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

PJfanwillneverleave1 · May 2015

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 · May 2015

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 · May 2015

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 · May 2015

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 · May 2015

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 · May 2015

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 · May 2015

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 · May 2015

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 · May 2015

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

benjs · May 2015

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.

rgambs · May 2015

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?

It's funny to me that you mentioned Unsung, because he is the poster I thought of when I read the thread topic and link. He continually refused to acknowledge the irrefutable link between gun prevalence and murder rates in the US, using confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to entrench his views.

hedonist · May 2015

dignin said:
Wow, did anybody even read the article?

dignin, my apologies - I saw the thread title after reading other unrelated exchanges and it triggered my reactionary post here.

Let it be said that in retrospect, it's brought some insight into myself

Smellyman · May 2015

rgambs said:

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?
It's funny to me that you mentioned Unsung, because he is the poster I thought of when I read the thread topic and link. He continually refused to acknowledge the irrefutable link between gun prevalence and murder rates in the US, using confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to entrench his views.

Yup. Consistantly sticking to the narrative despite the evidence is the problem.

Consistancy should win you no points.

dignin · May 2015

hedonist said:

dignin said:
Wow, did anybody even read the article?
dignin, my apologies - I saw the thread title after reading other unrelated exchanges and it triggered my reactionary post here.

Let it be said that in retrospect, it's brought some insight into myself

Thanks Hedo.

dignin · May 2015

I made the title controversial to get people to check the link posted. It seems to have had the negative affect of people reacting to only the title without actually reading the content posted for context. Guess that's my bad.

Thanks to those who did read the content.

rgambs · May 2015

Smellyman said:

rgambs said:

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?
It's funny to me that you mentioned Unsung, because he is the poster I thought of when I read the thread topic and link. He continually refused to acknowledge the irrefutable link between gun prevalence and murder rates in the US, using confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to entrench his views.
Yup. Consistantly sticking to the narrative despite the evidence is the problem.

Consistancy should win you no points.

Conviction should though, and Unsung certainly had conviction!

JimmyV · May 2015

dignin said:
I made the title controversial to get people to check the link posted. It seems to have had the negative affect of people reacting to only the title without actually reading the content posted for context. Guess that's my bad.

Thanks to those who did read the content.

I just think you stumbled onto something with the thread title. A useful reminder that no matter how right we may think we are, ALL the evidence is rarely ever on one side or another. Maybe thinking that it does becomes an easy trap to fall into and contributes to why the other guy cannot see our points.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · May 2015

rgambs said:

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?
It's funny to me that you mentioned Unsung, because he is the poster I thought of when I read the thread topic and link. He continually refused to acknowledge the irrefutable link between gun prevalence and murder rates in the US, using confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to entrench his views.

I argued with him incessantly.

He also clung to the notion that the US needed to be armed so that the citizens could honor the constitution and prevent a police state from establishing roots- the very idea you and a few others have promoting yourselves to some degree in the multitude of police abuse threads.

And most of us are all guilty of such tactics at some point in time. Don't you remember when I offered a link to you that had the mayor of Vancouver and other prominent people call the predominantly white Stanley Cup rioters 'thugs'? You dismissed the example and suggested that Canada's use of the term thug differs from that of the US (a textbook case of confirmation bias in my eyes).

brianlux · May 2015

The article asks the question, "It begs the question: what corrective information has backfired on you?". I'm not sure if I am highly disappointed that I could find no answer to that question which might indicate some personal confirmation bias I'm unaware of or feel good knowing I'm widely enough read and have had enough life experience to have no major confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance.

JimmyV · May 2015

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

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?
It's funny to me that you mentioned Unsung, because he is the poster I thought of when I read the thread topic and link. He continually refused to acknowledge the irrefutable link between gun prevalence and murder rates in the US, using confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to entrench his views.
I argued with him incessantly.

He also clung to the notion that the US needed to be armed so that the citizens could honor the constitution and prevent a police state from establishing roots- the very idea you and a few others have promoting yourselves to some degree in the multitude of police abuse threads.

And most of us are all guilty of such tactics at some point in time. Don't you remember when I offered a link to you that had the mayor of Vancouver and other prominent people call the predominantly white Stanley Cup rioters 'thugs'? You dismissed the example and suggested that Canada's use of the term thug differs from that of the US (a textbook case of confirmation bias in my eyes).

I offered up very white Captain America referring to a very white bad guy as a thug in a billion dollar motion picture seen all over the world. It was ignored.

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

Comments

Categories