Submitted by fchung t3_yl9csx in philosophy
SovArya t1_iuynyps wrote
If you structure your arguments based on logic, and the logic is based on something clear, and fact based, and having such makes it easier to understand; then the other party will most likely agree. Unless only if the other party has a conviction so strange , and such conviction is so strong and biased, and such will causes one to shut out all things; then the other will most likely never change his mind.
If the other person does not follow the truth, and you can't do much about it, and you shouldn't care to much about things beyond your control; then it's not wrong to let it be after you tried.
Lallo-the-Long t1_iv0dzfl wrote
I think studies have indicated that people tend not to change their mind about strongly held beliefs, even when presented with facts and logic proving they're wrong.
briko3 t1_iv0fza5 wrote
If someone made their decision based on emotion, they will never change it based on logic.
Albuwhatwhat t1_iv1i84t wrote
There’s even a whole political party that bases everything on emotion rather than facts, and nothing seems to convince their members otherwise.
SovArya t1_iv0e9c0 wrote
You're not wrong. If people truly have that conviction the only thing we can do is to present it still and then move on. Because who knows, even if the chances of them changing is slim, they could still eventually change their minds. But yes, it's very hard.
iiioiia t1_iv1f32k wrote
This seems like a rather minimalist take on what could possibly be done.
[deleted] t1_iv0ppmo wrote
[removed]
rattatally t1_iv0jjbf wrote
The thing is, everybody believes their arguments are based on logic and facts, including those people with strong, biased convictions. Most people care about being right, and 'winning' the argument than they care about truth.
Also we're not 100% logical beings, and most of our arguments are about our subjective views of the world.
Ama966 t1_iv0850q wrote
Lol by the other party you just described exactly how that specific group argues (if i mention their name I’ll be banned as always 💁♂️)
someacnt t1_iv0io82 wrote
I have never seen any case where the other party would even partly agree. Could you provide some concrete examples?
SovArya t1_iv0ldrc wrote
There is this flat earth documentary that I don't recall anymore but at the end, the flat earthers did this experiment where they tried to see if the lights would be the same from a distance and they had to adjust it in the end because of the sphere shape of our planet.
It made them doubt :)
someacnt t1_iv0zsnm wrote
Made them doubt their belief? Wow, honestly a bit unbelievable. I guess it could happen, though.
Skarr87 t1_iv125rc wrote
I believe you’re talking about “Behind the Curve”. There’s a part in it where Patricia Steele who is a flat earth YouTuber is talking about how there’s all these conspiracy theories about her that aren’t true and she’s like “They don’t even know me”. Then she openly ponders that maybe her belief in the flat earth is the same. Alluding that maybe her belief is the same as theirs in the sense that it exists because of lack of understanding in the subject. Then she just backtracks and says naw I’m right. I was so excited watching that for a minute. It was seeing someone on the verge of understanding they didn’t have before and you could see her making the connections on her face. So close yet so far.
iiioiia t1_iv1fgqp wrote
People enjoy observing others in this regard, but tend to be less interested in observing themselves. To be fair, it's much more difficult, and much less fun.
ammonium_bot t1_iv8445h wrote
Did you mean to say "too much"?
Explanation: No explanation available.
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github
giggity_ghoul t1_iv0mujf wrote
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience”
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments