That’s partly because lemmy is less toxic than the platform OOP posted on
Comment on Facts and minds
jsomae@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
I’m sure everyone here has seen people change their minds when confronted with information that runs counter to their narrative.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 months ago
jsomae@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
lemmy’s preeeeetty toxic. But admittedly, I’ve never used twitter.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 months ago
checking your instance
OK, true
Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 8 months ago
Lemmy is actually pretty good if you block .ml, it becomes pretty pleasant actually. There is one problem, a lot of the time you see a thread, press on it to check what’s happening, and it doesn’t let you because some .ml person staeted this flame war, and it’s pretty annoying at times.
merc@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
It can happen, but often you can predict when someone will be utterly unwilling to change their mind, despite mountains of evidence.
If it’s something that someone doesn’t really have a stake in, they’re likely to follow the evidence.
But, it’s different when something is a big part of someone’s identity. Take an American gun nut: Someone who spends a lot of free time on gun-related forums. Someone who goes shooting sometimes with buddies. Someone who listens to podcasts about guns, and has a gun safe filled with favourites. That’s the kind of person who is never going to be swayed by rational arguments about guns.
Too much of their self-identity and too many of their social connections are gun-related. Changing their mind wouldn’t just mean adopting a new set of facts, it would mean potential conflicts with all their friends. It would mean leaving a social group where they spend a lot of their free time. They’d not only have to accept that they’re wrong, but that all their friends are wrong too.
Of course, there are ways to change the minds of people who are in a situation like that. Unfortunately, it mostly happens due to tragedy. Like, a gun nut will change their mind, but only when a family member kills themselves with a gun, either on purpose or accidentally. That new, and incredibly personal data point is enough to compensate for all the social difficulties related to changing your mind.
MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 8 months ago
The backfire effect, as presented by The Oatmeal:
merc@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Except that may have been a fluke:
jsomae@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
yeah well I still think it works
merc@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
I try too, but it’s frustrating. I just wish I knew of a good technique that didn’t involve out-and-out lying. Because it’s hard to compete when someone’s being spoon-fed misinformation and disinformation that’s carefully crafted to bypass all their filters, and you have to try to fight for the truth by being honest and using facts.
jj4211@lemmy.world 8 months ago
If it’s one to one communication, it’s probably not going to be productive, but worth a shot, just don’t waste too much time.
In a public forum, it’s more about giving the lurkers something to process, those that might not have gotten emotionally attached to one side or another, or just need to see there’s a diversity of thought to avoid getting too sucked into one thing or another.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
I may be misunderstanding, but are you approaching this from the perspective that anyone you’re debating with on a public forum is emotionally attached to one side or another?
jj4211@lemmy.world 8 months ago
If someone is proactively expressing an opinion or responding, they are frequently pretty attached to the position they take if it is vaguely important.
It’s not universal, but it’s probable that if you make a strong statement towards the Internet, your view is kind of set and certainly some text from some anonymous guy on the Internet is supremely low on the list of things that are going to change your mind.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
By virtue of being somebody who argues on the internet, shouldn’t you then reason that all of your beliefs are suspect, especially the ones you believe most strongly? You must surely expect that you are as unreceptive to new ideas that challenge your beliefs as anyone else. In particular, any evidence in favour of the idea that people can change their mind when confronted with new information you would simply discard.
theparadox@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Sounds like they are. If you are willing to debate, you are very likely “emotionally attached” to the side you are advocating for.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
Hmm, I guess it stands to reason that people willing to argue with you about the subject are more likely to be emotionally invested in it. I wouldn’t say that’s overwhelmingly true though.