I mean, they’re both right. Without seeing the studies, we can’t know exactly what was being investigated, but obviously people have the capacity to change their minds. It just depends on what timeframe, how much evidence, potential removal from propaganda system, etc.
Sometimes people will make a broad statement then link a study that supports it and act like boom that makes it a fact. No it doesnt. A study supporting your statement helps support your argument but it doesnt make it a fact. The real world is extremely complex and there are so many factors that can make something true in one place,space or moment in time and worng in another.
This is the same logic anti-vaxxers use.
Yes, sometimes a few studies or even one study is compelling enough to confidently make an assertion that requires evidence to the contrary.
Theres only one good way to change someones mind over something that they have become entrenched about - for example politics, but anything where the reaction is a no rather than a what.
And thats to listen to everything they say, and ask the right question at the right time, a gentle interjection, something that nudges them to question something themselves. At somepoint they might even ask you about you perspective, and you need to give the right kind of answer.
Its slow and painful, and for big things it takes years and years of work to get someone to change. But its the only way ive found to truly work.
The way I heard this explained is you have to show compassion. And if they disagree on something important to you, that might be hard! But I think it’s right on the money.
That said, I appreciate the way you break it down; especially that you point out the fact it can definitely be slow and painful.
There is also a thing that people sometimes change their mind under the weight of evidence, but not immediately. It often requires you to think about it, collect your thoughts and all, and it takes some alone time
Sad proof that refuting bullshit takes infinitely more energy that it took to spread. If you tell someone that they are under attack, that someone they already distrust is their enemy, it goes straight to the lizard brain.
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.
Theres a technique called deep canvassing where you don’t question the second parties beliefs or tell them things but instead build empathy, make the conversation about them, ask them about themselves, and then tell them things they probably didn’t know as a way to let them decide for themselves that they were wrong before.
If a person thinks a car is purple but it’s actually beige an expert could ask about their car and their own car and how they have similar costs or routine maintenance to form a connection, then talk about the sources of pigments and introduce indexes or catalogues of colors, and the person would see on their own how purple relates to blue and red and how beige relates to yellow and come to the correct conclusion on their own.
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.
Yes. In fact, all of us should simultaneously attempt to defecate in our pants… ready? 3…. 👀
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.
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
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 staeted this flame war, and it’s pretty annoying at times.
Maybe but there’s this shitlib take that the problem with the Democrats isn’t their shitty candidates or their shitty policies or their shitty consultants or their shitty campaigns.
The problem is the voters are just too deplorable to vote the right and honorable way.
This whole “you can’t change minds with reason” is a shibboleth for these types of people.
These people would rather lose and be self-righteous about being “one of the few good ones” than put any pressure on the dems to stop this country’s increasingly fast slide into fascism.
But you can’t change minds with reason. You have to put irrational passion and emotion into the mix. If reason always prevailed and changed minds, Trump would’ve never ever lead any enterprise or endeavor, let alone become president of a country.
Cemeteries and prisons are filled with people who were/are right.
I think Trump would not be president if the Democrats hadn’t thrown a horrible batch of candidates at him.
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” (in that sense) 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. Upholding facts (or logic & truth) so others can accept them when they’re ready (not to indulge their biases) is “winning” enough to me. Humans still gonna human.
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.
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.
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.
