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.
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.
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?
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.
In my admittedly anecdotal experience I regularly hear people arguing a point I made, that days earlier they were fervently fighting against. Either I’m incredibly persuasive, or I think it’s really just ego. People can’t admit they’re wrong, even if they 100% know you are right. Once they forget they had their ego tied into your argument, they seem to often accept new information.
It’s true though. It’s about cognitive dissonance. Like actual cognitive dissonance, not the internet buzzword version.
When our actions and beliefs don’t match up, it makes us uncomfortable. And as much as we’d all love to think we’d change our actions to match our beliefs, the truth about humanity is that we’re just as likely to change our beliefs to match our actions.
Look at the Ben Franklin effect. Ben Franklin asks for a favor from his enemy, something small like borrowing a book. His enemy lends him the book because it would be impolite not to. Then he experiences dissonance. It makes him uncomfortable that he’s being nice to someone he hates. Instead of not being nice, he lets go of his hate.
Any outward action you take that aligns with a certain belief moves your internal compass towards that belief.
I’m convinced this is the worst effect that social media has had on society.
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.
Okay I do agree with this, that the fear of being perceived as wrong pushes people to be unmalleable in their opinions. I am not sure I would describe that as “arguing fortifies your emotional stance,” because I think there’s a better explanation of the underlying mechanism as you pointed it out.
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.
Lemmy is actually pretty good if you block .ml, it becomes pretty pleasant actually. There is one problem, a lot of the time you see a thread, press on it to check what’s happening, and it doesn’t let you because some .ml person started this flame war, and it’s pretty annoying at times.
I’m sure everyone here has seen people change their minds when confronted with information that runs counter to their narrative.
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.
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.
The backfire effect, as presented by The Oatmeal:
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
Except that may have been a fluke:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x
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?
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.
In my admittedly anecdotal experience I regularly hear people arguing a point I made, that days earlier they were fervently fighting against. Either I’m incredibly persuasive, or I think it’s really just ego. People can’t admit they’re wrong, even if they 100% know you are right. Once they forget they had their ego tied into your argument, they seem to often accept new information.
This I honestly don’t believe in.
It’s true though. It’s about cognitive dissonance. Like actual cognitive dissonance, not the internet buzzword version.
When our actions and beliefs don’t match up, it makes us uncomfortable. And as much as we’d all love to think we’d change our actions to match our beliefs, the truth about humanity is that we’re just as likely to change our beliefs to match our actions.
Look at the Ben Franklin effect. Ben Franklin asks for a favor from his enemy, something small like borrowing a book. His enemy lends him the book because it would be impolite not to. Then he experiences dissonance. It makes him uncomfortable that he’s being nice to someone he hates. Instead of not being nice, he lets go of his hate.
Any outward action you take that aligns with a certain belief moves your internal compass towards that belief.
I’m convinced this is the worst effect that social media has had on society.
never heard of the ben franklin effect before, neat.
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.
Okay I do agree with this, that the fear of being perceived as wrong pushes people to be unmalleable in their opinions. I am not sure I would describe that as “arguing fortifies your emotional stance,” because I think there’s a better explanation of the underlying mechanism as you pointed it out.
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.
Yes. In fact, all of us should simultaneously attempt to defecate in our pants… ready? 3…. 👀
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
Lemmy is actually pretty good if you block .ml, it becomes pretty pleasant actually. There is one problem, a lot of the time you see a thread, press on it to check what’s happening, and it doesn’t let you because some .ml person started this flame war, and it’s pretty annoying at times.
You can always open links in a private window or different browser
On mobile, in the app, it is a hustle. Rarely some comment from .ml is worth it.
But wait, the top level comment here is from a .ml account. How do you see this? Or are only posts from .ml blocked?
It’s not blocked on this account. I use it if I want to punish myself by reading bad takes on the internet