Honestly if you change your opinion under effect of some online strangers then it wasn't a strong conviction in the first place
It also made me go back on my own sources and question where they were coming from. Let's just say the anti climate change positions become a lot less convincing when you dig into their sourcing and find a large number of them literally funded by the likes of Koch industries or Glenn Beck's personal companies.
Data won’t help it at all. It’s available two clicks away, there is no shortage of it.
People want to believe otherwise and you will never actually convince anyone on the internet using data on anything in 99% of the cases.
Persuasion is an art and most of the people on the internet have no clue how to manipulate human mind to instil beliefs.
I can give a short rundown on persuasion as non autistic individual actually having those skills:
1. Always say that you understand somebody point of view. Appear interested in what they have to say and respect their beliefs.
2. Intertwine few uncomfortable questions in their point of view, very gently and non argumentative. These are the seeds of doubt.
You are a farmer it’s like gardening and watering a flower. You must be gentle with new sprouts of doubt. Tend to the garden of new beliefs and one day they will bear fruit.
I agree and this is true. But my opinion and position there shifted around 2010 or so.
It's true the data was there and available in a few clicks. But I wasn't seeking it out and instead was relying on trusted sources that were lying to me.
Now-a-days, though, even my parents are on board with climate change being real. It's just too apparent for anyone that can remember what the world was like 10 or 20 years ago.
One of the best ways humans have developed for information transfer is rhetorical debate. You're supposed to argue for whatever you believe in vehemently, but critically, abandoning it as much as necessary to adopt a better, more accurate understanding or model.
Unquestioned or unchallenged ideas are significantly less valuable than challenged or improved ones. Arguing for and defending what you know is a good thing, holding on to convictions that aren't improving your life or the life of others is fucking stupid. And the idea that you can't learn something from another human because the medium is the Internet, is certainly a take to read from someone making a comment on the internet.
This works only for very narrow set of topics about numbers and data.
Even the same academics that would change their mind quickly about some theory would never actually change their mind on their strong ideological convictions. I know it from real life examples.
Strange that it needs to be articulated so loud and clear.
So I repeat again if you changed your mind under influence of an internet stranger then it wasn’t a very strong conviction.
There's no need to change that kind of strong convictions, what needs to change is the desire to use such convictions as justification for policies imposed onto others.
> Even the same academics that would change their mind quickly about some theory would never actually change their mind on their strong ideological convictions
Again, that wouldn't be a problem if they recognized the right of others to think differently. Their propensity to invoke "science" to justify intrusive policies, one way or the other, is the real problem.
> So I repeat again if you changed your mind under influence of an internet stranger then it wasn’t a very strong conviction.
To paraphrase Keynes here, those who don't change their minds when facts change are simply fools or trolls. And the realization of change may come from a single word, of people known or unknown, or even without words - it doesn't matter, change must take place when change is due.
We could argue about the semantics of "very strong convictions" until the cows come home, but it won't do any good if we haven't beforehand agreed upon "why we argue".
Look, I don’t even know why are we arguing over what exactly? I don’t know. Seems like truisms
I don’t even know what is exactly your opposite view on anything right now and if it indeed exists or what is the point of this exchange.
I just said basic truth - majority of people won’t change mind under influence of online strangers and if they do their convictions weren’t that strong to begin with.
You could of course provide me with data that this is not true and people change mind under online strangers persuasion all day everyday
Actually, it's the other way around - you have to provide data showing that the majority of people won't change their minds under the influence of online strangers regardless of the quality of arguments and the time they spare to participate in discussions. That's how proper studies are done.
> Look, I don’t even know why are we arguing over what exactly?... Seems like truisms
As I said, that depends on the semantics of "strongly held convictions". Do all people have them or are they just for bigots?
See, you fail to convince me not because you're stranger but because the quality of your arguments is lacking - you seem to conflate these and then, instead of finding a productive reason to participate in the discussion, you jump to the defensive "I'm just writing truisms".
I am content with knowing what I know and more people joining this particular abstract group makes no difference to my wellbeing or sense of satisfaction.
that includes other people, ideas, and arguments.
people dont change their mind by considering the evidence, its emotional and you confabulate the new reason for your new preferences