Personality Cafe banner

have you ever changed your mind after a debate here on perc?

  • no, I've never changed my mind after a debate

    Votes: 5 41.7%
  • yes, I've changed my mind and I admitted it

    Votes: 5 41.7%
  • yes, I changed my mind but I didn't admit it

    Votes: 2 16.7%
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I don't mean outside of this forum; I mean here on this site

if you have, what thread or discussion was it?

and did you admit your mind was changed, or did you slink away w/o telling anyone?

why did you slink away?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,161 Posts
I think I change my mind in many ways in debates in changing my initial position but this hasn't necessarily been a total change of mind but a shift in the strength of my belief to more defensible positions once convinced to the weakness of my initial stance.
I remember this occurring I think in some XNTP thread in regards to virtual characters harassing one another with an ENTP that was patient enough to keep conversing with me, they were persuasive.
And in that case I did explicitly admit the weakness of that initial position and mentioned that I would argue a weaker one.

Generally though, a lot of change requires a lot of time and reflection and I'm not sure many are aware of the origins of their change of mind due to the time lapse between the influencing discussion and the time in which they finally agree with it.
I think more often though, many discussions help me understand things more clearly than in a simplistic and crude way so as to give more strength to opposing views than dismissal.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,309 Posts
I've changed my mind after reading debates other people had. I don't recall ever getting into one that changed my mind, though.

If I had, I'd just admit it. These days I don't get too invested in that stuff not to own up to it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,562 Posts
No, reading a debate on PersonalityCafe has never been able to change my original opinion on the topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ae1905

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I think I change my mind in many ways in debates in changing my initial position but this hasn't necessarily been a total change of mind but a shift in the strength of my belief to more defensible positions once convinced to the weakness of my initial stance.
I remember this occurring I think in some XNTP thread in regards to virtual characters harassing one another with an ENTP that was patient enough to keep conversing with me, they were persuasive.
And in that case I did explicitly admit the weakness of that initial position and mentioned that I would argue a weaker one.

Generally though, a lot of change requires a lot of time and reflection and I'm not sure many are aware of the origins of their change of mind due to the time lapse between the influencing discussion and the time in which they finally agree with it.
I think more often though, many discussions help me understand things more clearly than in a simplistic and crude way so as to give more strength to opposing views than dismissal.
did you concede your initial positions had been weakened?

or did you slink away and keep it to yourself?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
@BlackDog

I've contradicted you many, many times, yet you never admitted the inconsistencies I pointed out in your positions and simply slinked away, instead

did you reconsider your positions or hold stubbornly to your errant views?


I could add a long list of people I've contradicted, but I suspect @BlackDog will speak for most people when she says what I expect her to say
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I changed my mind once and admitted it

two other times, I admitted I had made a mistake, both factual...the errors didn't materially impact my position, however

twice, someone has conceded an argument, both times by the same person, an intp...these are the only examples I can remember where someone admitted he or she was wrong...in the vast majority of instances, people slink away and stop replying

very few people are honest enough to admit they are wrong, either to themselves or to others
 

·
EvilShoutyRudolph
Joined
·
5,099 Posts
I have(only with real life debates and a small amount online, but never any debates on this website in particular), but I tend not to admit it.

Not out of weakness, but simply because of how fun debating can be. And, I find it silly to piss off people. I just get too caught up in the moment.

edit: I forgot to read the OP. The answer is no, not on this website.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
Refutation of [another's] argument, does not necessarily supplant reasons for the contrary. Such as confusing 'science' with proving (X); rather than error elimination.

The opponent(s) argument, I have observed here, is usually an "I don't like it," and indeed, if you are can structure this "don't like it," argument well-enough, high-functioning humanoid-biases will not protest, nor challenge it, especially the less-skilled/less-knowledgeable (not less intelligent, as we usually prefer to appeal to - and I reckon rather than hastily presuming 'less intelligent' - adhering to less-skilled, and subjected to a lesson - would make 'mind-changing' much tactiful with ease).

Backtracking, demonstrating the [logical] or 'fallacious' inconsistencies within another, is not a strong-argument for ones own (position), even so, pointing out 'inconsistencies' (e.g., warranting another's position to scruinty [or long explanations as to why (X)-specimen], is "all wrong," does not demonstrate how the opposing position is wrong, how to identify what is 'wrong' about it (to prevent the specimen utilizing such position from utilizing it again [inducing mind-changing] - nor pose strong contra-alternative(s) for ones own argument, or feasible alternatives to consider. It seems to me, most specimen(s) simply do not have the [knowledge] to, or how to 'change their minds', because no known alternatives are presented in a way that is coherent / understandable.

The humanoid simply says: "I made a fallacy but so what? Show me what is wrong with the argument itself and why - what does this have to do with 'your position'? Why should I, and how should I change my mind, and 'to what?'" [Which perhaps was ambiguous from the start], that is not a debate per se [with no posed contra-argument], merely fact-checking / inconsistency-scanning computational device - the opponent is merely 'arguing' at the wind, thus psychologically depleting & emotionally grinding down the other during this affair until they are forced to retreat out of psychological deteriotion because the specimen is substaintually, almost unfairly, less-skilled than the other opponent to even refute the opposing argument [which may or may not be bogus itself]. And I reckon, this 'tactic' is utilized on those with less-skill when it comes to [controlling ones reactionary emotions]; or keeping a composure -- which still is not a demonsrtration of anything (re: soundness consistency, coherence, or demonstrated an adaptive model of ones own position). It could be said (X)-opponent, simply never knew what they were looking for to begin with, however, to unskilled [audiences] to be persuaded, this is enough for them (look at that guy loosing his shit, clearly irrational person with an irrational position!), which of course, is demonstrably absurd / faulty reasoning to begin with -- if 'persuading' isn't the only goal.

+++

A better question::

How can a specimen change their mind/s? How should they, and why?

(Demonstrations of logical-inconsisties / fallacies - and/or 'demonstration of depletion of opponent (X)-by opponent (Y)) are not reasons for a mind change, they are reasons, however, to re-examine / test / critique / eliminate, but not a reason to adopt another 'position / altnernative'.

_________


Attempting to 'critically-think' or debate in a classroom of specimens who haven't any clue how to do it properly rather than why they simply should, then "confused" around the results is rather odd.

And, indeed, most specimens 'close-off', for reasons I think, that are more subtle - rather than simply 'stubbornness and being stupid' but rather such "debates," here are either too emotional, or too rational, too obvious, too trite, thus not strong enough to warrant what it wishes to, rather they are merely post ex facto rationalizations. Even if one can present an "alternative" contra-argument that can refute (e.g., rationally call into question the soundness / claims of another) such alternative can still be too, the specimen utilizes rationality against reason itself.

And, when I say "rationalizing", I mean merely utilizing 'rationalization' as a prophylactic against rationalization itself being a promiscousily facilitator. By 'rationalization', I mean starting with a consclusion + cherry-picking known evidence to then confirm it, (i.e., ex post facto self-justification), and by 'reason' (i.e., soundness / critical-thinking).

__________


If you wish to "change" a specimens mind (X, Y, Z), one could simply pose (defeasible learning ala critical-thinking) on the topic at hand, rather than simply and only, 'pointing out inconsistencies and the fallacious of another'. This does not even expound on "proper," critical-thinking skills, either. Which here, appears to start with hyper-rationalizations, (fact-checking), and/or psychological depletion of another.

On a less relevant cue; it is my opinion that changing ones mind or 'critical thinking' with others, not just oneself, is not simply (demonstrating the facts & the fallacies or appealing (only towards the 'logic')) then shoving them off into the distance, one must add-humanity (e.g., displays of affections).

I do not mean "lovey," stuff, but rather displays of being affected. You must first create a causal dimension of receptivity via your opponent, (if you are 'wishing to change their minds' [which I contend, is not the point of debates]). The salesman doesn't only talk prices; he also appeals to the (X)-specimens humanity. And I think scenario alone demonstrates, that no matter how 'rational / logical' we claim to be, our emotions must be persuaded as well.

Have you ever changed your mind on this site?
Not a "complete change," although, it has made me ask better questions - and I contend, 'critical thinking' starts with posing the better questions, and "questioning these questions" is a good start. And often just enough, instead of fixations on the total changing of another's mind.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
Refutation of [another's] argument, does not necessarily supplant reasons for the contrary. Such as confusing 'science' with proving (X); rather than error elimination.
it doesn't necessarily replace a bad argument with a good one, but it does undermine the bad argument which, if the person is honest, will force him to reject his position and search for a new one

replacing a bad argument with no argument is a change of mind, too, and is a definite improvement
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
Discussion Starter #12 (Edited)
Refutation of [another's] argument, does not necessarily supplant reasons for the contrary. Such as confusing 'science' with proving (X); rather than error elimination.
research has found that one reason people don't change their minds is they are uncomfortable with uncertainty and prefer to cling to a bad argument, even when it has been shown to be wrong, than live with doubt and ignorance

ie, people prefer to believe in something rather than nothing
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
A better question::

How can a specimen change their mind/s? How should they, and why?

how did he form his opinion in the first place?

if it was thought-out, then the person has the ability to rethink his position

if it was borrowed, then the person should find some other source to get his opinions; he can ask people who know better

either way, the onus is on each person to discover the truth, not on his opponents to teach him

living in falsehood is the penalty each of us pays for our own ignorance
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
it doesn't necessarily replace a bad argument with a good one, but it does undermine the bad argument which, if the person is honest, will force him to reject his position and search for a new one

replacing a bad argument with no argument is a change of mind, too, and is a definite improvement
I do not disagree with [any] of this, ae1905. However, I think it isn't just a matter of 'dishonesty' [and stubbonness]. (Post #10), I reckon it useful we examine this.


research has found that one reason people don't change their minds is they are uncomfortable with uncertainty and prefer to cling to a bad argument, even when it has been shown to be wrong, than live with doubt and ignorance

ie, people prefer to believe in something rather than nothing
Of course, however, I posit as opposed to 'semantic' (debates), that a reason why "people don't change their minds if they are uncomfortable with 'uncertainty', is because (X)-specimens have not familiarized themselves with the physical & other, conceptions of information - that frames the contexts of certain positions (e.g., PerC arguments) in the first place, or such structures of execution of (X)-information or the information itself is ineffective. (Post #10).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,699 Posts
Depends on the point the person makes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ae1905

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,802 Posts
Maybe years ago when I was witnessing a debate on PerC, but the discussions here have plummeted in quality over the years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ae1905

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I do not disagree with [any] of this, ae1905. However, I think it isn't just a matter of 'dishonesty' [and stubbonness]. (Post #10), I reckon it useful we examine this.

Of course, however, I posit as opposed to 'semantic' (debates), that a reason why "people don't change their minds if they are uncomfortable with 'uncertainty', is because (X)-specimens have not familiarized themselves with the physical & other, conceptions of information - that frames the contexts of certain positions (e.g., PerC arguments) in the first place, or such structures of execution of (X)-information or the information itself is ineffective. (Post #10).
what research finds is people readily change their minds when presented with facts that don't challenge their closely held beliefs...if people think it will rain tomorrow and you tell them you just saw the weather report and it said it would be sunny, most people would believe you since few people make a religion out of tomorrow's weather...but if you said that climate change is going to make large parts of the earth unihabitable, people who have closely held reasons to disbelieve you will reject your position, even if you present many impressive facts, because their beliefs are not based on facts in the first place, or, at least, not the same kinds of "facts"

I think this is why people hold on to beliefs even when they are shown to be false...they didn't come to their beliefs by way of these facts, so the facts can't displace their beliefs...indeed, people can hold both the beliefs and the facts in their minds at the same time and experience little cognitive dissonance!
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
what research finds is people readily change their minds when presented with facts that don't challenge their closely held beliefs...if people think it will rain tomorrow and you tell them you just saw the weather report and it said it would be sunny, most people would believe you since few people make a religion out of tomorrow's weather...but if you said that climate change is going to make large parts of the earth unihabitable, people who have closely held reasons to disbelieve you will reject your position, even if you present many impressive facts, because their beliefs are not based on facts in the first place, or, at least, not the same kinds of "facts"

I think this is why people hold on to beliefs even when they are shown to be false...they didn't come to their beliefs by way of these facts, so the facts can't displace their beliefs...indeed, people can hold both the beliefs and the facts in their minds at the same time and experience little cognitive dissonance!
So, it appears to me, that no "healthy, thinking" specimen would "change their minds," to a less emotionally satisfying explanation; and as such, it should also follow that no 'healthy, thinking,' specimen would find 'fact-free' beliefs more emotionally satisfying than fact-based explanations because the latter offer(s) more magnitude of coherent information (&) adaptations, resulting in a 'lack of change of mind'.

In other words, such 'research' finds that humanoid(s) have a tendency to be, (i.e., unhealthy (infantilized), thoughtless (insipidity), or charitably uneducated), and these are facts. (Post #10). (Shocker; eh?) I reckon some specimens would disagree; but that seem(s) irrelevant at the moment.

I suppose, we can go into tremendous length on how one can reduce these all-too-human commonalities, and a good start, rather than aiming to change ones mind as someone that is educated and/or more-skilled, or et al, is posing the better questions for the opponent to reflect on themselves, [starting with] the how-to of defeasible learning à la thinking critical, beginning with an acceptance of the transiency of 'facts' (re: including fact-delusions). (Last para, Post #10).

________

Note :: I didn't notice this was in the polling section before I answered - explaining the length of post(s). :eek:h:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,428 Posts
very few people are honest enough to admit they are wrong, either to themselves or to others
Even fewer people will admit they are wrong when you describe their behavior as "slinking away" without even knowing their true motives, as if that were the only alternative to admitting to being wrong. Some people just get tired and leave the conversation. There's no rule that anyone has to openly admit to having been wrong, and subtly nasty threads like this one and the similarly derisive bullshit that goes down in the Debate forum contribute to few doing so. Not wanting to play these stupid games doesn't reflect poorly on anyone.

If debates stay focused on the topic instead of public pwning, people won't much care about admitting to being wrong.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
Even fewer people will admit they are wrong when you describe their behavior as "slinking away" without even knowing their true motives, as if that were the only alternative to admitting to being wrong. Some people just get tired and leave the conversation. There's no rule that anyone has to openly admit to having been wrong, and subtly nasty threads like this one and the similarly derisive bullshit that goes down in the Debate forum contribute to few doing so. Not wanting to play these stupid games doesn't reflect poorly on anyone.
while people do get tired and leave when debates reach an impasse, I wasn't talking about these situations since impasses imply no-one has yet won

I meant the cases where one party just stops responding because they suddenly realize their error

in these instances, "slinking away" perfectly describes the manner of leaving and consciousness of loss or embarassment people feel, a fact usually confirmed by their disappearance from the forum for a few days to lick their wounds and get over their defeat


If debates stay focused on the topic instead of public pwning, people won't much care about admitting to being wrong.
actually, people do care and will slink away even if the debate stays on focus

slinking is the universal online method of conceding an argument w/o ever admitting it
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top