No one is going to listen to you if you act like a know-it all. It has nothing to do with whatever you’re saying.
I’m sure everyone here has seen people change their minds when confronted with information that runs counter to their narrative.
Changing someone’s mind in a public debate isn’t necessary to show everyone they’re a fool. That’s usually enough.
Whether they ever get sick of being a fool is entirely up to them. If they’re wise & mature, they will & maybe even admit it. Some people never do & it’s mostly their problem at that point. Humans gonna human.
Bullshit without linking the studies.
It’s also a muddy case whether the statements are about the existance of people or all people.
Some people run on facts, others on emotions. They have to be convinced differently.
Somehow beautiful. Calling out bullshit, but also agreeing.
Yeah it matters a lot how the conversation is set up.
Is it “you and I versus the facts”?
Or “you vs me”?
Competent people can disagree and also identify where the facts are missing and the assumptions begin that lead to this. It doesn’t have to be a fight if they look at the data as something to discover together.
One study I found is where they let people (their control group) check some data about effectiveness of a certain shampoo. They all found the correct answer. Then they let people do the exercise with the exact same data but said it was about gun control. Suddenly a part of the participants failed at basic math and had a lot of rationalizations.
Some folks will not just accept any fact or data that goes against a belief held by their peer group. Giving facts will even be seen as a personal attack.
I think Veritasium did a video on that.
Would love to see it if you have a link.
I’d imagine this is what OP is referring to
Certainly is, thank you.
well he was in a bit of a bind. If this had changed his mind, what would that say?
I foresee two possibilities.
1: Coming face to face with their own mistake might put them into shock and they would simply pass out. 2: The realization could create a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the spacetime continuum and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that’s a worst-case scenario. The destruction might in fact be very localized, limited to merely our own galaxy.
Well, that’s a relief.
Things are more complicated than that. You have the guy you argue with who won’t admit they’re wrong but maybe in the aftermath will shift their opinion a little and after many discussions like that agree with you. Than there are many passive bystanders, undecided and won’t comment but maybe find your point more persuasive
it matters a lot how the information is presented
That’s really it!
If it is a combative exchange neither side will concede.
It’s better to pretend to be ignorant or on their side and then ask questions that lead them to the truth you want them to see.
I’ve done this a few times with trumpets, but they always flip back after they realize what just happened.
Usually end up hearing something like (hunters laptop, Jan 6 was all FBI agents or whatever Xitter bullshit is popular).
Whenever I’ve tried to do this I get accused of “sealioning”
I actually react well to combative. Not right away, but it puts me into a “I’ll show you” mood that drives me down a rabbit hole of research. If you’re right, I come out the other side with the data and admit I was wrong. But I assume I’m not normal.
I do the same thing. I’m also perfectly comfortable saying I was wrong if I was, and most people aren’t. I assume you are the same.
No one person can know everything. But learning and updating the information that shapes my picture of reality is something enjoyable. I’d like it to be as accurate as possible. It blows my mind that many other people aren’t like that at all. No intellectual curiosity whatever.
Though I do prefer more even-keeled discussion over combative tone. It’s just unnecessary and produces bad feels.
I do the same thing and I am not at all comfortable in saying I was wrong if I was, but I generally do it anyway because, well, fair is fair and I was indeed wrong plus it’s better than I discover it and will from there onwards be correct, that that I keep on spouting bullshit, so ultimatelly having been pointed out as wrong ended up as a win.
That said, if the other person was an asshole in our discussion (for example, using personal attacks and insults) I won’t openly admit to them that I was wrong as I don’t want to give them the satisfaction (though I’ll internally accept I was wrong and correct my take from there onwards).
Yeah, “normal” people have no time or are too lazy to do that.
This is a sign of emotional intelligence. When people get emotionally invested in their argument, they don’t want to lose, and they often won’t let themselves believe they can even lose even when they have.
That’s both the strength and horror of LLMs. They are super good at presenting information in a pleasing way to the user… but can you trust that what it says is correct?
To the majority of humans, a pleasing presentation is treated as evidence of truth, despite that being a logical fallacy.
That’s just like your opinion, man
no, it really ties the whole room together
deleted by creator
Without seeing the studies, it’s hard to know if they were good studies that support her position or not.
I onde read a pluralistic article about this where he linked apaper that the backfiring effect was supposedly a fluke.
however, if he did change his mind, you would need wrong
