Why you'll never win an argument on the AMT, even with all the evidence on your side.

dignin

I've seen it time and time again here on the AMT, we are all guilty of it. This is a great read.

http://www.sciencesoup.net/#/keep-your-facts-to-yourself/

"The MMR vaccine causes Autism. Barack Obama was not born on American soil. Man-made climate change is a fallacy and while we’re at it, the moon landing wasn’t real either.

There’s a psychological phenomena as to why people may hold onto such beliefs in the face of indisputable evidence. When we have a strong belief, we have an instinctive and unconscious need to protect that it. Unsurprisingly, we welcome information that reinforces our beliefs. We love this kind of information so much that we will, often unconsciously, seek out new information that supports our current position. This is called confirmation bias. "

PJfanwillneverleave1

You are right.
You win.

BS44325

The goal of AMT though isn't to win the argument but to have the argument. To get people to question their beliefs and maybe have your own beliefs questioned as well. Once the argument ends we all become victims of groupthink. None of us should live within a bubble.

dignin

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

You are right.
You win.

Please don't troll this thread. I do not want it locked.

If you have something to add about the topic at hand, great. If you don't, please leave it alone.

Halifax2TheMax

So bias does exist on these boards?

dignin

BS44325 said:

The goal of AMT though isn't to win the argument but to have the argument. To get people to question their beliefs and maybe have your own beliefs questioned as well. Once the argument ends we all become victims of groupthink. None of us should live within a bubble.

I agree, but you would be lying if you weren't trying to win an argument. I try and win all the arguments all the time. If I didn't, and you didn't, this would be a boring place.

PJfanwillneverleave1

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

The goal of AMT though isn't to win the argument but to have the argument. To get people to question their beliefs and maybe have your own beliefs questioned as well. Once the argument ends we all become victims of groupthink. None of us should live within a bubble.

I agree, but you would be lying if you weren't trying to win an argument. I try and win all the arguments all the time. If I didn't, and you didn't, this would be a boring place.

But you won with your thread question.

dignin

from the article

We all like to believe we are thoughtful rational people, capable of critical thought and the ability to learn new things. However psychology has found that often the opposite is true: in the face of contradictory information, we may defend our positions with even more vigor.

This sounds very familiar......

PJfanwillneverleave1

dignin said:

from the article

We all like to believe we are thoughtful rational people, capable of critical thought and the ability to learn new things. However psychology has found that often the opposite is true: in the face of contradictory information, we may defend our positions with even more vigor.

This sounds very familiar......

agreed

hedonist

Man...it's not even about winning. Who determines, what are the stakes?

Silly stupid shit lately.

And since the door has been somewhat opened in terms of "arguments", can the shit BE kept to debates with petty names hurled aside instead of at each other?

I respect so many of you and it's not just uncomfortable but seemingly pointless for all this personal shit to go down. How does it end?

Does it end?

JimmyV

How many times in the history of AMT have there been discussions where ALL the evidence has been on one side or the other? Not often, if ever. If you find yourself engaging in such discussions you are not nearly as right as you think you are.

dignin

Wow, did anybody even read the article?

PJfanwillneverleave1

dignin said:

Wow, did anybody even read the article?

Of course I did.
That's why you backfired on me.

dignin

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

Wow, did anybody even read the article?

Of course I did.
That's why you backfired on me.

I see you did, but I don't understand your point? How did I backfire you?

PJfanwillneverleave1

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

Wow, did anybody even read the article?

Of course I did.
That's why you backfired on me.

I see you did, but I don't understand your point? How did I backfire you?

By pre-emptively calling me out as a troll.

dignin

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

Wow, did anybody even read the article?

Of course I did.
That's why you backfired on me.

I see you did, but I don't understand your point? How did I backfire you?

By pre-emptively calling me out as a troll.

How else am I going to interpret your first comment?

PJfanwillneverleave1

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

Wow, did anybody even read the article?

Of course I did.
That's why you backfired on me.

I see you did, but I don't understand your point? How did I backfire you?

By pre-emptively calling me out as a troll.

How else am I going to interpret your first comment?

Like this
"Enough you win,
Enough you won"

dignin

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

Wow, did anybody even read the article?

Of course I did.
That's why you backfired on me.

I see you did, but I don't understand your point? How did I backfire you?

By pre-emptively calling me out as a troll.

How else am I going to interpret your first comment?

Like this
"Enough you win,
Enough you won"

That has nothing to do with the article posted.

PJfanwillneverleave1

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

Wow, did anybody even read the article?

Of course I did.
That's why you backfired on me.

I see you did, but I don't understand your point? How did I backfire you?

By pre-emptively calling me out as a troll.

How else am I going to interpret your first comment?

Like this
"Enough you win,
Enough you won"

That has nothing to do with the article posted.

Your right.

JimmyV

dignin said:

from the article

We all like to believe we are thoughtful rational people, capable of critical thought and the ability to learn new things. However psychology has found that often the opposite is true: in the face of contradictory information, we may defend our positions with even more vigor.

This sounds very familiar......

It's valid, but I think incomplete. The article focuses on the WMD and vaccine examples, but I think it skips something that impacts every discussion we have here:

Sometimes we don't make our points as clearly or as well as we think we do. Sometimes it may make perfect sense in our heads, but it doesn't translate to the page. The other party in the debate can only go by what we write. That leads to confusion and frustration, because we JUST KNOW we're right, but the other guy doesn't see it.

dignin

JimmyV said:

dignin said:

from the article

We all like to believe we are thoughtful rational people, capable of critical thought and the ability to learn new things. However psychology has found that often the opposite is true: in the face of contradictory information, we may defend our positions with even more vigor.

This sounds very familiar......

It's valid, but I think incomplete. The article focuses on the WMD and vaccine examples, but I think it skips something that impacts every discussion we have here:

Sometimes we don't make our points as clearly or as well as we think we do. Sometimes it may make perfect sense in our heads, but it doesn't translate to the page. The other party in the debate can only go by what we write.

Very true. I am terrible at putting my thoughts down on paper (or type). My mind races way ahead of my typing ability and it almost always gets lost.

But to the point of the article, why do we dig in our heels even more given irrefutable evidence that goes against our beliefs? Why are we so stubborn? Is it an inherent human flaw?

I find it very interesting, and I think it goes a long way into explaining how some debates go around here. And if we can recognize that, maybe we can go a little farther into understanding one another.

PJfanwillneverleave1

dignin said:

JimmyV said:

dignin said:

from the article

We all like to believe we are thoughtful rational people, capable of critical thought and the ability to learn new things. However psychology has found that often the opposite is true: in the face of contradictory information, we may defend our positions with even more vigor.

This sounds very familiar......

It's valid, but I think incomplete. The article focuses on the WMD and vaccine examples, but I think it skips something that impacts every discussion we have here:

Sometimes we don't make our points as clearly or as well as we think we do. Sometimes it may make perfect sense in our heads, but it doesn't translate to the page. The other party in the debate can only go by what we write.

Very true. I am terrible at putting my thoughts down on paper (or type). My mind races way ahead of my typing ability and it almost always gets lost.

But to the point of the article, why do we dig in our heels even more given irrefutable evidence that goes against our beliefs? Why are we so stubborn? Is it an inherent human flaw?

I find it very interesting, and I think it goes a long way into explaining how some debates go around here. And if we can recognize that, maybe we can go a little farther into understanding one another.

I understand that you believe that people who get C-sections for non-medical reasons are idiots.
The platform at which you stand can be questioned.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dignin said:

JimmyV said:

dignin said:

from the article

We all like to believe we are thoughtful rational people, capable of critical thought and the ability to learn new things. However psychology has found that often the opposite is true: in the face of contradictory information, we may defend our positions with even more vigor.

This sounds very familiar......

It's valid, but I think incomplete. The article focuses on the WMD and vaccine examples, but I think it skips something that impacts every discussion we have here:

Sometimes we don't make our points as clearly or as well as we think we do. Sometimes it may make perfect sense in our heads, but it doesn't translate to the page. The other party in the debate can only go by what we write.

Very true. I am terrible at putting my thoughts down on paper (or type). My mind races way ahead of my typing ability and it almost always gets lost.

But to the point of the article, why do we dig in our heels even more given irrefutable evidence that goes against our beliefs? Why are we so stubborn? Is it an inherent human flaw?

I find it very interesting, and I think it goes a long way into explaining how some debates go around here. And if we can recognize that, maybe we can go a little farther into understanding one another.

I'm not sure anything discussed on here- outside of the idiots in the idiot thread- is so conclusive that it precludes an argument or discussion (whichever you prefer).

The smallest of arguments to some might mean a lot to others based on their values. And, while these can be dismissed easily by some... they can be defended vociferously by others.

Halifax2TheMax

Taking the other side of a debate is a good exercise. Trying to debate for something you might not believe in can help. That said, some things can't be refuted, like the moon is made of cheese.

dignin

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

JimmyV said:

dignin said:

from the article

We all like to believe we are thoughtful rational people, capable of critical thought and the ability to learn new things. However psychology has found that often the opposite is true: in the face of contradictory information, we may defend our positions with even more vigor.

This sounds very familiar......

It's valid, but I think incomplete. The article focuses on the WMD and vaccine examples, but I think it skips something that impacts every discussion we have here:

Sometimes we don't make our points as clearly or as well as we think we do. Sometimes it may make perfect sense in our heads, but it doesn't translate to the page. The other party in the debate can only go by what we write.

Very true. I am terrible at putting my thoughts down on paper (or type). My mind races way ahead of my typing ability and it almost always gets lost.

But to the point of the article, why do we dig in our heels even more given irrefutable evidence that goes against our beliefs? Why are we so stubborn? Is it an inherent human flaw?

I find it very interesting, and I think it goes a long way into explaining how some debates go around here. And if we can recognize that, maybe we can go a little farther into understanding one another.

I understand that you believe that people who get C-sections for non-medical reasons are idiots.
The platform at which you stand can be questioned.

Ha! So since you're so butt hurt by that comment, you're going to continue trolling me for the rest of you're days. Got it. Sad, but I got it.

PJfanwillneverleave1

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

JimmyV said:

dignin said:

from the article

We all like to believe we are thoughtful rational people, capable of critical thought and the ability to learn new things. However psychology has found that often the opposite is true: in the face of contradictory information, we may defend our positions with even more vigor.

This sounds very familiar......

It's valid, but I think incomplete. The article focuses on the WMD and vaccine examples, but I think it skips something that impacts every discussion we have here:

Sometimes we don't make our points as clearly or as well as we think we do. Sometimes it may make perfect sense in our heads, but it doesn't translate to the page. The other party in the debate can only go by what we write.

Very true. I am terrible at putting my thoughts down on paper (or type). My mind races way ahead of my typing ability and it almost always gets lost.

But to the point of the article, why do we dig in our heels even more given irrefutable evidence that goes against our beliefs? Why are we so stubborn? Is it an inherent human flaw?

I find it very interesting, and I think it goes a long way into explaining how some debates go around here. And if we can recognize that, maybe we can go a little farther into understanding one another.

I understand that you believe that people who get C-sections for non-medical reasons are idiots.
The platform at which you stand can be questioned.

Ha! So since you're so butt hurt by that comment, you're going to continue trolling me for the rest of you're days. Got it. Sad, but I got it.

All I can go by is what you say.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

The people on these forums that go against the grain do not get enough respect in my opinion.

I point to Unsung for example. I never agreed with his views on most things, however he was consistent with his opinions and his reasoning was well formulated- he never came upon his perspective lightly. I remember him when he said he 'was out'... and he left for good.

How else is one forced to examine their positions without a strong 'opponent' to test them?

dignin

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The people on these forums that go against the grain do not get enough respect in my opinion.

I point to Unsung for example. I never agreed with his views on most things, however he was consistent with his opinions and his reasoning was well formulated- he never came upon his perspective lightly. I remember him when he said he 'was out'... and he left for good.

How else is one forced to examine their positions without a strong 'opponent' to test them?

Agreed. Bummer he/she is not around anymore. Some of my favorite posters I disagree with on mostly everything. I remember when Unsung said they were out. No fuckin' around there.

brianlux

There is no need to be concerned with winning if you are on the path of an honest pursuit of truth, if you go out into the world and use all your senses and good sense and if you do something good for the people you care for, and for the world you live in. And this, the words on the back of the last shirt worn by a man I know who just died: "We are not here for long, just for having a good time."

mickeyrat

The one who "wins" is the one who honestly declares " I don't really know"

benjs

brianlux said:

There is no need to be concerned with winning if you are on the path of an honest pursuit of truth, if you go out into the world and use all your senses and good sense and if you do something good for the people you care for, and for the world you live in. And this, the words on the back of the last shirt worn by a man I know who just died: "We are not here for long, just for having a good time."

Thank you as always for your sensibility on here, Brian! This notion that a debate has a winner and a loser is backwards to me: if two people walk out of a debate changed (or more, or aware of being less informed) in any way in their opinions - I consider that a successful debate with no losers.