There's nothing wrong with taking time to really think through the presented argument, looking for holes, before you accept it. In fact, it helps you not fall for fine-sounding nonsense.
More succinctly, there are times when one should change their mind much more rapidly than gradually.
I suppose you think there are no circumstances under which a person ought to change their mind “on the spot” so to speak. If you can think of such a circumstance then what is the point you are tying to get across?
That's from the post you made. That's pretty general, not talking about just a "type of situation".
> I suppose you think there are no circumstances under which a person ought to change their mind “on the spot” so to speak.
I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. I did not say that, nor did I mean that.
Off topic: "I suppose you think" (and "Then you must think" and similar phrases) very often signal a distortion at best, and often a complete strawman. They have become red flags to me. Perhaps you did not mean it that way. But observing a fair number of HN comments, that's generally the way that phrase is used. To me, it has become a spectral signature of a certain kind of bad rebuttal.
You responded by repeating your original points. This gives the impression that you don’t think this is true. That is, that you don’t believe there are circumstances where someone ought to change their mind much more rapidly than gradually. I still don’t understand the purpose of your posts. They did not pertain the situation I was talking about.
Side discussion. Putting words into my mouth is not a good response. The statements we make have logical conclusions and implications. So while one may not say the words, for instance, I want to kill you. one can conclude this sentiment if other words/actions imply it.
You may attempt to deny me the right to put words into your mouth, so to speak, but as a person well trained in mathematics you won’t be successful. A collection of statements is rarely without valid, logical implications. I may not correctly make deductions on meaning/intent but the retort ought to be: That’s not a valid deduction for these reasons…
Strong evidence should update your beliefs strongly.
My general take is that people are too slow to update their beliefs when strong new evidence comes in. But are generally willing to update gradually over time even with bad/weak evidence.
You don't have to go hook line and sinker at the very first piece of evidence, because it's the preponderance of evidence that changes minds. The very first experiment that showed the duality of light didn't immediately change people's minds, but it broke the seal, and the accumulation of evidence did afterwards.
Change? No. Question? Yes. Question, probe, & investigate.
An argument may be good but applicable only to a narrow field of something, or be a valid exception to a general principle, etc. It also may be compelling but on further examination be fundamentally flawed or rely on logical errors (most of the more advanced religious apologetics are like this).
It should absolutely cause a reevaluation of your belief, but that’s not the same as necessitating it be outright changed.
It might sound like quibbling, but I feel that’s an important difference. One I feel is key to intellectual rigor & honesty.
It can happen, and has happened to me several times, as an adult. But, I agree that it probably shouldn't be frequent. Sometimes genuine facts are presented that should immediately change a perspective.
What I am talking about is the process that starts once you encounter a new piece of information that challenges your world view: the process of evaluating if it is of quality (ie. trustworthy), or just appears so superficially. That process is not instant, and if you treat it as an instantaneous process, you're probably going to accept a lot of superficially trustworthy information (including scams, mis- and disinformation, and so on).
Neither am I. I'm saying that instantaneous adjustment to ones beliefs is possible, and should be a regular occurrence, while developing ones world view.
> accept a lot of superficially trustworthy information
No. Sometimes you can see things with your own eyes, or have a person that is trustworthy say or demonstrate them to you. Sometimes occurrences can prove a belief immediately true or false. A great example is a child realizing, for the first time, that an adult can be wrong about something. Or, a young adult who voted for the first time, realizing that politicians lie to get elected. Or someone taking drugs for the first time, to realize that perception is fundamentally fragile. There are many many examples. Again, it should be a regular occurrence, when young.
> confrontational
I didn't mean to. I consider "bollocks" to show, somewhat silly, disagreement/defiance. I don't consider defiance or disagreement of an opinion to be confrontational.
I assume that your "statistical approach" translates to a much more haphazardly approach that's similar to how other people do it (gut feeling, based on rules of thumb and heuristics), and describing it as statistical is disingenious.
If I notice the same novel argument getting picked up from somewhat-independent multiple directions I revisit it and apply a more rigorous rethink. This is what I mean by a "statistical" approach. Perhaps some other word would have been better.
I do, however, pretty regularly sit down with some graph paper or an envelope and review/diversify my trusted sources.