|
A friend of mine found an article about something called The Backfire Effect. Basically, the article summarizes various psychological studies examining how people rationalize new information presented to them. Here is the beginning of the article:
The Misconception: When When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
This is backed up by research, and the article provides some pretty accurate anecdotes:
Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.
And perhaps this next part might make you bite your tongue (fingers?) next time you go to correct someone on a forum:
The last time you got into, or sat on the sidelines of, an argument online with someone who thought they knew all there was to know about health care reform, gun control, gay marriage, climate change, sex education, the drug war, Joss Whedon or whether or not 0.9999 repeated to infinity was equal to one – how did it go?
Did you teach the other party a valuable lesson? Did they thank you for edifying them on the intricacies of the issue after cursing their heretofore ignorance, doffing their virtual hat as they parted from the keyboard a better person?
No, probably not. Most online battles follow a similar pattern, each side launching attacks and pulling evidence from deep inside the web to back up their positions until, out of frustration, one party resorts to an all-out ad hominem nuclear strike. If you are lucky, the comment thread will get derailed in time for you to keep your dignity, or a neighboring commenter will help initiate a text-based dogpile on your opponent.
What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online. When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs.
There is plenty of evidence in the article- its not necessary for me to start listing that too. Let me assure you that the research has definitively proved this true, although you might never believe that....
Bottom line- You'll never win on the internet.
Source:
+ Show Spoiler +http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
|
That's why you close-to-never see these words on the internet:
"I'm sorry, my bad"
"I was wrong, I guess you're right"
Basically that article is just proving what was pretty obvious before!
|
I though this was rather well known. Colbert had a guy on his show last night that was talking about another effect: instead of seeking out evidence to form opinions, you form opinions and then seek the evidence to confirm your opinion.
|
"You'll never win on the internet" Could be said for many times in real life too.
Thou, I have on many occasion, I have backed down and apologised for falsely believed "truths" ( on the internet, and in real life).
But I'm not the most common person. Seems the common response is to take offence in other peoples point of views.
Sure It can be annoying. But that shouldn't stop people from stopping for a second and actually thinking about it.
So...really, SOMETIMES people are willing to be open to learn.
(by sometimes, I mean very rarely)
|
I noticed this myself, and when I did I try really hard to stop it whenever I do actual arguing with people. I'll be angry if they catch an inconsistency in my argument but I'll recognize that I'm angry and that it is stupid to be angry, and say "you're right"
|
Bullshit.
User was warned for this post
|
Oh I believe you - wait, did you just win on the internet then?!
|
Michael Shermer approves of this post. Well said.
|
This backfire effect thing reminds me of the whole "cognitive dissonance" thing, where you hold two conflicting ideas in your head, and since they can't both be true it's a frustrating and aggravating experience for your brain. It isn't surprising that it will usually swing towards what you already thought before.
However, I would like to make note that I honestly catch myself "in the wrong" in arguments, and I change my outlook based on evidence. I try my best to be a skeptic about almost everything, even though it pisses off a lot of people I get into conversations with. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but having a background in science and logic has helped me recognize when I'm being irrational.
|
It's called cognitive dissonance theory, and occurs everywhere in life, not just on the internet. Prime example is all political debate (global warming vs no global warming, 'liberals' vs 'socialists', you name it).
I have no clue why it's suddenly popping up as 'the backfire effect' when it already has a name ;p.
|
Meh, it all depends on the form of the message. If you flame your counterpart in an argument and treat him as a moron, then his natural reaction is to feel that you, and everything in your post, is a personal attack on him and his beliefs, and therefore the correct course of action is to reject it all as strongly as possible.
If, on the other hand, you make your point with politeness and humility, then your counterpart will be much more likely to find what you say palatable and give your arguments a fair chance.
|
People are idiots in general, and few people actually take the time to think rationally :/
Ex: One time I thought it would be fun to watch a Canadian political debate. It was quite enjoyable, but for the wrong reasons, it was one of the most uncivilized things I have ever seen. (2nd to silly American politics ofc) Grown men and women were yelling over each other, interrupting constantly and throwing wild accusations everywhere.
To sum up the example, if the people that run our countries are this retarded, why the fuck should we expect any better from the general population?
|
I think it depends on the person? I'd much rather see and seek out evidence (as long as it's 100% factual) contradicting my beliefs than confirming them.
|
On July 13 2011 07:41 Zirith wrote:
People are idiots in general, and few people actually take the time to think rationally :/expect any better from the general population?
No, that is a different theory. 
In all seriousness, I think absolutely everyone would benefit from reading through a social psychology textbook. If you know how your own mind tricks you, you won't be tricked that easily.
|
Well shi its hard to analyze text for emotions, no facial expressions to work with here.
So any text that praise word for word will be overvalued, any criticism in text will be taken as a insult against your very soul.
Text just not compatible, I am thinking of actually posting youtube videos of myself in any argument to get it 100% clear
I mean even this text you just read - don't I just sound like a teenage douchebag? Sitting with a cap on the side? When in actuality I am just sitting normaly with straight face, how you write is more important then what you write
|
On July 13 2011 07:23 JohnnyCash wrote:
Bullshit.
I see what you did there...
|
The internet.
Where you can argue about articles about arguing on the internet.
|
On July 13 2011 07:44 DevAzTaYtA wrote:
I think it depends on the person? I'd much rather see and seek out evidence (as long as it's 100% factual) contradicting my beliefs than confirming them.
Thats a common scientific technique. Create a hypothesis and then try to disprove it rather than try to prove it, you'd be surprised how effective it can be.
|
On July 13 2011 07:23 JohnnyCash wrote:
Bullshit.
Hahaha, if this guy meant it as a joke, it was pretty damn good .
I think that this topic also applies to real-life discussions/arguments.
|
I don't believe this, and that article only makes me more sure of my correctness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
