Science: You'll never win on the internet. - Page 5

On July 13 2011 16:56 Osmoses wrote:

And why is that? Do you think other people are just retarded and reject facts so that they can wilfully continue to delude themselves? Or do you think it's because they don't believe your facts are, in fact, facts? Being skeptical of the source is a good thing. Obviously there are some negative effects in terms of never being able to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced of anything, but the alternative would be everyone believing anything as long as you present a pie-chart first.

On July 13 2011 17:56 ondik wrote:

Thing is, people will always be very skeptical of source that proves them wrong, while they will accept a source that proves them right without a second thought. That's my experience at least.

But my question is still the same - why the study mentions internet as if it was different in real life?

I actually think in some cases it may be even harder to convince/change opinion of second person in real life debate because you don't have the time and knowledge to fully support your argument. More than once happened to me I was debating politics/economy with someone who had completely different opinions and when I was pushing him in a corner with my arguments, he asked me some trivial question which I couldn't have answered without making things up, even though I knew I'd have found an answer in less than 15 seconds on the internet. Then the guy is like "yea..I guessed so" and, as the study says, believes his opinions even more. And even if I knew the answer..I don't believe he would have changed his opinion.

Overall, I agree with the study, but don't think it's caused by the internet environment.

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.

On July 13 2011 07:16 Docta Spaceman wrote:
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:



And perhaps this next part might make you bite your tongue (fingers?) next time you go to correct someone on a forum:



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 +

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

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.

On July 13 2011 07:22 Aruno wrote:
"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)

On July 13 2011 19:05 Tzeval wrote:

This statment is false. By this definition changing ones deepest convictions is impossible. People aren't so narrow minded. When there is an advantage in changing ones beliefe the average person will do so.
Example for that :
Look at the development the average german mindset towards nationalsocialism made from the point Hitler wins the election to the final defeat. It must have been somethin like that :
apathetic => hopeful => very high credit => total loyalty => (as the war was turning the other way) growing disbeliefe => (after it was clear that they were losing) desperation => (after they lost) complete alienation with everything that has been done in the name of the party.
Most of the people didn't change overnight, but they were forced to change their beliefs and so they did.


So on the internet there is not really often the danger of dying, therefore change is a much slower process and it's often not as easy to see. But it's still there. It's true that one never reads "i'm wrong" in discussion threads, but how often have you heard this word in the parlarment of your country? The winner of an argument is not only determined, when one side admits defeat, it's also determined by those who follow the argument. In most cases the majority has a different view than both of the argumenting parties (Yeah there are more than two different views, the world isn't binary, although that would be a much better world :>).
Those people are also influenced by there views, but their view might change depending on the evidence that is brought up. They have no intresst in "winning" the argument, because they don't participate.

One has to understand that views don't change overnight, it's something that takes time.
Just look at the number of Atheist (in Europe i have no idea how it's in the US) it's growing although the majority is born into a christian/muslim families. That's because people slowly adapt towards what is evident to them.

On July 13 2011 19:52 Jombozeus wrote:
0.99999 repeated to infinity does equal 1 though :<

On July 13 2011 07:49 wollhandkrabbe wrote:


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.

On July 13 2011 22:04 Asjo wrote:
I see this as a good example of how interpretation of such "scientific" research means a lot. While it's obvious that people will go far to justify and support their beliefs, I skimmed the article, and the only thing this is based on is apparently a study confronting people with evidence contrary to what they believe. It goes off the initial surface reaction, which doesn't really tell us much.

Most of the time, when people change the way they see things, it's because of feelings. If they are attached to someone who sees things in a certain way, they are more likely to do the same. If some extreme event happened to them, where they are emotionally affected, they is also likely to change how they see things. For the same reason, the most times where people try to see your side of the argument or admit they might be wrong, it is because of their emotional involvement with you. It might be that they greatly respect you, feel a good connection to you in the conversation or might fear your resentment upon them disagreeing. So, they force themselves to see beyond their beliefs.

What's problematic about the way the observations from this study is argued is that it makes it seems like you cannot change someone's opinion in an argument while ignoring a lot of the important factors that influence this. It's not so strange that you won't see people say "ok, you might be right" on the internet, since it's something people are uncomfortable with, and the internet makes it easy for us to stick with what we like. Often, there is not a great deal of emotional involvement, and when you're not face to face with people, it doesn't require the same commitment to the conversation. However, the point of an argument is not to "win" but to enlighten others and be enlightened in turn. And that's often what happens when people have a mature argument over the internet. You pose your beliefs or assumptions for others to challenge you and thus expand your horizon. You might incorporate the inconsistencies into your own argument and try to justify them, but by being confronted with an opposite truth, there is always a greater chance that you will change your mind in the future. Of course, this greatly depend on the mindsets of those who discuss. If people discuss simply to further their own agenda, discussions will often deteriorate into one of semantics or insults, where neither party is likely to be receptive to other ideas.