It's so extremely frustrating to me seeing people (often left-leaning people who are sick of responding to racist, sexist, transphobic, etc talking points) be like "debate is pointless, you never convince the other side!" The point of debate isn't to convince the other side, it's to convince the audience!
It's so extremely frustrating to me seeing people (often left-leaning people who are sick of responding to racist, sexist, transphobic, etc talking points) be like "debate is pointless, you never convince the other side!" The point of debate isn't to convince the other side, it's to convince the audience!
Yes, although I don't want to discount the power of working through an argument for yourself as well. There's a balance to be struck, I think, between the sort of argument-by-conclusion that you tend to see from politicians or in media reporting, and repeatedly shooting down the same bad faith arguments from an endless series of pseudonymous trolls. The goal, ultimately, is to make an argument once, and then be able to hold to it until you, yourself, genuinely change your mind.
Fact is that you cannot convince a cult, and you can't deprogram a cult. The antisemites, the haters, the religious extremists, the fascists are not going to be convinced to change their minds, not by debate. You can't debate a true believer into becoming an atheist, nor the other way around.
Of course someone I know used to work In counterintelligence looking for people who might be dangerous and working to de-radicalize them. To do that, he had to тАЬget in their headsтАЭ and try to figure out motivations. It took a lot out of him psychologically but he was often successful. I canтАЩt reveal anything specific about him or his work and you wonтАЩt ever hear about the tragedies he prevented because they did not take place.
The exception does not the rule make. FYI, until 1989 I was one of them, in fact I was interviewed by a rep from Aryan Nations, Then I did a geographic, met sobered up, met new people including former SDS and Weather Underground, even had lunch with Angela Davis, ( myself and about 20 others) and realized what a misguided fool and asshole I had been. And it didn't happen because of some debate. It started with winding up in a drunk tank and in an AA meeting, where I met other "kinds" of people. My social circle expanded and with it my world view, and I am still learning and expanding.
I suspect the word "debate" is misleading you, because what you just said above actually agreed with my point. You changed your mind because of talking to people, not being shut out from them.
Uh, the subject was "changing the mind via debate" not meeting other people and experiencing an alternate view.
It wasn't just "talking" to people, but it was walking in their shoes, experiencing their lives, sharing their lives, their woes, their hopes, breaking bread, drinking coffee. working with them. I even became a shop steward.
No talking to people is not the answer. I do realize that once a person takes a position, they feel that they have to defend it. The inability to admit error is not restricted to fascism or the right wing.
Sobering up, meeting people on the other side, required me to admit that the first 50 years of my life, or at least that portion which was ideologically engaged, was wrong. And frankly I also find, now that my critical reasoning skills are recovered, that I have serious problems with some doctrinaire leftists, but still consider myself a progressive.
You obviously didnтАЩt read what I wrote before. A good debater isnтАЩt someone who tries to convince you with facts or tries to call out your bullshit or judges you. A good debater is someone who talks to you and shares their point of view and invites you in to walk in their shoes. But it requires another person with an idea different from yours - the idea that anyone can magically тАЬchange their mind on their ownтАЭ is misguided.
Maybe not. But isnтАЩt it a worthwhile exercise to listen to them to find out *why* they are in the cult? What aspects of it they find so comforting that theyтАЩre willing to engage in the cognitive dissonance of refusing to entertain whatever evidence you provide that disproves their views? I find that very often the *real* reason people believe something is not the reason they *claim* to believe it.
From my personal experience as a scientist, for example, I find that people who are passionately anti-vaccine know just as much (and often more) about certain aspects of virology than those who claim to be passionate advocates for vaccines and тАЬfollowing the scienceтАЭ. But when you ask specific enough questions, you find that most non-scientists with these positions just have a preference for a certain authority figure over another or inherently distrust authority or blindly follow it. Neither *really* knows enough the science that well. But listening to why they prefer a certain authority figure or distrust authority figures completely can be very illuminating. And discussing those sorts of issues instead of the superficial issues they manifest as is often helpful - if not in changing opinions, then at least understanding them.
I also disagree with your premise that people who are true believers canтАЩt become atheists nor the other way around. I know people in both categories. I even happen to be one.
I didn't say that persons who are true believers can't become atheists. I was a trad Catholic and am now an atheist. I shed a belief, and know of which I speak. Basically I was that guy adrift on the sea without a sail or oar, until I figured it out and realized that I don't need to believe to live.
But that is me.
As regards listening to others,to understand what motivates them. All I can so is "I don't care why you are doing what you are doing, just stop trying to kill me".
Other than that, I am pretty damn sure that I know exactly why they are in the cult, and don't care. Understanding them, does not deprogram them.
As regards cognitive dissonance, a true believer has none That's what belief is all about.
<< I didn't say that persons who are true believers can't become atheists. >>
Your exact phrase was:
тАЬYou can't debate a true believer into becoming an atheist, nor the other way around.тАЭ
Now maybe you didnтАЩt mean that people canтАЩt change their belief systems but rather something like тАЬyou canтАЩt *debate* someone in to changing their beliefs - that they have to arrive at that conclusion themselves.
But think about your own journey In rejecting Catholicism. ItтАЩs usually difficult for most people to trace the exact evolution of their thinking. But I doubt it happened overnight and I doubt it happened without a personal experience that challenged what what you knew or thought you knew or a personal encounter or several encounters with people or authors or cultural icons who you respected and took seriously and who introduced the seed of an idea that you had not previously encountered or had encountered but not taken seriously.
Obviously I know nothing about your story but I know it must have been a result of one or more of those things because throughout history, that is the only way anyone who has changed their minds about any belief has done so. In fact itтАЩs the only possible way to do so.
The picture you paint of being adrift alone on a boat and having to figure out how the world works on your own is a noble and romantic idea, but it canтАЩt be completely true.
If it were, that would be like growing up on an isolated island where Catholicism was the one and only way anyone ever had of understanding and explaining how the universe operates - Where you had no access to or even a concept of the existence of things like Greek mythology or history or other religions or science. In that scenario, how likely would it be for you to come to reject Catholicism entirely on your own? I certainly donтАЩt mean to imply that you donтАЩt deserve a great deal of credit for changing your belief system. IтАЩm simply pointing out that most people who do so, donтАЩt do it completely by themselves - even if they arenтАЩt fully aware of all the influences that got them there.
We are all born and raised with a genetic proclivity towards certain fundamental personality traits (usually known as the big five). We are raised by other humans who tell us how the universe operates. As we grow, we encounter teachers and books and media and movies and social media posts and other people with lots of different ideas about how the world operates. Then, based on temperament, personal experiences, and influences, we make decisions about which beliefs we think are worth reinforcing and which are worth updating and which are worth rejecting. Most people get a bit complacent about doing this after about age 30 - unless something drastic happens that causes them to reshape their world view. But the best people, like Lenard Hand, are exemplars of epistemic humility and do this throughout their lives - always taking care never to be *too sure* that theyтАЩre right.
ThatтАЩs an extremely long and rambling way of saying that if a good debater is aware of all the things that influenced them to change their minds about something, they might be able to gently, skillfully and without condescension, point out similar things to other people in accordance with their unique personalities, values and experiences.
So yes, I do believe it is possible to change the mind of a true believer through debate (or rather discussion). Is it always possible? No, of course not! and even when it is, itтАЩs really hard and often not worth the time or effort. But for important people on important issues, I believe itтАЩs worth a try. Democracy can only exist because of persuasion. Once we give up on persuasion, all we have left is force. And thatтАЩs not a system I care to go back to.
This comment can only be trolling, as it seems to be deliberately phrased in such a way as to make it clear that you're intentionally disregarding what I've written.
I did not intentionally disregard what you said. The problem is that you were not clear in what you were trying to say. FYI. I am no troll. I use my name, I do not hide behind a phony screen name.
I will repeat, you don't change minds by debate, Especially when it comes to cultural/religious issues. People come to a debate with rock solid ideas, when the subject is a hot button issue, and cultural/ religious issues .
Such issues are not opinions which can be shed, with the acquisition of facts or critical thinking. They are part of a persons core identity, beliefs. It is not easy to shed beliefs, it is tantamount to committing psychic suicide.
Beliefs are what we are made of, they form the core of our identity, be it racial, sexual, religious, political, even such mundane things as sports. (To wit: European soccer riots).
To shed a belief is akin to being afloat on the ocean on a door with no sail or oars.
The alternative is opinions. One can easily shed an opinion, when confronted with new information or evidence, provided they have critical thinking skills.
Opinions are either acquire or arrived at.
Acquired opinions are those that one picks up from authority or friends.
An opinion that is arrived at, is one that was formed from information, considered and evaluated.
The upshot is that debating in front of an audience who comes to the event with a set of beliefs is a waste of time. You don't change minds of people whose ego and identity is wrapped up in beliefs. And the cultural war is, if nothing, but a tightly wrapped package of beliefs.
YouтАЩre right. You donтАЩt usually change minds by debate - not immediately - but you can sometimes plant an idea in someoneтАЩs head that may rankle there for sometime and lead to a slow re-evaluation of beliefs. But if you enter in to a debate with the express purpose of convincing the other person youтАЩre right, you will usually fail. Why would anyone listen to you or respect your opinion when itтАЩs clear you donтАЩt respect them enough to listen to their opinion even though you might disagree with it? I surely wouldnтАЩt.
It's so extremely frustrating to me seeing people (often left-leaning people who are sick of responding to racist, sexist, transphobic, etc talking points) be like "debate is pointless, you never convince the other side!" The point of debate isn't to convince the other side, it's to convince the audience!
Yes, although I don't want to discount the power of working through an argument for yourself as well. There's a balance to be struck, I think, between the sort of argument-by-conclusion that you tend to see from politicians or in media reporting, and repeatedly shooting down the same bad faith arguments from an endless series of pseudonymous trolls. The goal, ultimately, is to make an argument once, and then be able to hold to it until you, yourself, genuinely change your mind.
Fact is that you cannot convince a cult, and you can't deprogram a cult. The antisemites, the haters, the religious extremists, the fascists are not going to be convinced to change their minds, not by debate. You can't debate a true believer into becoming an atheist, nor the other way around.
Empirically, sometimes you can: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes
Of course someone I know used to work In counterintelligence looking for people who might be dangerous and working to de-radicalize them. To do that, he had to тАЬget in their headsтАЭ and try to figure out motivations. It took a lot out of him psychologically but he was often successful. I canтАЩt reveal anything specific about him or his work and you wonтАЩt ever hear about the tragedies he prevented because they did not take place.
The exception does not the rule make. FYI, until 1989 I was one of them, in fact I was interviewed by a rep from Aryan Nations, Then I did a geographic, met sobered up, met new people including former SDS and Weather Underground, even had lunch with Angela Davis, ( myself and about 20 others) and realized what a misguided fool and asshole I had been. And it didn't happen because of some debate. It started with winding up in a drunk tank and in an AA meeting, where I met other "kinds" of people. My social circle expanded and with it my world view, and I am still learning and expanding.
I suspect the word "debate" is misleading you, because what you just said above actually agreed with my point. You changed your mind because of talking to people, not being shut out from them.
Uh, the subject was "changing the mind via debate" not meeting other people and experiencing an alternate view.
It wasn't just "talking" to people, but it was walking in their shoes, experiencing their lives, sharing their lives, their woes, their hopes, breaking bread, drinking coffee. working with them. I even became a shop steward.
No talking to people is not the answer. I do realize that once a person takes a position, they feel that they have to defend it. The inability to admit error is not restricted to fascism or the right wing.
Sobering up, meeting people on the other side, required me to admit that the first 50 years of my life, or at least that portion which was ideologically engaged, was wrong. And frankly I also find, now that my critical reasoning skills are recovered, that I have serious problems with some doctrinaire leftists, but still consider myself a progressive.
You obviously didnтАЩt read what I wrote before. A good debater isnтАЩt someone who tries to convince you with facts or tries to call out your bullshit or judges you. A good debater is someone who talks to you and shares their point of view and invites you in to walk in their shoes. But it requires another person with an idea different from yours - the idea that anyone can magically тАЬchange their mind on their ownтАЭ is misguided.
Maybe not. But isnтАЩt it a worthwhile exercise to listen to them to find out *why* they are in the cult? What aspects of it they find so comforting that theyтАЩre willing to engage in the cognitive dissonance of refusing to entertain whatever evidence you provide that disproves their views? I find that very often the *real* reason people believe something is not the reason they *claim* to believe it.
From my personal experience as a scientist, for example, I find that people who are passionately anti-vaccine know just as much (and often more) about certain aspects of virology than those who claim to be passionate advocates for vaccines and тАЬfollowing the scienceтАЭ. But when you ask specific enough questions, you find that most non-scientists with these positions just have a preference for a certain authority figure over another or inherently distrust authority or blindly follow it. Neither *really* knows enough the science that well. But listening to why they prefer a certain authority figure or distrust authority figures completely can be very illuminating. And discussing those sorts of issues instead of the superficial issues they manifest as is often helpful - if not in changing opinions, then at least understanding them.
I also disagree with your premise that people who are true believers canтАЩt become atheists nor the other way around. I know people in both categories. I even happen to be one.
I didn't say that persons who are true believers can't become atheists. I was a trad Catholic and am now an atheist. I shed a belief, and know of which I speak. Basically I was that guy adrift on the sea without a sail or oar, until I figured it out and realized that I don't need to believe to live.
But that is me.
As regards listening to others,to understand what motivates them. All I can so is "I don't care why you are doing what you are doing, just stop trying to kill me".
Other than that, I am pretty damn sure that I know exactly why they are in the cult, and don't care. Understanding them, does not deprogram them.
As regards cognitive dissonance, a true believer has none That's what belief is all about.
I recommend highly .https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915 by Eric Hoffer
<< I didn't say that persons who are true believers can't become atheists. >>
Your exact phrase was:
тАЬYou can't debate a true believer into becoming an atheist, nor the other way around.тАЭ
Now maybe you didnтАЩt mean that people canтАЩt change their belief systems but rather something like тАЬyou canтАЩt *debate* someone in to changing their beliefs - that they have to arrive at that conclusion themselves.
But think about your own journey In rejecting Catholicism. ItтАЩs usually difficult for most people to trace the exact evolution of their thinking. But I doubt it happened overnight and I doubt it happened without a personal experience that challenged what what you knew or thought you knew or a personal encounter or several encounters with people or authors or cultural icons who you respected and took seriously and who introduced the seed of an idea that you had not previously encountered or had encountered but not taken seriously.
Obviously I know nothing about your story but I know it must have been a result of one or more of those things because throughout history, that is the only way anyone who has changed their minds about any belief has done so. In fact itтАЩs the only possible way to do so.
The picture you paint of being adrift alone on a boat and having to figure out how the world works on your own is a noble and romantic idea, but it canтАЩt be completely true.
If it were, that would be like growing up on an isolated island where Catholicism was the one and only way anyone ever had of understanding and explaining how the universe operates - Where you had no access to or even a concept of the existence of things like Greek mythology or history or other religions or science. In that scenario, how likely would it be for you to come to reject Catholicism entirely on your own? I certainly donтАЩt mean to imply that you donтАЩt deserve a great deal of credit for changing your belief system. IтАЩm simply pointing out that most people who do so, donтАЩt do it completely by themselves - even if they arenтАЩt fully aware of all the influences that got them there.
We are all born and raised with a genetic proclivity towards certain fundamental personality traits (usually known as the big five). We are raised by other humans who tell us how the universe operates. As we grow, we encounter teachers and books and media and movies and social media posts and other people with lots of different ideas about how the world operates. Then, based on temperament, personal experiences, and influences, we make decisions about which beliefs we think are worth reinforcing and which are worth updating and which are worth rejecting. Most people get a bit complacent about doing this after about age 30 - unless something drastic happens that causes them to reshape their world view. But the best people, like Lenard Hand, are exemplars of epistemic humility and do this throughout their lives - always taking care never to be *too sure* that theyтАЩre right.
ThatтАЩs an extremely long and rambling way of saying that if a good debater is aware of all the things that influenced them to change their minds about something, they might be able to gently, skillfully and without condescension, point out similar things to other people in accordance with their unique personalities, values and experiences.
So yes, I do believe it is possible to change the mind of a true believer through debate (or rather discussion). Is it always possible? No, of course not! and even when it is, itтАЩs really hard and often not worth the time or effort. But for important people on important issues, I believe itтАЩs worth a try. Democracy can only exist because of persuasion. Once we give up on persuasion, all we have left is force. And thatтАЩs not a system I care to go back to.
This comment can only be trolling, as it seems to be deliberately phrased in such a way as to make it clear that you're intentionally disregarding what I've written.
I did not intentionally disregard what you said. The problem is that you were not clear in what you were trying to say. FYI. I am no troll. I use my name, I do not hide behind a phony screen name.
I will repeat, you don't change minds by debate, Especially when it comes to cultural/religious issues. People come to a debate with rock solid ideas, when the subject is a hot button issue, and cultural/ religious issues .
Such issues are not opinions which can be shed, with the acquisition of facts or critical thinking. They are part of a persons core identity, beliefs. It is not easy to shed beliefs, it is tantamount to committing psychic suicide.
Beliefs are what we are made of, they form the core of our identity, be it racial, sexual, religious, political, even such mundane things as sports. (To wit: European soccer riots).
To shed a belief is akin to being afloat on the ocean on a door with no sail or oars.
The alternative is opinions. One can easily shed an opinion, when confronted with new information or evidence, provided they have critical thinking skills.
Opinions are either acquire or arrived at.
Acquired opinions are those that one picks up from authority or friends.
An opinion that is arrived at, is one that was formed from information, considered and evaluated.
The upshot is that debating in front of an audience who comes to the event with a set of beliefs is a waste of time. You don't change minds of people whose ego and identity is wrapped up in beliefs. And the cultural war is, if nothing, but a tightly wrapped package of beliefs.
YouтАЩre right. You donтАЩt usually change minds by debate - not immediately - but you can sometimes plant an idea in someoneтАЩs head that may rankle there for sometime and lead to a slow re-evaluation of beliefs. But if you enter in to a debate with the express purpose of convincing the other person youтАЩre right, you will usually fail. Why would anyone listen to you or respect your opinion when itтАЩs clear you donтАЩt respect them enough to listen to their opinion even though you might disagree with it? I surely wouldnтАЩt.
And that's why the 1964 Civil Rights Act died in the Senate.
Explain yourself please. That comment demands more information as to how. And how were the two connected.