it matters a lot how the information is presented
Facts and minds
Submitted 2 weeks ago by zedgeist@lemmy.world to aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/35568992-8921-45c5-9d00-79969ca33019.jpeg
Comments
loomy@lemy.lol 2 weeks ago
neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
That’s really it!
If it is a combative exchange neither side will concede.
It’s better to pretend to be ignorant or on their side and then ask questions that lead them to the truth you want them to see.
Tahl_eN@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I actually react well to combative. Not right away, but it puts me into a “I’ll show you” mood that drives me down a rabbit hole of research. If you’re right, I come out the other side with the data and admit I was wrong. But I assume I’m not normal.
henfredemars@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
This is a sign of emotional intelligence. When people get emotionally invested in their argument, they don’t want to lose, and they often won’t let themselves believe they can even lose even when they have.
pennomi@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
That’s both the strength and horror of LLMs. They are super good at presenting information in a pleasing way to the user… but can you trust that what it says is correct?
To the majority of humans, a pleasing presentation is treated as evidence of truth, despite that being a logical fallacy.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
I’ve done this a few times with trumpets, but they always flip back after they realize what just happened.
Usually end up hearing something like (hunters laptop, Jan 6 was all FBI agents or whatever X bullshit is popular).
Objection@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Whenever I’ve tried to do this I get accused of “sealioning”
Quadhammer@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
That’s just like your opinion, man
loomy@lemy.lol 2 weeks ago
no, it really ties the whole room together
NerdInSuspenders@leminal.space 2 weeks ago
jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I’m sure everyone here has seen people change their minds when confronted with information that runs counter to their narrative.
merc@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago
The backfire effect, as presented by The Oatmeal:
jj4211@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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?
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
That’s partly because lemmy is less toxic than the platform OOP posted on
jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
lemmy’s preeeeetty toxic. But admittedly, I’ve never used twitter.
nucleative@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yeah it matters a lot how the conversation is set up.
Is it “you and I versus the facts”?
Or “you vs me”?
Competent people can disagree and also identify where the facts are missing and the assumptions begin that lead to this. It doesn’t have to be a fight if they look at the data as something to discover together.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
well he was in a bit of a bind. If this had changed his mind, what would that say?
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I don’t post the links to change their mind, I post the links to show the rest of the world why they’re wrong.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Things are more complicated than that. You have the guy you argue with who won’t admit they’re wrong but maybe in the aftermath will shift their opinion a little and after many discussions like that agree with you. Than there are many passive bystanders, undecided and won’t comment but maybe find your point more persuasive
Auth@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Sometimes people will make a broad statement then link a study that supports it and act like boom that makes it a fact. No it doesnt. A study supporting your statement helps support your argument but it doesnt make it a fact. The real world is extremely complex and there are so many factors that can make something true in one place,space or moment in time and worng in another.
LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
[deleted]Auth@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yeah there are some fields where thats the case sure. From what i’ve seen in online discussion the studies very rarely support the claims being made. Even if the research supports the claim, studies tend not to make bold assertions and strong claims like people arguing online tend to do.
plyth@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Bullshit without linking the studies.
It’s also a muddy case whether the statements are about the existance of people or all people.
Some people run on facts, others on emotions. They have to be convinced differently.
Eximius@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Somehow beautiful. Calling out bullshit, but also agreeing.
deathbird@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
Without seeing the studies, it’s hard to know if they were good studies that support her position or not.
Agosagror@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Theres only one good way to change someones mind over something that they have become entrenched about - for example politics, but anything where the reaction is a no rather than a what.
And thats to listen to everything they say, and ask the right question at the right time, a gentle interjection, something that nudges them to question something themselves. At somepoint they might even ask you about you perspective, and you need to give the right kind of answer.
Its slow and painful, and for big things it takes years and years of work to get someone to change. But its the only way ive found to truly work.
forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
The way I heard this explained is you have to show compassion. And if they disagree on something important to you, that might be hard! But I think it’s right on the money.
That said, I appreciate the way you break it down; especially that you point out the fact it can definitely be slow and painful.
Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
There is also a thing that people sometimes change their mind under the weight of evidence, but not immediately. It often requires you to think about it, collect your thoughts and all, and it takes some alone time
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
No one is going to listen to you if you act like a know-it all. It has nothing to do with whatever you’re saying.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 weeks ago
Changing someone’s mind in a public debate isn’t necessary to show everyone they’re a fool. That’s usually enough.
Whether they ever get sick of being a fool is entirely up to them. If they’re wise & mature, they will & maybe even admit it. Some people never do & it’s mostly their problem at that point.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Winning a public debate is much more about rhetorical skills than being right. You can be very knowledgeable in a topic of your research, still lose because you can’t put it simple while your opponent has simple answers to complicated questions and a catch phrase and some slogans
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 weeks ago
Winning a public debate
Never claimed “winning” mattered. Only that we can show facts don’t support a fool’s conclusion (ie, “show they’re a fool”). Whether others care to recognize that or let themselves get misled by invalid rhetoric is up to them: some have better discernment than others. We’re just offering people opportunities when they’re ready not to suck as hard. Humans still gonna human.
anachronist@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
Maybe but there’s this shitlib take that the problem with the Democrats isn’t their shitty candidates or their shitty policies or their shitty consultants or their shitty campaigns.
The problem is the voters are just too deplorable to vote the right and honorable way.
This whole “you can’t change minds with reason” is a shibboleth for these types of people.
These people would rather lose and be self-righteous about being “one of the few good ones” than put any pressure on the dems to stop this country’s increasingly fast slide into fascism.
dustyData@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
But you can’t change minds with reason. You have to put irrational passion and emotion into the mix. If reason always prevailed and changed minds, Trump would’ve never ever lead any enterprise or endeavor, let alone become president of a country.
Cemeteries and prisons are filled with people who were/are right.
anachronist@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
I think Trump would not be president if the Democrats hadn’t thrown a horrible batch of candidates at him.
Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
I onde read a pluralistic article about this where he linked apaper that the backfiring effect was supposedly a fluke.
buttnugget@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I mean, they’re both right. Without seeing the studies, we can’t know exactly what was being investigated, but obviously people have the capacity to change their minds. It just depends on what timeframe, how much evidence, potential removal from propaganda system, etc.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Theres a technique called deep canvassing where you don’t question the second parties beliefs or tell them things but instead build empathy, make the conversation about them, ask them about themselves, and then tell them things they probably didn’t know as a way to let them decide for themselves that they were wrong before.
If a person thinks a car is purple but it’s actually beige an expert could ask about their car and their own car and how they have similar costs or routine maintenance to form a connection, then talk about the sources of pigments and introduce indexes or catalogues of colors, and the person would see on their own how purple relates to blue and red and how beige relates to yellow and come to the correct conclusion on their own.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
however, if he did change his mind, you would need wrong
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
Sad proof that refuting bullshit takes infinitely more energy that it took to spread. If you tell someone that they are under attack, that someone they already distrust is their enemy, it goes straight to the lizard brain.
TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
imagine if they linked shitty studies that they didn’t even understand (like 90% of the people linking studies as gotchas in heated online arguments) and the dude responding was like “look at those garbage p values!” or whatever 🤣
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 2 weeks ago
One study I found is where they let people (their control group) check some data about effectiveness of a certain shampoo. They all found the correct answer. Then they let people do the exercise with the exact same data but said it was about gun control. Suddenly a part of the participants failed at basic math and had a lot of rationalizations.
Some folks will not just accept any fact or data that goes against a belief held by their peer group. Giving facts will even be seen as a personal attack.
KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
I think Veritasium did a video on that.
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Would love to see it if you have a link.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Lol, I think I’m probably the one that will mess up the data because I’m a pro-gun leftist and they just assume that every democrat is anti-gun