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....
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"
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?
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 07:44 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.
The aim of debate isn't to prove that you're right or to change the other person's beliefs. It's to show that the other person is wrong, because if they're wrong then you're right. I thought everyone knew that.
You understand that due to your links, I'm obliged by your post to not believe a word of it? Unfortunately, this creates a contradiction, since I can't disbelieve your article without proving it true.
Your article creates a logical paradox, and thus, must die.
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.
On July 13 2011 07:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote: 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!
to be fair to people, most arguments start off with something along the lines of "and you are a massive faggot" "you piece of shit" so telling them publicly they are correct is more about not wanting to appear to be their bitch than anything
I've had my mind changed by people on the internet before. If I cannot field a logical argument to counter their point, then there is no choice but to incorporate their belief.
On July 13 2011 07:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote: 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 have actually taken a step back and said such things several times when I have been in discussions about different things and found out I was wrong.
I haven't read more from this article than what is written in the OP but the fact that I have lost argumentations online is proof enough for me that it is possible to win an discussion online.
I believe there's a simpler term for this phenomenon known as denial.
However, I fail to see how you reached the conclusion that one can never win on the internet. Seeing as how all the experimenting in the world can't prove such a claim, only predict an unlikelihood of winning on the internet.
To quote Anne Frank, where there's hope, there's life.
On July 13 2011 07:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote: 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 have actually taken a step back and said such things several times when I have been in discussions about different things and found out I was wrong.
I haven't read more from this article than what is written in the OP but the fact that I have lost argumentations online is proof enough for me that it is possible to win an discussion online.
Thats honorable, but by far not the norm. It IS possible to win, but I wouldn't want to know the odds.
This article just confirms what I already knew and generally practice: there's no point in arguing in most cases. There's no real "win". You can debate, and that's good and fun. But in passionate arguments it's just best to agree to disagree and move on to more productive things.
This is interesting and goes along with the theory that every idea is a meme and that we have just as much a "memotype" as a genotype. So our mind unconsciously preserves our unique memotype just as our body automatically preserves our lives.
On July 13 2011 07:21 BlackJack wrote: 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.
I guess it's totally impossible to have an opinion backed up by facts and logic and expect an equally solid set of facts and logic before discarding said opinion.
And perhaps your logic has a common error that seems obvious to everyone but you.
But this is just speculation we need science to tell us that!
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.
On July 13 2011 07:21 BlackJack wrote: 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.
Whether values precede rationality or vice versa is imo one of the most interesting philosophical questions. Even when people do change their opinions, the cause often has nothing to do with rational analysis.
Ah yes... I'm familiar with this "theory." Here's how it works...
You are sure of some conviction you picked up at the university, and you go spouting it off, ie "97% of climate scientists think global warming is man-made!" When people reject your claim, you assure yourself that you are smarter than they are, because you have the facts on your side, while they are doing psychological acrobatics in order to deny and not accept your obviously superior and correct view of everything in the universe.
Of course, you have to lie to yourself by saying that you also succumb to psychological errors and biases, but you do this only to once again prove your intellectual superiority to yourself, which makes the whole exercise extremely circular and ironic without you even realizing it.
Once you have your "people are really stupid" mentality firmly entrenched in your mind, excluding yourself of course, you can hold yourself above debate by saying something along the lines of "you never win on the internet," preventing you from actually justifying your convictions, thereby again ironically confirming the theory you already invented.
We could go in circles for days here. Sorry, but I've changed my mind on many, many different issues, politics included. I changed my opinions because I read opinions from people much smarter than I am. Those people aren't found in online forums, they are found in great literature and philosophical works. I read Chomsky and Rothbard at the same time. That just goes to prove the convictions I have now are better than anyone else's and there's no point in me accepting any contradictory arguments.
On July 13 2011 09:09 jdseemoreglass wrote: We could go in circles for days here. Sorry, but I've changed my mind on many, many different issues, politics included. I changed my opinions because I read opinions from people much smarter than I am. Those people aren't found in online forums, they are found in great literature and philosophical works. I read Chomsky and Rothbard at the same time. That just goes to prove the convictions I have now are better than anyone else's and there's no point in me accepting any contradictory arguments.
Chomsky AND Rothbard??? MY GOD! I THINK YOU DEFY THIS THREAD!
Anyone who's read the general section on TL knows that online debates rarely have a "winner". However, I have to say that over the past 2 years there actually was one thread, where the debate changed my position on the topic. I didn't admit it in a post, though. I just left the discussion...
Actually, there was another thread where I also shifted my position during the debate. However, it wasn't a 180° turn around like the first thread.
Obvisiouly, I was right every other debate I engaged in :p
Also, I find this to be quite true:
On July 13 2011 08:03 Malarkey817 wrote: The aim of debate isn't to prove that you're right or to change the other person's beliefs. It's to show that the other person is wrong, because if they're wrong then you're right. I thought everyone knew that.
edit:
I think it would be interesting if the OP added a poll:
Poll: Have you ever changed your position after an online debate?
I don't engage in online debates. (13)
43%
>5 times (6)
20%
No. (4)
13%
1-2 times (4)
13%
3-5 times (3)
10%
30 total votes
Your vote: Have you ever changed your position after an online debate?
(Vote): No. (Vote): I don't engage in online debates. (Vote): 1-2 times (Vote): 3-5 times (Vote): >5 times
I've seen plenty of people concede in an argument on the internet after being proving wrong/convinced... It doesn't happen nearly as much as both parties arguing endlessly, but it happens. The irony in that article is pretty hilarilous.
On July 13 2011 07:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote: 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!
Except on Team Liquid. You see it a lot more often (Especially from me) for one reason I can fathom: The regular filth of internet forum posts gets banned around here.
How is this website/author of the article even credible?
It is very rare that people change their opinions, but at the very least I have seen where other opinions are coming from and see their viewpoint as (somewhat ) reasonable. And I have changed my opinion before too.
On July 13 2011 09:37 happyness wrote: How is this website/author of the article even credible?
It is very rare that people change their opinions, but at the very least I have seen where other opinions are coming from and see their viewpoint as (somewhat ) reasonable. And I have changed my opinion before too.
Though most arguing is pointless, it is true
The website is just another one of those popular science ones. It tries to explain everything by reducing an entire field of research to a message that fits inside a fortune cookie. Cognitive dissonance theory (which is what this is) doesn't claim that people are unable to change their beliefs, it just gives a psychological model for when people are able and likely to do so, and when they're aren't able and are very unlikely to do so. It applies to every idea you hold and every discussion you take part in.
For example: Take a 'debate' (a.k.a. shouting match) between 2 extreme sides of the political spectrum (or a teamliquid discussion between a hardcore 'Z is UP' person and a hardcore 'forcefields are hard' person). A debate like that involves a persons 'core' beliefs, and changing your most basic beliefs is near impossible, because changing a belief like that has huge implications for your entire worldview. You don't ever see an 'activist liberal' change the beliefs of an 'activist socialist', or the other way around.
Yet when the same two people enter a discussion on convictions that aren't part of their 'core', on let's say 'what hamburger restaurant has the best employment opportunities', it is entirely possible for both sides to change their mind, because it is a conviction that has no impact on their worldview.
On the other hand, if you get 1 person that loves working for McDonalds pitted vs someone that loves working for Burger King, neither side will yield to their opponent when it comes to what the best fast food chain is, but if they both don't give a shit about politics, it's entirely possible for them to reach an agreement on what the best direction for a country is.
Popular science has its uses, but you have to understand the limitations of reducing an entire field of theory to something that can be digested in 5 minutes from a website. I realize my post is essentially the same thing, but let's hope it clears at least something up. It's not impossible to change someone's mind on the internet, as long as he/she doesn't care a great deal about the subject being discussed. Which is fairly unlikely, because people are drawn to threads they care a great deal about.
The only things worth arguing about are opinion based or unprovable as such it's obviously unusual for people to be 'persuaded' to change their view on such things.
This kind of psychological study can only ever be based on statistical evidence, and it's a study of how some or most people behave and think. Unless it somehow demonstrates a principle truth that must apply to anyone and everyone, it's just a generalization. That's why I dislike the tone of the quotations in the OP - they presume to tell every reader about himself and everyone he'll ever meet, and describe those traits as insurmountable essential humanity. It's only half the job of psychology to define a problem, and yet the source of these quotes seems eager to jump the gun to proclaim that there is no solution. If arguing is pointless, the key reason for it is because too many people fail to respect or understand the medium, both among those who participate and those who don't.
On July 13 2011 09:40 Tianx wrote: The goal isn't necessarily to convince the person you're arguing against, but other people listening in.
This sums it up.
I don't think anyone goes into a debate (real life or internet) with a realistic hope of 'converting' the other side. The people on the fence are the ones that can be won.
Lots of times, though, on the internet forums it isn't even to persuade third-parties, it's just to "win" the argument, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
There is a similar psychological concept called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It suggests that individuals create an illusion of superiority based on their preconception of their personal intellect or ability that is incompatible with reality. The point is, that like The Backfire Effect, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is another force of creating illusory mindsets when engaging in debates.
I would like to think that this actually sums up the internet considering its often a free forum where people with relatively little qualifications on many topics get into heated debates
EDIT: Someone two lines above me beat me to it.
This theory seems to be related to "ignorance is bliss"
Studies on the Dunning–Kruger effect tend to focus on American test subjects. Similar studies on European subjects show marked muting of the effect; studies on some East Asian subjects suggest that something like the opposite of the Dunning–Kruger effect operates on self-assessment and motivation to improve:
This line is interesting to me and might explain why I find playing league of legends on the US Server significantly less enjoyable from a player interactions perspective.
It's not a joke at all. Look up the psychological term cognitive dissonance. Take the time to understand it and you'll realize it's probably the biggest fundamental cause behind all human behavior on the planet.
ofcourse you can never win an argument on the internet, because the factor of responsibility is removed from discussions over the internet.
when you're lacking the pressure of real social context and the norms of proper direct communication that come with it, you can spit out whatever you like without the fear of relevant loss in any form that you have irl (losing a close person because your mode of thoguht proves incompatible with the other person, or losing a friend because you insulted him, or getting punched in the face for talking stupid, or getting thrown out of the debate club for being unable to carry a proper argument, or losing a job etc.etc.), and all arguments become a cesspool of fallacies bar the rare guys that engage in proper argument, and even then, because there's no finality to any argument over the internet due to the multitudes of people involved in it, you only end up with diluted arguments.
it's funny, we all know presenting arguments over the internet is an unproductive expenditure of time, yet we all do it, guess it's because after all there's things to be gained just from being exposed to the way other people think, however poor it may be, plus that's this thing that we have, hope, for that randomly occuring engaging conversation you get into on an interesting topic with some guys from half way across the world :-))
anyway, interesting or rather funny op stating the obvious ^^
You can never win or lose an argument on the internet cause when you flawlessly get proven wrong you just ignore him, call him a faggot and insult his mother.
Well this settles me ever trying to participate in critical discussion of any of the political threads on TL. All those hours trying to debate with people were pointless after all
I think it depends. If its outright arguing (as in one person trying to knock out the other, verbally) then yeah, it makes sense.
But it depends on the mindset of each individual. The purpose of debate is not necessarily to reach a goal but rather explore the issue.
If I say something that turns out was wrong/misconceived, I learn from it and never mention it again, or use the new information. I enjoy that learning aspect. I feel myself growing mentally, and I feel i've gained a lot intellectually from the internet (and reading, of course).
Reminds of of one time speaking with my Dad. He was talking to me about jehovah's witnesses coming to the door to his house when he was younger. He knew quite a bit of theological information and they discussed it at length, and the JW's were surprised at what theology he knew, saying that the people they have gone to, some of which they had converted, knew nowhere near as much. So my Dad says to me, "so they were going around, converting catholics (as im in ireland, of course ) who didn't know better to jehovah's witnesses. I think that's wrong". To which I replied "yes, but isn't that exactly what catholics do to children who don't know better? Labelling and making them a catholic when they don't have the knowledge, nor even the ability to choose? They do it to adults too" And he was kinda speechless at that, because he literally never thought of it that way. In the end im pretty sure I didn't change his mind about it at all, even though his own faith does the same thing.
It's certainly hard to judge your own beliefs to the extent you judge others. Especially because years of walling yourself up inside your own belief makes alternate opinions or uncomfortable facts seem...alien. Which explains the reception atheists get from many religious people, they're literally not able to believe (or understand) a "lack of belief".
I don't mean to turn this into religious argument by the way, its just an anecdote, somewhat showing the point of what OP was saying. Most arguments about beliefs are about religion after all.
Interesting article nonetheless, guess we all sorta felt that was the case anyway .
On July 13 2011 07:21 BlackJack wrote: 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.
That's really interesting because that's definitely the most common case. Sure, sometimes you're actually very into something and know much about it and an argument forms and you already have tons of facts etc to use when you argument. Most of the time though, you go into a topic, see an argument, pick a side, THEN try to find your facts.
Well, the way I see it is like this. If you are arguing with someone on the Internet, and he is extremely, EXTREMELY adamant in his opinions, it's not likely you will make him come over to your side no matter how good your arguements are. However, it's pretty possible that you will influence other people who are watching who have either no opinion on the matter or lean slightly towards the other side.
When this happens, it's often hard to judge the extent of your influence, because they will often read the points on both sides, then only post after their viewpoint has been changed by you.
So basically, someone got pissy because they never managed to influence someone, made a half-assed study and bla bla bla I'm obviously pigeonholed into dumbassedry just because I disagree with the article.
That article isn't science, it's a series of anecdotes.
Edit: please don't ever point at anything, ever, and say "this is the truth". Because all you have to share is your perception of it.
I'd like to know why is this aimed at the internet? I mean isn't it almost the same in the real life? Have you ever got into debate with someone who had completely different opinion (not just neutral opinion) on politics/global warming/gay marriage/gun control/healthcare, challenged him with facts and saw how he changed his opionion afterwards? No, it just doesn't happen.
On July 13 2011 16:46 ondik wrote: I'd like to know why is this aimed at the internet? I mean isn't it almost the same in the real life? Have you ever got into debate with someone who had completely different opinion (not just neutral opinion) on politics/global warming/gay marriage/gun control/healthcare, challenged him with facts and saw how he changed his opionion afterwards? No, it just doesn't happen.
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.
My problem is I am compelled to argue when I feel the other person's views are plain retarded. I just can't understand how they could possibly have come to that conclusion, and, surely, by presenting solid logic and evidence they would reconsider?
...and no, never does seem to work. Not surprising, really, when you consider that many people I argued with had beliefs that had NO supporting evidence and/or logic.
I don't argue on the internet anymore, I just walk away; it's not worth my time. Of course, I still spend time in forums, which isn't really much of an improvement as far as wasting time goes....
On July 13 2011 16:46 ondik wrote: I'd like to know why is this aimed at the internet? I mean isn't it almost the same in the real life? Have you ever got into debate with someone who had completely different opinion (not just neutral opinion) on politics/global warming/gay marriage/gun control/healthcare, challenged him with facts and saw how he changed his opionion afterwards? No, it just doesn't happen.
Do you think other people are just retarded and reject facts so that they can wilfully continue to delude themselves?
On July 13 2011 16:38 Osmoses wrote: So basically, someone got pissy because they never managed to influence someone, made a half-assed study and bla bla bla I'm obviously pigeonholed into dumbassedry just because I disagree with the article.
That article isn't science, it's a series of anecdotes.
Edit: please don't ever point at anything, ever, and say "this is the truth". Because all you have to share is your perception of it.
So true. And I don't see why is he limiting this to just the internet. All that winning thing It depends mostly on the character of the person you're arguing with/challenging.
For example you'll never get to "win" IdrA on BW or SC2.
This idea of "backfire effect" is based on the idea that there is someone who is definitly "right" in an argument. In the speficific field of science, "truth" is not something that can easily be defined nor achieve. Most of the time, academics takes a huge time to agree on something, especially in social science.
It's the same on the internet, most of time everybody has his own bit of "truth", of "right", and that's why people usually reject the argument of others : even if they don't have the tools to explain how their belief is based on empirical fact, they know from their own life experience that it's somehow right, and based on their experience, they reject the argument of others.
I don't think there is a specific human thought process on the internet that push us to refuse others' arguments. I think it's more that most of the time there are 1) misunderstanding 2) or it's just too difficult for someone to explain his thought process because he doesn't have the cultural capital / language to do so.
You shouldn't be trying to "win" an argument. You should be trying to find what's the common denominator where the 2 of you agree with, then find why each one of you took different routes from that point. That's all.
90% of the disagreements between human beings derive from semantic misunderstanding. If you disagree with someone, chances are, you didn't understand what he's saying.
Nah, I know I never do that. When there is new empirical proof against me I shut the fuck up. You can never learn if you don't admit being wrong. Actually that's one of the greatest pleasures in life, being wrong.
It's more that modern people seem to think of themselves as gods, to the point it becomes ridiculous.
I like these kind of threads. If i don't have an opinion about the thing discussed, i'll make some and if i have, i usually find good (and bad) arguments for both side of views.
You won't convince other people who are arguing in 99.99%, but i wouldn't say these thread are meaningless.
On July 13 2011 17:22 VIB wrote: 90% of the disagreements between human beings derive from semantic misunderstanding. If you disagree with someone, chances are, you didn't understand what he's saying.
I completely agree.
Anyway, "winning" an argument over a person who I do not know personally is completely irrelevant to my life. The only reason one could have to argue with people you don't know is to further develop your own understanding of the topic at hand.
I feel like I have a problem. Whenever someone provides reasonable evidence and backs up their statements with stuff that makes sense to me (most of the time tbh), I tend to get to a point where I look at both beliefs and I'm not sure which is right (sit on the fence until the issue comes up again) or I even just discard my old beliefs and accept theirs...
On July 13 2011 17:30 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Nah, I know I never do that. When there is new empirical proof against me I shut the fuck up. You can never learn if you don't admit being wrong. Actually that's one of the greatest pleasures in life, being wrong.
It's more that modern people seem to think of themselves as gods, to the point it becomes ridiculous.
Great post, I am much the same. Being wrong is really a learning experience as strange as it may sound.
On July 13 2011 07:35 Zato-1 wrote: 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.
The most stunning thing about this post is that your post count is over 2,000, indicating you have used the internet for a long time, and that you said that lol (Take no offense, it's just a joke, and I only say it because my experiences never go too well no matter what).
Maybe your experiences have been better than mine, it's just that I approach most online debates with politeness and humility (put the opening line aside lol), telling them why I disagree and following up with a series of statistics and articles from reliable sources, and then citing them, and am subsequently flamed (being told to go die, that I am a waste of life, that my sources are extremely biased, that I am a fag and an abomination, that I am automatically everything that they don't like even if they don't know what it is (on multiple occasions i am a satanist+atheist or socialist+anarchist lol), that they are automatically smarter, that I have no life because I'm posting on the internet, or that I am a bitch/dumbass/motherfucker/loser/retard/asshole/scrub/nerd/douche/faggot etc.).
So I like the article.
On July 13 2011 16:59 Hairy wrote: My problem is I am compelled to argue when I feel the other person's views are plain retarded. I just can't understand how they could possibly have come to that conclusion, and, surely, by presenting solid logic and evidence they would reconsider?
...and no, never does seem to work. Not surprising, really, when you consider that many people I argued with had beliefs that had NO supporting evidence and/or logic.
I don't argue on the internet anymore, I just walk away; it's not worth my time. Of course, I still spend time in forums, which isn't really much of an improvement as far as wasting time goes....
On July 13 2011 16:46 ondik wrote: I'd like to know why is this aimed at the internet? I mean isn't it almost the same in the real life? Have you ever got into debate with someone who had completely different opinion (not just neutral opinion) on politics/global warming/gay marriage/gun control/healthcare, challenged him with facts and saw how he changed his opionion afterwards? No, it just doesn't happen.
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.
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.
On July 13 2011 16:46 ondik wrote: I'd like to know why is this aimed at the internet? I mean isn't it almost the same in the real life? Have you ever got into debate with someone who had completely different opinion (not just neutral opinion) on politics/global warming/gay marriage/gun control/healthcare, challenged him with facts and saw how he changed his opionion afterwards? No, it just doesn't happen.
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.
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.
Completely agree but looking at the psychology of it, it seems that the anonymity makes people more hostile than they would be IRL and therefore comes across stronger by the heated kind of rejection they most likely give. Whereas in real life they would (probably) reject it just as much but be more civil about it.
I realise this contains a lot of 'probably's so maybe just a load of crap, but I've been foruming for years and it seems apparent to me.
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.
Very true. I will add these two things:
1) If one person sees a gain to a kissing-his-ass move, he may surrender the argument for his own ends. He has not reconsidered his views, he simply sees something to gain from not continuing to argue. 2) Content derailing. When you think you're losing the argument, or think there's some core deep belief that backs up everything that is misunderstood, you change the subject. I say these based on perceptions, for the derailer will think the two topics are so intimately intertwined to make the topic switch necessary, and the opposite for main arguer. This is when (in a public forum) people jump in that know relatively little about the main topic, but have strong opinions on the derailed topic.
Kinda the basis for: you'll never argue someone into believing something.
And when I argue, the only thing the other party comes away with is: I'm stubborn.
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:
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....
the former is called being a mature grown up, the latter is called being an immature crybaby. If someone taught me something, i admit it. but that doesn't mean I will change my mind or tune about something without some clearly rational explanation.
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
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.
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.
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 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)
I have backed down several times myself... it's not entirely true, but to a large extent yes I agree with the article.
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
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.
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.
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.
and the greatest irony is that by challenging it your potentially proving it right
I'm rather secure in what I believe these days, but I have to say that I've had my mind changed about a great deal of things on the internet.
The thing is, when I would realize I was wrong, I wouldn't ever say something like "Oh you're right, wow I guess I'm a moron huh?". I would just leave the discussion (thank you anonymity!), but I would realize they were right.
I suspect I've caused other people to do the same, as well. It's just how it goes, you don't want to admit when you're wrong, and on the internet you don't have to.
I've been aware of this for a while, but I never knew someone had finally given it a real name. I've encountered this online too many times to count, and it bothers me to see it happen time and time again. I've been guilty of it myself, but I make an effort not to, if I can. I made a conscious decision a while ago after seeing dumb arguments cause a ton of unnecessary hostility online between a group of people who originally got along so well, that I would make every effort not to let my arguments do the same, and when I disagree with someone, that I must have respect for their argument, and point out when I feel that I was wrong, or may have to re-evaluate my position on something.
When I argue with someone online I will willingly point out good points that contradict what I believe, and will address them one way or another (either confirming them, and agreeing that they have me there, or by pointing out a flaw or related issue that I believe either trumps that point, or at the very least must be considered along with the point).
For years now I've tried to avoid personal attacks, and to argue without making things personal, but it doesn't work particularly well unless the other parties are also making an attempt to at least be civil about things.
I've never heard of another person online who's made the same decision, but I'd certainly be happy if there was someone else at least who makes this sort of effort.
A lot of people don't care about the scientific process or whether or not something is a rational idea... they just want you to agree with them.
That being said, I've seen a few people open-minded enough to read through some counterarguments and actually change their stance on certain topics after they've realized how ignorant they were.
the OP is pretty spot on, although it is a generalisation to say 'YOU WILL NEVER WIN AN ARGUMENT ON THE INTERNET'. there are always exceptions to the rule
It's very hard to argue against the article if one truly believes the article. However strong beliefs may be challenged when reading different pieces of information of alternating views, I believe that one has to have a good media literacy to come up with their own conclusion. But as man, we tend to be not accepting another's opinion, and it may be hard to even try to stand in another's shoe and thus, actually it may strengthen our lopsided view.
The bottom line is that we need to have a very high media literacy and not put emotions and assumptions ahead of logical thinking, and only then can we be able to create a broader perspective of the issue at hand.
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.
I think the article's distinction of the Internet could be important because it doesn't prove the same results in "real" life. While normally I don't believe there's a real distinction between the two in the case of this subject there might be because
(1) On the Internet you can find information that says whatever you want it to so you can hold fast to your original ideas even when you come across facts that prove otherwise.
(2) People are hostile to outsider opinions in general and when given the anynomous nature of the Internet they are more likely to backlash outright or entirely dismissive--especially if these facts are found on forums where people seem to be in a combative mood in threads that question deeply held beliefs.
In face-to-face encounters or in classes, etc... the facts may appear more like facts instead of just something someone said on the Internet... even though it could be easier for the person speaking to be making something entirely up.
That being said- I've seen many people change their deepest viewpoints after learning information that was at odds with it. However, reason and calculability are not the only things that constitute "facts" and oftentimes there is a better strategy as the "facts" alone.
"Facts are factitious as their name suggests" -Baudrillard
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?
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.
I agree. The author is making humans like simpletons, and its really appalling, ignoring many factors that are affecting decisions and perspectives of different people. The context in which a person resides for example, plays a very large factor in his point of view of an issue. Assumptions and fear are examples of other factors.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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 ^^'
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.
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?
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.
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.
On July 13 2011 07:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote: 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!
It's cause the guys who do this don't end up arguing over stupid shit in the first place.
This isn't actually true, the idea isn't that one person has an idea and the second person has an idea, and one is wrong and the other is right, and an argument should sway one person. It is more like two people who have different ideas share them in discussion so that they may better understand the subject. And the truth is, that discussion changes peoples beliefs all the time. Its when you make it out to be some debate/argument/WWE match where it seems no one will ever change his/her mind.
People don't admit they are wrong to other people's faces, not on deeply held beliefs. If they do change their minds they do it in private and mention it later if at all.
I don't think this study is very accurate. I always win on the internet. I think an important part of the argument is time and place which was probably not really considered when drawing conclusions for this study. I mean, it's kind of obvious that you can't win an argument in the comment section of a christian youtube video.
Its an interesting article no doubht. Howevere, I think it it too generalist in its approach and outcomes. There are far too many variables not being considered when drawing their conclusions. Fun read tho.
On July 13 2011 07:21 BlackJack wrote: 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.
On July 13 2011 07:21 BlackJack wrote: 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.
Isn't that the Scientific Method in action?
No the Scientific Method involves forming a hypothesis and then seeking evidence to confirm that, adjusting your hypothesis along the way based on the influence of said evidence to then form a theory.
Forming an opinion then seeking evidence to support said opinion and disregarding evidence that doesn't support your opinion is not the scientific method. I know he doesn't specifically say disregard evidence that doesn't support your theory but I felt it was implied by the context.
On July 13 2011 07:16 Docta Spaceman wrote: The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
Sounds like the driving force behind Godwin's Law to me. Are your deepest convictions challenged by contrary evidence? Continuously strengthen your beliefs until you feel so right that the other guy must be Hitler incarnate to believe differently.
On July 13 2011 07:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote: 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!
Uh... I'll openly say that I've been wrong on the internet and admitted to it. People have driven points across to me and I've accepted it. Hasn't happened all that often. I have never won an online argument though.
I'd like to think that the wisest admit defeat at times and broaden their horizons as much as possible.
In all seriousness though. Alot of people have had their views swayed when they observe an argument instead of participating in it. You might never win but you can still get people on your side.
1) They can detect every maphack that uses a DX Hook
2) Unlike AntiVir programs and file operations, there are only very few reasons for any program to use DX Hooks, so for AntiVir programs 99% of the cases are ok, for DX Hooks in SC2, 99% of the cases are not. This is why in AntiVir programs, blacklists are ok while for SC2 and DX Hooks, whitelists are the correct choice.
Example: You know you only recieve E-Mails from 5 persons/websites/companies, but you get a few hundred spam emails a day. Would you rather whitelist the 5 persons and have everything else land in a "spam" folder or blacklist every single mail address that does not belong to those 5 entities?
3) Having a banned account is not comparable with being in prison.
1) they can detect every Program that use a dx hook you mean...
2) there are many program who use this. like video players.
example: I will never get a new costumer in my life because he get blocked. Looks like a very bad idea to use a whitelist. i never heard of a email whitelist in my life and in working in this businesses.
You seem to not have understood what DX Hooks are. No Videoplayer uses DX Hooks. Not a single one. They sometimes use DirectX Rendering, but thats (almost) completely unrelated. They don't change the output of other applications.
There are about a dozen programs that use DX Hooks for valid reasons, all others are usually maphacks, wallhacks and other such programs.
Checked it, informed myself. Your right! I should do more research in the frist run.
Still i think a whitelist is to strong because a false positive is just to bad in any scan-procedure.
+rep
You are the first person ever on the internet to change their opinion. CONGRATULATIONS Humanity is evolving! Have many many children for evolution sake please.
In my experience, it seems like most arguments on the internet are more about trying to assert social dominance and impress third parties than actually trying to persuade one's adversary.
On July 14 2011 17:25 Lord_J wrote: In my experience, it seems like most arguments on the internet are more about trying to assert social dominance and impress third parties than actually trying to persuade one's adversary.
well said, well said. The social dominance part is rather sad though.
One important point about arguing on the internet, atleast in my eyes, is that you are not trying to convince the person you talking to, but rather the other people reading the argumentation. If you havent seen "Thank you for smoking", do it naow!
EPT
) reasonable. And I have changed my opinion before too.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gdNMB.png)
![[image loading]](http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i31/tokin_on_a_board/arguinininternet.jpg)
