Science: You'll never win on the internet. - Page 6

Sn0Board4life27

United States32 Posts

July 13 2011 13:23 GMT

#101

On July 13 2011 07:23 JohnnyCash wrote:
Bullshit.

Thus proving the entire point of this article..

On another note, I was reading a similar article in some magazine while I was at the doctors office, very intriguing but it begs a question. If you cant win on the internet, how does one win then?

Asjo

Denmark664 Posts

July 13 2011 13:36 GMT

#102

On July 13 2011 22:19 MudkipSEA` wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.

However, I disagree the part on enlightening others. Most people would rather thrust their beliefs and perspectives into others on the internet, because of the anonymity that it offers, rather than to enlighten them. Thus, the internet has become a place of different perspectives be it valuable or not, and one can choose which websites and links he may want to go, which builds upon his belief, ignoring that of other perspectives.

I did say it was the point of an argument, not always how it's carried out. Did also add the adjective mature. It's true that many people will do what you say, but I definitely think it's a mix. Since people can be insecure, they sometimes want to be challenged or enjoy the rapport that can be created between people through conversations such as forums, where everyone can see what everyone is saying, making it easy to attach values to people create and sense of community. There are many places where I could argue of topics of interest to me, but one of the main reasons that I care to argue on these forums, apart from the big audience and diversity of people, is that the people here have gained some kind of significance to me, and I want to somehow affect them.

qrs

United States3637 Posts

July 13 2011 13:49 GMT

#103

On July 13 2011 07:35 Zato-1 wrote:
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.

This is an important point. I wish more people would conduct their arguments like Zato-1 suggests. I think people tend to naturally assume (without thinking about it) that other people are coming at things from their own point of view, and so they easily get frustrated when that person reaches a different conclusion than them, but that's counter-productive.

In my opinion, "be twice as polite as you think you need to be" is a good rule of thumb.

On July 13 2011 08:57 nemo14 wrote:
I wish that I had gotten to this thread quickly enough to say "inb4 posters who agree, but believe themselves to be exceptions to the rule." Why are we so predictably dishonest with ourselves, guys? Out of all the real arguments I have ever been involved in, only two managed to actually change my mind about a thing and that is only because I finally realized after an hour of getting the rhetorical shit kicked out of me that I was occupying a literally indefensible position.

Also a good point. I think that anyone who's self-aware enough to notice this tendency in themselves is already an exception to the rule in some slight degree, but even with that, it's very hard to be a true exception.

Even so, being aware of this tendency can at the least prompt you to refine your rationalizations of your own position, and even that is a good thing insofar as it gives you a better understanding of the topic. Perhaps that's the best we can realistically hope for as a general outcome.

MERLIN.

Canada546 Posts

July 13 2011 13:59 GMT

#104

I see why religion has been getting stronger, science comes out saying "sorry... earth isn't the center of the universe..." "Impossible.... Science lies."

On that note, Bill nye the science guy got boo'd at a kids elementary school on a topic kinda like this when he said that the moon reflects the suns light and that's why it glows at night (or something a little more scientific) and parents started leaving and yelling "liar" LOL?

If you know Bill Nye then you know he's boss as fuck.

cfoy3

United States129 Posts

July 13 2011 14:04 GMT

#105

I think this is really important. It is important to know our flaws even though they are disconcerting. By knowing of this effect people can better control their opinions and reactions.

NietzscheanKant

Finland92 Posts

July 13 2011 14:11 GMT

#106

Always to keep in one's mind.

As are other cognitive biases (and there a few of them...) plaguing us.

It'd cool if people were taught about these in school, so they might catch themselves being under their 'spell' and thus able to more objective in their reasoning.

jayt88

Singapore97 Posts

July 13 2011 14:23 GMT

#107

This is just nonsense. It's ironic how this article is the epitome of confirmation bias, sure the internet is full of such evidence, but, there are a ton of evidence which are counter to this proposition as well. They are just selecting evidence that supports their stand.

Depends on how you define win, I'm pretty sure the default ruling is that the first person to back out makes the other person the winner.

SirGlinG

Sweden933 Posts

July 13 2011 14:42 GMT

#108

The fault with this is how it generalises, As so many before me here has said, that by them not believing this it becomes a opinion and not a fact.

I haven't read the whole article but the way it was presented here as a fact is the problem with it.
It's most probably more true than false in the way that more cases end up with noone learning from the other part in a internet argument, but it remains being a generalization and not a fact.

What we can learn from it isn't that arguing is meaningless but that we should keep our eyes open while arguing, try avoiding that it happens. Arguing in a respectful manner, presenting your "facts" without saying me being right means u being wrong and an asshole.

Most arguments are only different ways of viewing the question anyways, so in most cases both sides are right from their "facts" and perspective. If one tries to understand the other ones perspective and learn from that, add that into ónes own picture of it all. Then perhaps a learning arguing can occur.

HansMoleman

United States343 Posts

July 13 2011 14:46 GMT

#109

Science: A justification for being close minded.

FuzzyJAM

Scotland9300 Posts

July 13 2011 14:47 GMT

#110

I've uttered the words "You're right, I was wrong" on the Internet before. I've "lost" many an argument, or at least conceded parts of my argument to be wrong. Perhaps people who go in with a mindset of "I MUST WIN THIS ARGUMENT" will never concede on the Internet because there is not an arbiter, but that's why you try to go in thinking "I want to learn, to see any problems with my position, to see what the other person's position has to offer, to potentially help those who don't know much about the issue get a broader understanding and to eventually reach a position closer to the truth."

Heck, I've argued against positions I've held (or chosen a side in a debate I really wasn't sure about) to see what others can bring to the table in discussing it. If it seems clear that I'm learning nothing and the other side is not interested in learning anything either I simply stop posting - what's the point?

I won't deny that I can be highly stubborn and as bad as anyone at refusing to see when I'm wrong. That of course happens. However, it's not the case all the time and I don't think we should take such a defeatist attitude to ourselves. Strive to overcome recognised problems and change yourself, don't just say "Well, I guess I give up because I'm not naturally very good at it."

The key here is that our culture generally presents a very poor idea as to what the purpose of an argument is. The idea that you should debate as a form of competition is fine when both sides recognise it as such, but in general the competitive nature of bludgeoning your opponent to death should simply not be used. Instead, look to find holes in your own position, challenge it, be willing to discard it and, assuming you're not totally wrong, look to convince bystanders that your position is the right one.

That's certainly something that's missing here: just because you fail to convince the person you're arguing with doesn't mean others haven't heard what you've said and come to your "side".

On July 13 2011 23:42 SirGlinG wrote:Most arguments are only different ways of viewing the question anyway

I love this and shall remember it in the future.

This is why it's important to try to understand another's point of view - it could be that they don't actually disagree with you at all.

hypercube

Hungary2735 Posts

July 13 2011 16:36 GMT

#111

On July 13 2011 23:11 NietzscheanKant wrote:
Always to keep in one's mind.

As are other cognitive biases (and there a few of them...) plaguing us.

It'd cool if people were taught about these in school, so they might catch themselves being under their 'spell' and thus able to more objective in their reasoning.

It's not just that we have cognitive biases. Our whole thinking is structured around heuristics. Logic, critical thinking and objectivity are the exception (even for those who do try to apply it) not the rule.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some of our "illogical" subconscious decisions are just as good or better than those made after careful deliberation and generally much faster. The goal shouldn't be to be objective at all times but to recognize the true nature of how we form beliefs and make decisions. Then use this knowledge this avoid the most dangerous pitfalls, while still using the considerable advantages they provide.

eluv

United States1251 Posts

July 13 2011 16:55 GMT

#112

I just want to point out the extreme ... irony? maybe, I'm not exactly sure what you call it, that this thread is sharing the TL General forum top 5 with 3 hugely controversial topics that are currently full of heated debate, and going nowhere fast.

They should all really read just this one I guess.

ToxNub

Canada805 Posts

July 13 2011 17:01 GMT

#113

On July 13 2011 08:03 Gnial wrote:
I don't know about any of you, but I generally don't debate with the intention of changing the mind of the person I'm discussing with. (Of course I'm talking about the publicly displayed debates such as those in the general forum)

Rather, I hope that someone else reading the discussion who may not have been informed previously may be informed by the ongoing debate, and come to have my point of view.

If some idiot keeps posting the same retarded crap about his opinion over and over, becoming more entrenched in his opinion, and you provide a good argument, any 3rd party viewer should be able to see through the crap. It is with that 3rd party viewer that you have succeeded, even if you never get the gratification of being told that you're right at the end of the day.

If I want to change someone's mind, I'll discuss with them in PMs, phone, skype, in person, etc. The more private you make such discussions, the less likely they are to feel like they are going to lose face.

Yep. I typically say "I don't give a shit about changing your mind, I just want to see the subject get proper treatment"

Mczeppo

Germany319 Posts

July 13 2011 17:26 GMT

#114

Do you really think there are no people who can admit their wrong believes if you show them evidence (in form of data, graph, sources, etc...)?

Sure there are enogh douchebags but there are quite some nice people on the internet as well.
Maybe i didnt get the point but i cant believe that wrong thinking is strengthened even if you show the truth...
If the article was correct (it may be) our whole discussion would be pointless, because we'd be victims of our brain ^^'

Bibdy

United States3481 Posts

July 13 2011 17:55 GMT

#115

On July 14 2011 02:26 Mczeppo wrote:
Do you really think there are no people who can admit their wrong believes if you show them evidence (in form of data, graph, sources, etc...)?

Sure there are enogh douchebags but there are quite some nice people on the internet as well.
Maybe i didnt get the point but i cant believe that wrong thinking is strengthened even if you show the truth...
If the article was correct (it may be) our whole discussion would be pointless, because we'd be victims of our brain ^^'

Welcome to the wonderful world of psychology, where it's explained, in no uncertain terms, that you are indeed a victim of the weird shit your brain does to protect itself.

ZERG_RUSSIAN

10417 Posts

July 13 2011 18:25 GMT

#116

Idk if anyone has posted this but there's also evidence to the fact that people do change their long-term beliefs AFTER they react by strengthening their initial beliefs. I forgot the name of the effect but it's a pretty well-known social psychological phenomenon that in spite of people's knee-jerk reaction they do later consider the evidence. I think it's called the sleeper effect or something?

Docta Spaceman

United States74 Posts

July 13 2011 22:13 GMT

#117

On July 13 2011 23:23 jayt88 wrote:
This is just nonsense. It's ironic how this article is the epitome of confirmation bias, sure the internet is full of such evidence, but, there are a ton of evidence which are counter to this proposition as well. They are just selecting evidence that supports their stand.

Depends on how you define win, I'm pretty sure the default ruling is that the first person to back out makes the other person the winner.

Your response is also the epitome of what this article is talking about.

I have to point out that there are lots of people here stating things along the lines of "This is true, but I will change my beliefs if I'm shown irrefutable evidence contradicting my previous views." I mean, of course you're going to say that. Would anyone actually say the opposite of that statement? "I never change my beliefs regardless of evidence-" wouldn't actually ever be said by a sane person.

I think what explains this is the idea that several people have brought up, which is that while people do not immediately change their beliefs, they may slowly adjust them in the long run. This theory and the 'backfire effect' are not such that they cannot be put together. This article is about immediate, short-term reaction, while in actuality ideas will probably change in the long-term.

Forumite

Sweden3280 Posts

July 13 2011 22:26 GMT

#118

Nothing new, it doesn´t even really matter. The one guy defending his theory to the end isn´t the important one, it´s the future generations of scientists who have yet to pick a side. These things take time, big deal.