however, if he did change his mind, you would need wrong
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.
deleted by creator
Yeah there are some fields where thats the case sure. From what i’ve seen in online discussion the studies very rarely support the claims being made. Even if the research supports the claim, studies tend not to make bold assertions and strong claims like people arguing online tend to do.
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.
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 onde read a pluralistic article about this where he linked apaper that the backfiring effect was supposedly a fluke.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
it matters a lot how the information is presented
deleted by creator
That’s just like your opinion, man
no, it really ties the whole room together
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.
Whenever I’ve tried to do this I get accused of “sealioning”
I’ve never heard that term before.
I hate the term. I think what you described is a perfectly valid way to approach conversations, but be prepared to have the term thrown at you and to be accused of bad faith, because a decent part of the internet decided it was because a webcomic said so.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
