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

dignin
dignin Posts: 9,478
in A Moving Train
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. "
«1345

Comments

  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    You are right.
    You win.
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    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
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    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
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,990
    So bias does exist on these boards?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    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
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    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
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    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
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    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
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    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
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,607
    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.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    Wow, did anybody even read the article?
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    dignin said:

    Wow, did anybody even read the article?

    Of course I did.
    That's why you backfired on me.
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    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
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    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
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    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
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    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
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    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
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    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
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,607
    edited May 2015
    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.

    Post edited by JimmyV on
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    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.

Categories