Hacker News Reader

Comment by notshift | Hacker News Reader

For synthesizing new ideas maybe it takes that long. But if you hold any serious views that you expect to have challenged by others (relating to politics or otherwise), you should have clear rules for why you believe those things and exactly what evidence it would take to cause you to change your mind. Then, you can change your beliefs the exact moment that new information is provided to you.

I try to start all of my conversations about politics or sensitive issues with the question "What would you have to be shown, or what evidence would it take for you to change your position on X?". If the person doesn't have a good answer to that, then they are usually either an ideologue or have not actually seriously thought about the issue in any depth, and it's probably going to be fruitless to try and have a conversation about that subject.

I abide by this rule and can change my views at the drop of a hat when presented with new evidence.

View on HN

What would you have to be shown, or what evidence would it take for you to change your position on this rule?

The question makes more sense if you additionally pose an alternative (i.e. change my position to Y). Given strictly like this, all I can really say is that I would change my position if you demonstrated to me that it was in my own or others' self-interest to behave differently?

Since we are talking about assessments and decisions about a course of action and not values, the question falls apart. I think it was intended to be a trick question calling you out as a hypocrite but from what I have read of your comments on HN your answer would run more like:

A: Examples of a better way to phrase the question.

A: That for some category or type of person the question won't make sense, in which case it's better to ask a different question--or perhaps not to engage in conversation.

You might start by asking for what evidence--experience, observations, or stories--have framed their approach before asking for them to speculate about new evidence that would cause them to change their decision.

I have used your approach and found it effective in dealing with managers: is there any new data or information we could gather that would affect your decision? If the answer is "no" then you know that you are dealing with a political situation (small "p" as in organizational politics) not a problem solving one.

Those are fair suggestions. I'm not typically inclined to "do the work for them" so-to-speak, by asking them what experiences & observations have framed their approach, because that's basically priming the person to have a particular response to the second question which might not be in alignment with their actual beliefs.

A lot of the time people don't have a good response to the second question because they have never actually even considered the possibility that they could ever hold the opposing view on something, or what holding that view would entail.

It was more meant as a joke than a "trick question" calling them out as a "hypocrite". No need to infer nefarious intentions on my part.

That said, swearing by a particular "course of action" and thinking it superior to other approaches is a "value" in my opinion.

If there is a value implicit seeing to gather disconfirming evidence by asking the decision maker what would change their mind, it seems to me to be a commitment to the scientific method of allowing new data to overturn existing models and hypotheses.

My apologies if I imputed motives in your question that were not there.

I am curious: what would you do if you were facing a high stakes situation where another person's decision was going to have a material impact on your life? How would you go about trying to change their decision?

Sure, "commitment to the scientific method" is also a "value", if we want to be abstract like that.

Regarding your question: Depends on how much impact on my life it would have, and what exactly the decision is. I have no prepared strategies to change people's minds apart from presenting reasonable arguments and maybe slightly bullshitting my way through it at times. There was never a need for more than that.

In the extreme the response would be lies and even violence, if nothing else works, I suppose. Again, it depends on what the situation and "material impact" on my life is.

I really don't think this is how it "should" work. If you took time to actually research something and build nowledge in that area, a single sentence or verbal paragraph should not change your opinion. You should take time to evaluate and reconcile whenever was new. And spend time to check whether what was said was actually true. A single thing someone with no special authority on the mayter said should not make you flip.

Debates are more about speed and quick recollection then anything else.

Also, to your last paragraph, it does not show the other people are ideologues. It just show they see you want to win verbal game rather then engage in serious debate into the topic. People are not interested in it, because why would they?

> Also, to your last paragraph, it does not show the other people are ideologues. It just show they see you want to win verbal game rather then engage in serious debate into the topic. People are not interested in it, because why would they?

In fairness, there are more interpretations beyond wanting to win.

Trying to make the point general: that filter ("do you have an evidence standard?") does identify some people who will change their minds, but will rule out others who are also willing to change their minds.

Probably quite a lot of someones if my theory is correct. People can be quite flexible towards someone who is respectful and wants to help them get better outcomes. I've had a instances where I turn out to have convinced someone 24 hours after the fact - and vice-versa.

I don’t waste my time trying to convince anyone of anything unless it directly affects me.

That means the only person I have to convince of anything in my personal life right now is my wife and even that it’s related to shared goals. For instance she’s religious - I’m not. What’s the purpose of trying to convince her of anything.

If relatives have a different opinion when I eat dinner with them, I just nod and change the subject quickly to something not related to for instance religion and politics.

At work, I have to do some convincing. But even then, “I stay in my lane”. If it is a larger project and I’m only responsible for one slice, I will give my opinion on the rest. But they can take it or leave it.

There are topics on which I hold opposing positions logically and emotionally. There are topics on which I can hold different positions depending on my mood.

Humans are not robots, we do not compute our worldview from set of learned facts or opinions - it is formed by lived experience.

Therefore, neither convincing your opponent is guaranteed to ultimately change their mind - they may easily change it back hour later. Nor is it pointless trying to convince someone who appears immovable in their position - your words may be the last drop that will make them change their mind or at least put a crack in their worldview next time they think about the topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com