Have you ever changed your mind on a fundamental issue as a result of an argument?

[Betty Blue]

Yes i have, poss not my position entirely but parts of it. I have also realised i made some cringeworthy stupid posts here in the past... but meh, i look to the future.

 

[Octarine]

but it wasn't an argument itself that made the change. It was usually research that ended up changing my mind.

That is what I meant by catalysis. It prompted you to rethink your view and seek new information.

Jennifer detailed a few examples of what I mean.

Yes, though I would ultimately reach that point after research on my own.

How so? I mean how would you become familiar with their point of view, or otherwise find challenges to your existing view?

As soon as someone uses the right/wrong dichotomy and then plunks down a ton of subjective opinion as evidence to support it, I shut down and just view them as blathering idiots.

What do you consider sufficient evidence to reconsider their opinion? How common do you see these black/white opinions being presented (in various social spheres from ones workplace, to internet forums)?

Oft times I find people are seeking different sorts of validation, not simply of a particular perspective or opinion but themselves when they sally out in topical discussions. Argument is a poor substitute for discussion.

What sorts of validation and at what point does heated discussion spill over into less useful argument?

I have also realised i made some cringeworthy stupid posts here in the past... but meh, i look to the future.

Has anyone here ever gone back and edited posts days/weeks/months later because they made a factual error? (even if it did not effect the overall argument)

I can't recall specifics, but I've done that a few times. The sad part I feel is when you say something silly and no one calls you out.

(Note: the above questions are not necessarily specific to the individuals who I quoted).

 

[Santosha]

Yes I have. This is why I love discussion/argument. I rarely argue to convince others, its almost always for my own understanding. I am also tempted to play devils advocate on topics I am really undecided on. Some might say this is a form of trolling, but I disagree, as I do not resort to flaming comments or personal attacks. Always idea attacks. I have argued many things and found myself later to be terribley wrong. It stings, but who cares? You live you learn. Forums are a great place for learning.

 

[Lark]

What sorts of validation and at what point does heated discussion spill over into less useful argument?

Personal validation mainly, it can be about their personal prowess or styling in the course of the discussion, if they want to "win" or the direction of the discussion goes into that of a clear "win, lose or draw" framing.

Then it could become debating but its more likely to be argument, debate I consider to be open discussion within a context of acknowledged and amicable differences, argument I characterise by the prescence of acrimony and ill will, perhaps its controlled and contained to a point but its still present, ready for things to turn ugly or it could contribute to things turning ugly.

 

[Lark]

Yes I have. This is why I love discussion/argument. I rarely argue to convince others, its almost always for my own understanding. I am also tempted to play devils advocate on topics I am really undecided on. Some might say this is a form of trolling, but I disagree, as I do not resort to flaming comments or personal attacks. Always idea attacks. I have argued many things and found myself later to be terribley wrong. It stings, but who cares? You live you learn. Forums are a great place for learning.

I would too, disagree with that being trolling I mean, I think its very important to play devils advocate, not simply on things you're undecided about but also on topics that you are decided on. Sometimes even more so then than otherwise.

Without being neurotic about it its a better idea to investigate challenges to your own acknowledged perspectives than simply preach to the choir, look for echoes or cheer leading.

 

[kyuuei]

Facts are crucial for me. If newer information is out and published, it can sway me a lot. "X used to be the case because of assumptions based on this old research.. but now we know that these people suffer more from Y, and that is why we need to fund Y and be opened minded about this." I can go from "No way, thats awful!" to "Oh, I see... Hm.. Mayhap then."

Outside of that.. if someone is being civil and not so personal, I can listen to them.. the more personal something gets for someone, the less I tend to listen when it comes to swaying my OWN opinion, but I dont necessarily toss their arguments out the window for the discussion. Knowing why other people disagree with you is good information in its own right, and helps build my own foundations.

If I argue about something personal.. it is simply because I cannot help myself but to try. I don't expect to sway anyone's opinions, those are hard things to change when it comes to bigger issues and philosophical thinking. Trying still helps soothe my heart though.

 

[guesswho]

Yeah well, how about defining fundamental first.

People rarely change their fundamental beliefs, because they've invested a lot in them, and they're at the foundation of their belief system.

So no, it hasn't happened to me.

However, on a smaller scale, arguments have changed my mind about things.

 

[Lark]

Yeah well, how about defining fundamental first.

People rarely change their fundamental beliefs, because they've invested a lot in them, and they're at the foundation of their belief system.

So no, it hasn't happened to me.

However, on a smaller scale, arguments have changed my mind about things.

This is interesting, although I dont see the dichotomies that some people do and when they are presented to me as real when I dont experience them as such they tend to become tedious and I feel no this binary logic is bullshit, I will not choose from the two imperfect possibilities you have presented me with when I think we're ignoring a more interesting overarching discussion.

Dichotomies which I've felt were false but others didnt included for instance socialism vs. individualism, particularly with reference to public or social policies, market socialism vs. non-market socialism, that ones a little more obscure and niche but anyhow.

I'm always pleased when I discover some transcendence of either-or thinking were it shouldnt apply, particularly if its delivered by someone who's ignorant of its existence in the first place, they look upon the thing with a fresh prespective.

A great example of this I remember was in a mailing list on anarchism which I participated in the late ninties, they were debating the differences between "lifestyle" and "social" anarchism, it was a case of never the twain shall meet and each is anathema to one another and one is true the other false, until someone who had a much more casual and apolitical interest, who was actually more interesting in cycling, asked what's this all about, when they two ideas were outlined they said yeah, I'm for both of those things then. Really was good to see how that threw a useful spanner in the works.

 

[rav3n]

What do you consider sufficient evidence to reconsider their opinion? How common do you see these black/white opinions being presented (in various social spheres from ones workplace, to internet forums)?

I'm fine with disagreements and differing opinions. But "right/wrong" is so subjective. When "right/wrong" is slammed onto the table, it tells me it's a waste of time to discuss the issue.

 

[garbage]

My opinion usually flips around like a ping-pong-ball.

this for me


Also, I really have no problem "trying out" an opposing mindset that's been presented in an argument. Even if an argument hasn't completely changed my mind, then it's still affected my worldview because the process has reinforced what I know. Either way, it's a chance to learn.