Changing ones mind about a subject

[Shell B]

The OP's not specifically talking about those kinds of topics, Hammy. I might change my mind quickly if the topic is something that isn't deeply rooted in my worldview.

[Edwardo Piet]

I guess it may be possible to change our mind on the spot about petty things.

But isn't that usually about being taught something obvious and trivial and shown we're wrong with Google or something like that?

Like, I knew a guy once who insisted that The Flash was Marvel and not D.C. So I showed him he was wrong with Google and literally the entirety of the internet disagreed with him. And he was like "Oh, you're right."

My initial response to the OP was to point out that people don't seem to change their mind during a debate about things. I've been elaborating further about my point since then.

I think people trust their own senses over logical argumentation. If I can show someone proof that they can see they might change their mind if there's only one possible interpretation of it (like The Flash), but even doing that won't change someone's mind if they're able to interpret the evidence differently. Like the creationists who are shown fossils and they just say that it's not enough because every possible gap must be filled, the whole irreducible complexity B.S., or God put the fossils there to test our faith, or Satan put the fossils there to fuck with us . . . IOW they misinterpret the evidence because of their own bad logic. People seem to start with their own conclusions which are their core beliefs and they interpret all evidence or argumentation with their own biases. Stuff like my example with The Flash are exceptions because there isn't really any non-psychotic way to rationalize out of that, I think. If he convinced himself that the entirety of the internet was conspiring against him he'd feel even more like an idiot than admitting he is wrong about something and I think that's why he had to bite the bullet in that case. People seem to only bite the bullet when they really have to. Even when we're consciously non-egotistical we still seem to be subconsciously egotistical. Although it might not be about the ego it may be more about self-protection or simply just be the way beliefs work. Breaking beliefs does seem to be similar to breaking habits.

[Shell B]

People must concede to loss in debates all the time. Otherwise, why would there be debates? I do take some time to let the idea settle in, and to test it to see if it pans out. At that point, you just say you were wrong. With a topic as sensitive as religion, it doesn't happen often, if ever. However, it happens with other stuff often enough.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am not so sure . . . people can feel they lost a debate but I think that's different from actually changing your mind or being able to see where your own logic is wrong. If you're capable of seeing your logical argument is invalid why would you make it in the first place? And if you made it dishonestly then you didn't even believe your argument was valid in the first place, you were using a fallacious argument on purpose to try and win a debate and you only admitted you were wrong when it became clear to your opponent that your argument was fallacious. If someone isn't logical enough to see their argument is fallacious then how can they be shown that it's fallacious?

[Sal]

I am not so sure . . . people can feel they lost a debate but I think that's different from actually changing your mind or being able to see where your own logic is wrong. If you're capable of seeing your logical argument is invalid why would you make it in the first place? And if you made it dishonestly then you didn't even believe your argument was valid in the first place, you were using a fallacious argument on purpose to try and win a debate and you only admitted you were wrong when it became clear to your opponent that your argument was fallacious. If someone isn't logical enough to see their argument is fallacious then how can they be shown that it's fallacious?

It has been said that people who haven't been reasoned into a position cannot be reasoned out it.

Seems to me that people that are emotionally convinced of something fit this bill. Particularly believers, who, "feel" Jesus in their hearts. Problem with that is that no amount of emotional conviction is gonna prove that Jesus is real or that their feelings are even justified; I'm thinking here that it is religiously inspired delusion, which I know all too well as an apostate.

In fact, I think emotions are patently false way to acquire any kind of insight. Sure, touchy-feely emotions might go a long way to convince someone of something, but I think it, like in the opposite strand - irrational fear - proves nothing.

[Shell B]

You don't have to have come about a conclusion dishonestly to have come to the wrong conclusion and then be shown you were wrong. Furthermore, new evidence for certain positions crops all the time. It's unquestionably possible for a person to form a different opinion on the basis of a debate during which the "opponent" provided a compelling argument.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not saying it's impossible I'm saying I've never seen it.

That's what I was getting at Sal. If you can't be reasoned into an argument you're unlikely to be reasoned out of one. I mean what's gonna happen, someone is suddenly going to learn how to follow a valid argument correctly halfway through a debate "Oh I didn't understand your argument but now I do".

---

I am not so sure . . . people can feel they lost a debate but I think that's different from actually changing your mind or being able to see where your own logic is wrong. If you're capable of seeing your logical argument is invalid why would you make it in the first place? And if you made it dishonestly then you didn't even believe your argument was valid in the first place, you were using a fallacious argument on purpose to try and win a debate and you only admitted you were wrong when it became clear to your opponent that your argument was fallacious. If someone isn't logical enough to see their argument is fallacious then how can they be shown that it's fallacious?

It has been said that people who haven't been reasoned into a position cannot be reasoned out it.

Seems to me that people that are emotionally convinced of something fit this bill. Particularly believers, who, "feel" Jesus in their hearts. Problem with that is that no amount of emotional conviction is gonna prove that Jesus is real or that their feelings are even justified; I'm thinking here that it is religiously inspired delusion, which I know all too well as an apostate.

In fact, I think emotions are patently false way to acquire any kind of insight. Sure, touchy-feely emotions might go a long way to convince someone of something, but I think it, like in the opposite strand - irrational fear - proves nothing.

I do wonder if even beliefs that are considered to be reasoned into are ultimately motivated by subconscious emotions. Reason is the slave of the passions and all that jazz. Even the most rational of us aren't really rational beings. We're mammals, not Vulcans. All of our behaviors and decisions are determined by brain chemistry as much as a few seconds before our conscious mind is even aware of them (multiple peer reviewed and double-blind scientific experiments have testified to that) . . . our reasoning doesn't come out of nowhere and isn't the master of itself. We're ultimately primal and we use rationality to justify things. We recognize logic when it's helpful to us but we often subvert it when it's helpful to us to subvert it. Or rather, helpful to our subconscious brain, regardless of what we consciously think is helpful to us or not.

An interesting book that gives the scientific evidence of how irrational humans really are and how we're often mistaken about our own rationality is Thinking Fast and Slow by psychologist Daniel Kahneman.

[GrandizerII]

I have witnessed members changing their view about some topic right in the middle of a debate, and conceding that their opponent had a point. I've seen this happen more than once in this forum. I have a good memory, and can name names to illustrate, but somehow I feel like it's not right to mention names (even if there's nothing shameful about any of them conceding to their opponent).

IMO you are just flat out wrong about what they're admitting they're wrong about. You never see people say "Your argument is correct and I now no longer believe in God" or "You are right and I am now a liberal rather than a conservative."

Remember this is not simply about people admitting they are wrong about some pedantic detail in a debate it's admitting they are wrong about something large enough for them to completely change their minds about one of their core beliefs or philosophies in the middle of a debate.

Maybe not when it comes to God or liberal vs. conservative, but I have seen members turn 180 on topics that they were debating, first arguing for a stance related to the topic, and then admitting the opposite when they realize they were mistaken (in their view). Example that comes to mind: circumcision.

[Edwardo Piet]

You think someone changed their mind about circumcision in the circumcision thread? Looked to me like everyone stuck to their views.

[Minimalist]

I suspect it largely depends on the nature of the original opinion.  If it is based on facts which can be shown to be wrong then it should be relatively easy to disprove to a rational person.

If it is an opinion based on belief they will come up with all sorts of reasons to persist in their foolishness.