How to change someone's opinion in an argument

[pixleshifter]

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

[Ratel]

Perl was created by precisely such a smartass for that explicit purpose. So, if I map { Follow ($_) } @Policies I’m forced to conclude that I am correct.

[jansob1]

Indeed…it seems that many people read a post just long enough to decide which category of wrong-minded idiots the writer belongs to. When they detect a single attribute or opinion that matches a given category, they instantly file the writer away. They are a “SJW, MRA, homophobe, commie, religious nut, feminazi, racist” or whatever other labels they use to delegitimize people whose opinions they don’t want to consider. Then they bask in the approving warmth of all their fellows who also demonize said group. Wrongthink banished!
I wholeheartedly agree that the “explain step-by-step” approach is best done as an examination of one’s own opinions first.

[anon33466019]

So I posted that comment as an homage to XKCD’s other famous lisp panel that ends with “ostensibly yes, but we mostly hacked it together with perl” sorry if I was too brief and caused confusion.

However I would t call Larry Wall a smartass. Seriously, if anyone is a smartass it is the person that thought object factories were a good idea (stop making me noun a verb! :D)

[pjcamp]

I thought that was how you turned an argument into a bar fight.

[jansob1]

Swift said “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” I’d add “and our opinions are seldom the result of reasoning, but usually of our environment and affiliations.” Because of this the whole idea of trying to change someone’s mind by arguing with them usually backfires.
Very few people will just say “Oh, you have argued me into a corner, so I hereby change my stand on this issue.” They have to do it themselves, on their own, as they gain more information. The best you can do is to give them data and suggest questions which push them to examine their own beliefs, all the while walking on eggshells to avoid triggering a defensive wall popping up. In my experience, you also have to be very clear that they probably came to their original opinion for well-meaning reasons…they just didn’t consider this other viewpoint or information.

I’ve never been convinced by someone who says “I’m here to tell you why I’m right”
But “Have you considered that idea X might not be taking all the facts into consideration”…that has led me to change my mind.

[popobawa4u]

@WalterPlinge

People don’t really have dialectic arguments on the internet, since that would require a certain amount of compassion and/or intellectual honesty.

Nice way to generalize about people. You haven’t changed my opinion! XD

Dialectical arguments I think are basically the reason for and underlying framework of all human interaction. Those who haven’t figured this out just do it poorly.

[Brainspore]

@frauenfelder

ask the person you disagree with to explain how their preferred policy would work, describing “step by step, from start to finish, the causal path from the policy to the effects it was supposed to have.”

[aeon]

So we’ve got the policy, what’s the effect it’s supposed to have?

[L_Mariachi]

How to change someone’s opinion in an argument:

Suddenly agree with them. They may well reverse course out of obstinancy, but even if they don’t, someone’s opinion has changed.

[jhertzli]

It may be hard to do that for something such as supporting scientific research. If you had a step by step analysis of how the research would be beneficial, it wouldn’t be research.

[WalterPlinge]

@popobawa4u

Those who haven’t figured this out just do it poorly.

That’s just a nicer way of saying humanity’s screwed.

[Eksrae]

My dad had a habit of arguing with me even when we were on the same side. I still don’t know if he ever knew what he was doing.

[gtmac]

There is definite value in this so long as their argument at no time relies on the step, “because god”. That is a step that tends to end critical analysis and entrench shallow opinion.

[popobawa4u]

@Eksrae

My dad had a habit of arguing with me even when we were on the same side. I still don’t know if he ever knew what he was doing.

Maybe your dad knew that there aren’t really “sides”, and liked testing ideas anyway.

[Eksrae]

Oh, no; he definitely thought of things as being either his way or wrong. Sometimes he had to drive the point home if he thought that even if you agree with him, you weren’t agreeing enough.
But, overall, I want to emphasize that he had very few faults and he had a lot of genuine friends.

[aeon]

@jansob1

it seems that many people read a post just long enough to decide which category of wrong-minded idiots the writer belongs to. When they detect a single attribute or opinion that matches a given category, they instantly file the writer away.

Can’t “Like” twice, but bravo.

Then having pigeonholed the poster as “enemy”, the response is a dashed off extreme reply that not only burns the target but badly singes unintended bystanders. Who then reflexively respond in kind. And on it goes until we’re all metaphorically standing on opposite sides …

[aeon]

@Eksrae

My dad had a habit of arguing with me even when we were on the same side. I still don’t know if he ever knew what he was doing.

Hmm. Sounds like being married …