Facts and minds

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.

I think Veritasium did a video on that.
- Would love to see it if you have a link.
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

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.

I'm sure everyone here has seen people change their minds when confronted with information that runs counter to their narrative.

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.
- yeah well I still think it works
  Edit: in seriousness, I agree with you. But I just can't help feeling that if somebody is able to change their mind with evidence then it's my duty to try.
- The backfire effect, as presented by The Oatmeal:
  https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
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.
- 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?
That's partly because lemmy is less toxic than the platform OOP posted on
- lemmy's preeeeetty toxic. But admittedly, I've never used twitter.

well he was in a bit of a bind. If this had changed his mind, what would that say?

I foresee two possibilities.
1: Coming face to face with their own mistake might put them into shock and they would simply pass out. 2: The realization could create a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the spacetime continuum and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that's a worst-case scenario. The destruction might in fact be very localized, limited to merely our own galaxy.
- Well, that's a relief.

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.

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

Without seeing the studies, it's hard to know if they were good studies that support her position or not.

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.

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

Somehow beautiful. Calling out bullshit, but also agreeing.

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

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.

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.

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.
- I think Trump would not be president if the Democrats hadn't thrown a horrible batch of candidates at him.

I onde read a pluralistic article about this where he linked apaper that the backfiring effect was supposedly a fluke.

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.

however, if he did change his mind, you would need wrong

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.

imagine if this happened but 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 🤣