5 ms·

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ https://

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online. When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs.

sqeaky 9y ago
It would seem that your position is impossible to argue. But what about the times when two people do come to an agreement? I will agree you are right in many cases, but "never" is a strong word.
- fao_ 9y ago
  Their rule tells them not to debate it with you, though.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    We wouldn't have had much of a debate anyway. People here on HN are pretty reasonable and we agreed save a choice of one word.
jamesrcole 9y ago
> What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online. Nonsense. It may be difficult to win such an argument, but it's not impossible. I've seen people being convinced online, and I've managed to convince people of opposing views myself on occasion.
YCode 9y ago
> you can never win an argument online This is true online and it's true in person. As you said even if you "win" by getting the other person to concede, the net result is often that they are more walled into their position than before. I've come to believe the real issue is that you should not be trying to "win" a discussion in the first place. Rather, you should assume (or at the very least pretend) for the moment that their position is justified and they are "right". Under that presumption, ask questions and allow them to elaborate on their position. In short, instead of talking, listen without judging until you really, truly understand and have acknowledged and accepted their position. At that point you have a tool very few people ever acquire in a discussion. You have the ability to frame your argument in their terms. Now, that doesn't mean you will convince them you are right and they are wrong, but it does mean they are going to be far more likely to listen to you and consider what you've said more fairly than if you had simply bombarded them with facts and figures, i.e. "logic".
- vertex-four 9y ago
  Or, in other words, "have conversations, not debates". It's surprising how many otherwise smart people don't realise that only a very, very small minority actually enjoys debating.

sqeaky 9y ago

It would seem that your position is impossible to argue. But what about the times when two people do come to an agreement? I will agree you are right in many cases, but "never" is a strong word.

fao_ 9y ago
Their rule tells them not to debate it with you, though.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  We wouldn't have had much of a debate anyway. People here on HN are pretty reasonable and we agreed save a choice of one word.

jamesrcole 9y ago

> What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online. Nonsense. It may be difficult to win such an argument, but it's not impossible. I've seen people being convinced online, and I've managed to convince people of opposing views myself on occasion.

YCode 9y ago

> you can never win an argument online This is true online and it's true in person. As you said even if you "win" by getting the other person to concede, the net result is often that they are more walled into their position than before. I've come to believe the real issue is that you should not be trying to "win" a discussion in the first place. Rather, you should assume (or at the very least pretend) for the moment that their position is justified and they are "right". Under that presumption, ask questions and allow them to elaborate on their position. In short, instead of talking, listen without judging until you really, truly understand and have acknowledged and accepted their position. At that point you have a tool very few people ever acquire in a discussion. You have the ability to frame your argument in their terms. Now, that doesn't mean you will convince them you are right and they are wrong, but it does mean they are going to be far more likely to listen to you and consider what you've said more fairly than if you had simply bombarded them with facts and figures, i.e. "logic".

vertex-four 9y ago
Or, in other words, "have conversations, not debates". It's surprising how many otherwise smart people don't realise that only a very, very small minority actually enjoys debating.