mountains of evidence.
If it’s something that someone doesn’t really have a stake in, they’re likely to follow the evidence.
But, it’s different when something is a big part of someone’s identity. Take an American gun nut: Someone who spends a lot of free time on gun-related forums. Someone who goes shooting sometimes with buddies. Someone who listens to podcasts about guns, and has a gun safe filled with favourites. That’s the kind of person who is never going to be swayed by rational arguments about guns.
Too much of their self-identity and too many of their social connections are gun-related. Changing their mind wouldn’t just mean adopting a new set of facts, it would mean potential conflicts with all their friends. It would mean leaving a social group where they spend a lot of their free time. They’d not only have to accept that they’re wrong, but that all their friends are wrong too.
Of course, there are ways to change the minds of people who are in a situation like that. Unfortunately, it mostly happens due to tragedy. Like, a gun nut will change their mind, but only when a family member kills themselves with a gun, either on purpose or accidentally. That new, and incredibly personal data point is enough to compensate for all the social difficulties related to changing your mind.
The backfire effect, as presented by The Oatmeal:
Except that may have been a fluke:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x
yeah well I still think it works
Edit: in seriousness, I agree with you. But I just can’t help feeling that if somebody is able to change their mind with evidence then it’s my duty to try.
I try too, but it’s frustrating. I just wish I knew of a good technique that didn’t involve out-and-out lying. Because it’s hard to compete when someone’s being spoon-fed misinformation and disinformation that’s carefully crafted to bypass all their filters, and you have to try to fight for the truth by being honest and using facts.
That’s partly because lemmy is less toxic than the platform OOP posted on
lemmy’s preeeeetty toxic. But admittedly, I’ve never used twitter.
checking your instance
OK, true
No one is going to listen to you if you act like a know-it all. It has nothing to do with whatever you’re saying.
Changing someone’s mind in a public debate isn’t necessary to show everyone they’re a fool. That’s usually enough.
Whether they ever get sick of being a fool is entirely up to them. If they’re wise & mature, they will & maybe even admit it. Some people never do & it’s mostly their problem at that point. Humans gonna human.
Winning a public debate is much more about rhetorical skills than being right. You can be very knowledgeable in a topic of your research, still lose because you can’t put it simple while your opponent has simple answers to complicated questions and a catch phrase and some slogans
Winning a public debate
Never claimed “winning” mattered. Only that we can show facts don’t support a fool’s conclusion (ie, “show they’re a fool”). Whether others care to recognize that or let themselves get misled by invalid rhetoric is up to them: some have better discernment than others. We’re just offering people opportunities when they’re ready not to suck as hard (which is enough to me). Humans still gonna human.
Bullshit without linking the studies.
It’s also a muddy case whether the statements are about the existance of people or all people.
Some people run on facts, others on emotions. They have to be convinced differently.
Somehow beautiful. Calling out bullshit, but also agreeing.
Yeah it matters a lot how the conversation is set up.
Is it “you and I versus the facts”?
Or “you vs me”?
Competent people can disagree and also identify where the facts are missing and the assumptions begin that lead to this. It doesn’t have to be a fight if they look at the data as something to discover together.
One study I found is where they let people (their control group) check some data about effectiveness of a certain shampoo. They all found the correct answer. Then they let people do the exercise with the exact same data but said it was about gun control. Suddenly a part of the participants failed at basic math and had a lot of rationalizations.
Some folks will not just accept any fact or data that goes against a belief held by their peer group. Giving facts will even be seen as a personal attack.
Lol, I think I’m probably the one that will mess up the data because I’m a pro-gun leftist and they just assume that every democrat is anti-gun
I think Veritasium did a video on that.
Would love to see it if you have a link.
I’d imagine this is what OP is referring to
Certainly is, thank you.
well he was in a bit of a bind. If this had changed his mind, what would that say?
I foresee two possibilities.
1: Coming face to face with their own mistake might put them into shock and they would simply pass out. 2: The realization could create a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the spacetime continuum and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that’s a worst-case scenario. The destruction might in fact be very localized, limited to merely our own galaxy.
Well, that’s a relief.
it matters a lot how the information is presented
That’s really it!
If it is a combative exchange neither side will concede.
It’s better to pretend to be ignorant or on their side and then ask questions that lead them to the truth you want them to see.
I’ve done this a few times with trumpets, but they always flip back after they realize what just happened.
Usually end up hearing something like (hunters laptop, Jan 6 was all FBI agents or whatever Xitter bullshit is popular).
Whenever I’ve tried to do this I get accused of “sealioning”
I actually react well to combative. Not right away, but it puts me into a “I’ll show you” mood that drives me down a rabbit hole of research. If you’re right, I come out the other side with the data and admit I was wrong. But I assume I’m not normal.
I do the same thing. I’m also perfectly comfortable saying I was wrong if I was, and most people aren’t. I assume you are the same.
No one person can know everything. But learning and updating the information that shapes my picture of reality is something enjoyable. I’d like it to be as accurate as possible. It blows my mind that many other people aren’t like that at all. No intellectual curiosity whatever.
Though I do prefer more even-keeled discussion over combative tone. It’s just unnecessary and produces bad feels.
I do the same thing and I am not at all comfortable in saying I was wrong if I was, but I generally do it anyway because, well, fair is fair and I was indeed wrong plus it’s better than I discover it and will from there onwards be correct, that that I keep on spouting bullshit, so ultimatelly having been pointed out as wrong ended up as a win.
That said, if the other person was an asshole in our discussion (for example, using personal attacks and insults) I won’t openly admit to them that I was wrong as I don’t want to give them the satisfaction (though I’ll internally accept I was wrong and correct my take from there onwards).
Yeah, “normal” people have no time or are too lazy to do that.
This is a sign of emotional intelligence. When people get emotionally invested in their argument, they don’t want to lose, and they often won’t let themselves believe they can even lose even when they have.
That’s both the strength and horror of LLMs. They are super good at presenting information in a pleasing way to the user… but can you trust that what it says is correct?
To the majority of humans, a pleasing presentation is treated as evidence of truth, despite that being a logical fallacy.
That’s just like your opinion, man
no, it really ties the whole room together
deleted by creator
Things are more complicated than that. You have the guy you argue with who won’t admit they’re wrong but maybe in the aftermath will shift their opinion a little and after many discussions like that agree with you. Than there are many passive bystanders, undecided and won’t comment but maybe find your point more persuasive
Without seeing the studies, it’s hard to know if they were good studies that support her position or not.
I onde read a pluralistic article about this where he linked apaper that the backfiring effect was supposedly a fluke.
however, if he did change his mind, you would need wrong
