What would it take to make you change your mind?

[Surfin' Santa]

What would it take to make me change my mind?

A reasoned, well-thought-out argument with a logical conclusion based on demonstrable facts.

Or, being made an offer I can't refuse.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Isn't this one of those questions that is very difficult to answer really isn't it? I mean we can say "oh I'll change my mind at the drop of a hat if something is proven to me." but then actually turn round and argue against new proof if it's something you don't like or "feels" wrong and say "I'm waiting for more proof on this."
On the other hand you can say it would take moving heaven and earth to make me change my mind, but sway with the wind on popular belief. "Fox News says it so it must be true but only within my narrowly defined way." view of the world.

Personally I like to believe I'm open to new evidence and new ways of looking at things, so even if it doesn't change what I believe myself I'm open enough to believe there's enough that relies on our own perceptions in this world that just because I experience something one way doesn't mean everyone does, and therefore I am right and you are wrong. People can have their own experience and I don't have to be right all the time, though I am...


And now I want to watch my Tim Minchin DVDs. Thanks TSQ! Adding temptation to laugh.

 

[Deckerd]

I don't suddenly change my opinions, I gradually shift. It helps, to me, that despite the fact I post a lot, I rarely actually say anything of worth. Inside my head I have all sorts of uninformed, knee-jerk, savage thoughts but I never express them. My inner policing won't let them out. (Except at home with my OH, when we throw things at the TV and swear a lot.)

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I don't suddenly change my opinions, I gradually shift. It helps, to me, that despite the fact I post a lot, I rarely actually say anything of worth. Inside my head I have all sorts of uninformed, knee-jerk, savage thoughts but I never express them. My inner policing won't let them out. (Except at home with my OH, when we throw things at the TV and swear a lot.)

Oh, as soon as a politician shows up on TV and starts talking I shout "Oh FUCK! OFF!"

 

[Mary Ann]

I don't suddenly change my opinions, I gradually shift. It helps, to me, that despite the fact I post a lot, I rarely actually say anything of worth. Inside my head I have all sorts of uninformed, knee-jerk, savage thoughts but I never express them. My inner policing won't let them out. (Except at home with my OH, when we throw things at the TV and swear a lot.)

This describes me very well. Most often I don't have anything to add to a discussion as my thoughts have already been voiced by someone else, or I'm so undecided on the subject that I just sit back and see what other people have to say. I have initial knee-jerk reactions, but have learned the hard way to keep my mouth shut until I've done some research and thought things through.

Oh, and shouting at the telly? All. The. Time. So does my husband. It embarrasses the hell out of our teenagers, which makes it even more fun.

 

[Kestra]

I'm the opposite. I feel my filter crumbling away.

 

[Mary Ann]

My filter, or edit function, as I like to call it, has improved in some ways over the years, but in some situations I purposely turn it off. This may have something to do with my being a cantankerous old hag *points to personalised rank* and I get pleasure out of freaking out people who could do with a good freaking out.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

FUCK FILTERS!!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

FUCK FILTERS!!

Is that what they call Net Nanny software nowadays?

 

[Mary Ann]

Ten points to Gryffindor, erm, I mean Bob.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I do not argue to win, I argue to be right. If I'm right at the beginning of an argument, then I'm right at the end of an argument and I win. If I'm wrong at the beginning of an argument, then I realize that, purge erroneous information, I then become right, and I still win. With this way of thinking, I have the satisfaction of always winning whether I'm right or wrong.

As far as confirmation bias goes, I try my damnedest to catch myself doing it before I form opinions.

Exactly. I don't argue to win, I argue to present factual data into the conversation.

It's always frustrating arguing with someone who sees it in terms of winning. Arguing is essentially a cooperative activity if you're doing it "right"; it's about trying to arrive at either a helpful resolution to whatever discontent prompted the argument or to achieve a greater understanding of reality. A consequence of that is the ease with which you should accept good points or even justified condemnations from the other person while promoting your own position. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with someone who understands arguing in terms of the need to win, to assert themselves and gain some form of control over others, any recognition or acknowledgement of their points or insights is taken to mean that their overall position is right. If their punches are seen to land home and yours don't, they interpret that as their side of the argument having greater weight or otherwise being the stronger, when really all it means is that you're trying to work things through to truth or understanding, which involves incorporating anything that strikes you as useful or correct, while they're motivated only by the need to come out on top. In other words, an argument is only ever useful if both parties are interested in bettering themselves and their perception of reality - once you have someone whose motive is "winning" the argument the whole thing becomes rather pointless, in my opinion.

 

[Deckerd]

There are quite a few people who get into discussions on this board who have no intention of listening to anyone else's POV. They are not arguing or debating. They are repeating a statement.

 

[Mary Ann]

Over and over and over and over...

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Think as has been said, for the most part people change their mind gradually rather than instantly on hearing new information. Takes reinforcement to really change your mind, even if you're open to changing your mind you require a lot of evidence to reinforce that change.

 

[T'Preea]

I'm open to accepting pretty much anything as long as it has valid facts and legitimate truth behind it. Some things, though I believe in being emotionally predisposed to. I'm a walking example of that statement.

 

[propita]

To me, ignorance is lacking knowledge; foolishness is ignoring available knowledge.

Hubby and I have had those "you said this/I said that" "no, you said this, I said that" arguments. As soon as he has clearly repeated the statements correctly, I concede being incorrect. Quickly, too. So quickly sometimes, that he's thought I was just trying to end the argument. Hell no! I'll keep going if I think I'm right, but concede immediately when I see I'm wrong. I've said for years, I'd rather be ignorant than be a fool. One can be remedied, the other is a choice--and choosing to be a fool? No thanks.