9 ms·

>I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view This doesn't really work w

>I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view This doesn't really work with core views like politics. Some of the most polarizing topics are not because the opposite side can't see your view, it's because you fundamentally disagree on priorities. Examples: Anti-abortion people aren't going to be persuaded by yet another view on women's rights. They think you're arguing to murder babies. The plight of a woman in poverty is not going to suddenly make them go, "oh, well then I guess a litte murder is okay." A libertarian isn't going to be swayed to suddenly think a planned economy is a better approach even when presented with spectacular market failures. They completely understand the failures suck and understand the alternative views just fine. Another anecdote is not realistically going to alter a belief that central planning is worse overall.

visarga 6y ago
That's a learned behaviour - to ignore opposing arguments. They train themselves to counter arguments they don't like with their own prefabricated arguments, learned from the mass media. Like, for example: politician X is corrupt, he was caught taking bribes. Counter: everyone is stealing, at least his party gives our group more benefits than the other party.
- majewsky 6y ago
  "Everyone is stealing" is actually a rational counter when grounded in sufficient truth. It's depressing, sure, but it can be rational.
- kortilla 6y ago
  No, it’s not about ignoring arguments. It’s about talking past each other by adding more anecdotes to an entire class of data the other side does not prioritize.
seneca 6y ago
Yep, I think you're dead on. There are competing and diametrically opposed values out there, and in many cases both can be fairly argued in favor of. For example fairness vs freedom. No amount of shouting about the details will convince someone who primarily values fairness that freedom is more important, and the arguments are largely pointless unless the participants are genuinely seeking to examine the ideas, which is rarely ever the case online. I think people understand that at a very base level, and that's why online arguments are often really more of a performance to score points with your side, or to take shots at the other side. Rarely is anyone actually attempting to convince or learn, they're just playing out some weird tribal warfare ritual and dressing it up as debate. As the larger thread here suggests, the best move in this game is simply not to play it.
mrbungie 6y ago
Well, your reply is being 'deescalated' via downvotes. That shows how open people are to thoughts that defy their values and/or world model.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  It’s being downvoted because it’s an example of exactly the behaviour it’s purportedly opposing.
fossuser 6y ago
I disagree on this - I have a more optimistic view of the ability for people to change how they think. You're right that a core belief tied into someone's identity is not going to be changed by new evidence, unless you can get people to value trying to figure out what's true and updating on evidence itself (rather than having an 'answer' already and just using motivated reasoning to come up with arguments that support their 'answer'). This is hard. I know I've personally gone from someone who made these kind of bad reasoning mistakes - the smarter you are the more insidious they can be because you're better at being a clever arguer and coming up with plausible sounding reasons while ignoring or rationalizing contradicting evidence. I've worked hard to get better at it (and I still am, it's an ongoing process). Yes, this is only a sample size of one, but I think it's possible. I have an optimistic view of the capacity for a person to learn how to think better, while simultaneously having a pessimistic view of the general public's current ability to think rationally. This may seem like a conflict, but really it just means that I think it's possible for us to be a lot better than we are, while recognizing it's a bigger project than just stating the specific evidence available for any specific argument. People have to be willing to consider why they believe what they believe, and be honest about the potential to change their mind based on new information that contradicts what they believe to be true. I think that's the goal we have to work toward first.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > unless you can get people to value trying to figure out what's true and updating on evidence itself What evidence could you give to disprove the belief that abortion is murder? The belief is not a claim about evidence; it's a claim about priorities, as the GP said. Or, if you like, about what actions count as belonging to what categories.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    See my other comment for how I think about/tackle abortion specifically: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23315552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23315552
    - 6y ago
darkengine 6y ago
Sadly, I think you are right. All reasoning starts with postulates that you cannot prove. For ethics and politics, these axioms are our emotions and values. Two people who have a different set of values can't have a logical argument because they're using entirely different systems of reason.
cataphract 6y ago
Studies on persuading people out of prejudice do exist (see e.g. https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~broockma/kalla_broockman_reducing_exclusionary_attitudes.pdf https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~broockma/kalla_broockman_reduc... ). The problem is that the approaches are not as emotionally satisfying as just affirming your moral superiority and calling people bigots, so not many people do it (though some do, search for "deep canvasing"). Abortion is tricky because once you recognize the life of the embryo as a value to protect it's difficult to have it come as less compelling than a right to bodily autonomy. Still, most anti-abortion people would still carve out a lot of exceptions (rape, genetic problems, danger to the mother's life and so on). Most people recognize that the even right to life is not absolute (another example: they would agree it would be unlawful to refuse to obey an order in time of war that would almost certainly result in a soldier's death).
- fossuser 6y ago
  I think abortion is a lot easier when you frame the argument around suffering. I think part of the problem with abortion is the left argues that "it is not a life" which is generally a weak argument. It's better to accept/concede that you are ending life, but doing so without suffering before there's a neural net that can recognize anything - I think that's the important bit (and why third trimester abortions are banned anyway). The push back then tends to be that life itself is sacred and can never be ended (suffering is not relevant), but this is generally not truly believed by the people making the argument so it's easy to point out their contradictory support for the death penalty. They then usually say there's a difference between innocent life and people who've committed crimes at which point you're back to negotiating conditions and suffering seems like a pretty good condition to use. [Edit] It's also a messier issue because I think a component of the debate is shaming women for sex. That they should be forced to have their baby as some sort of penance for having sex. Obviously this is largely unsaid in favor of more palatable arguments, but if it's the true driver then it's hard to even start because you're not addressing the true motivation (which may not even be fully realized by the person arguing).
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Suffering matters - of the mother. The death in hospital of a woman who was denied an abortion was the catalyst for the successful campaign in Ireland to get the constitution changed to permit abortion. #repealthe8th
paublyrne 6y ago
You're right on an individual level, but when you extrapolate a less argumentative approach and encourage curiosity rather than beligerence I do believe society overall is amenable to change. On a macro scale it works. I'm loath to point to abortion specifically as in the example as it's a devisive issue but Ireland which voted to allow abortion two years ago in a landslide referendum is an example of society changing its views as a whole, even while some individuals in that society remain immovable.
wuliwong 6y ago
From my own experience, I've had many many many conversations regarding topics like this that haven't changed my views in any substantial way. BUT, I have had a handful that did and those are so valuable that I think they it IS worth banging our heads into each other's walls most of the time for these rare moments.
evolve2k 6y ago
Damn. I ended up caught up in peoples reponses to the abortion debate question and totally forgot my disgust of Facebook which was top of mine as I started reading the comments. Ironically it confirms the article and how Facebook can keep distracting from focus on itself by having platform users head down rabit hole after rabit hole in an attempt to satiate their flawed human desire to be right all the time. Woah!
kelnos 6y ago
It's unfortunate you're being downvoted, because I think in many ways you're right. People -- especially people who hold strong views on divisive issues -- usually will not change their minds when presented with new evidence[0]. They're swayed by emotional appeals that get them to change how they feel about an issue. Sure, there are exceptions, and some people can be dispassionate enough to weigh evidence and change their minds, but that is definitely not the norm. [0] I read a fantastic article on this a year or two ago, but can't find it now; will update with an edit if I find it before the edit window expires.

visarga 6y ago

That's a learned behaviour - to ignore opposing arguments. They train themselves to counter arguments they don't like with their own prefabricated arguments, learned from the mass media. Like, for example: politician X is corrupt, he was caught taking bribes. Counter: everyone is stealing, at least his party gives our group more benefits than the other party.

majewsky 6y ago
"Everyone is stealing" is actually a rational counter when grounded in sufficient truth. It's depressing, sure, but it can be rational.
kortilla 6y ago
No, it’s not about ignoring arguments. It’s about talking past each other by adding more anecdotes to an entire class of data the other side does not prioritize.

seneca 6y ago

Yep, I think you're dead on. There are competing and diametrically opposed values out there, and in many cases both can be fairly argued in favor of. For example fairness vs freedom. No amount of shouting about the details will convince someone who primarily values fairness that freedom is more important, and the arguments are largely pointless unless the participants are genuinely seeking to examine the ideas, which is rarely ever the case online. I think people understand that at a very base level, and that's why online arguments are often really more of a performance to score points with your side, or to take shots at the other side. Rarely is anyone actually attempting to convince or learn, they're just playing out some weird tribal warfare ritual and dressing it up as debate. As the larger thread here suggests, the best move in this game is simply not to play it.

mrbungie 6y ago

Well, your reply is being 'deescalated' via downvotes. That shows how open people are to thoughts that defy their values and/or world model.

goatinaboat 6y ago
It’s being downvoted because it’s an example of exactly the behaviour it’s purportedly opposing.

fossuser 6y ago

I disagree on this - I have a more optimistic view of the ability for people to change how they think. You're right that a core belief tied into someone's identity is not going to be changed by new evidence, unless you can get people to value trying to figure out what's true and updating on evidence itself (rather than having an 'answer' already and just using motivated reasoning to come up with arguments that support their 'answer'). This is hard. I know I've personally gone from someone who made these kind of bad reasoning mistakes - the smarter you are the more insidious they can be because you're better at being a clever arguer and coming up with plausible sounding reasons while ignoring or rationalizing contradicting evidence. I've worked hard to get better at it (and I still am, it's an ongoing process). Yes, this is only a sample size of one, but I think it's possible. I have an optimistic view of the capacity for a person to learn how to think better, while simultaneously having a pessimistic view of the general public's current ability to think rationally. This may seem like a conflict, but really it just means that I think it's possible for us to be a lot better than we are, while recognizing it's a bigger project than just stating the specific evidence available for any specific argument. People have to be willing to consider why they believe what they believe, and be honest about the potential to change their mind based on new information that contradicts what they believe to be true. I think that's the goal we have to work toward first.

pdonis 6y ago
> unless you can get people to value trying to figure out what's true and updating on evidence itself What evidence could you give to disprove the belief that abortion is murder? The belief is not a claim about evidence; it's a claim about priorities, as the GP said. Or, if you like, about what actions count as belonging to what categories.
- fossuser 6y ago
  See my other comment for how I think about/tackle abortion specifically: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23315552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23315552
  - 6y ago

darkengine 6y ago

Sadly, I think you are right. All reasoning starts with postulates that you cannot prove. For ethics and politics, these axioms are our emotions and values. Two people who have a different set of values can't have a logical argument because they're using entirely different systems of reason.

cataphract 6y ago

Studies on persuading people out of prejudice do exist (see e.g. https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~broockma/kalla_broockman_reducing_exclusionary_attitudes.pdf https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~broockma/kalla_broockman_reduc... ). The problem is that the approaches are not as emotionally satisfying as just affirming your moral superiority and calling people bigots, so not many people do it (though some do, search for "deep canvasing"). Abortion is tricky because once you recognize the life of the embryo as a value to protect it's difficult to have it come as less compelling than a right to bodily autonomy. Still, most anti-abortion people would still carve out a lot of exceptions (rape, genetic problems, danger to the mother's life and so on). Most people recognize that the even right to life is not absolute (another example: they would agree it would be unlawful to refuse to obey an order in time of war that would almost certainly result in a soldier's death).

fossuser 6y ago
I think abortion is a lot easier when you frame the argument around suffering. I think part of the problem with abortion is the left argues that "it is not a life" which is generally a weak argument. It's better to accept/concede that you are ending life, but doing so without suffering before there's a neural net that can recognize anything - I think that's the important bit (and why third trimester abortions are banned anyway). The push back then tends to be that life itself is sacred and can never be ended (suffering is not relevant), but this is generally not truly believed by the people making the argument so it's easy to point out their contradictory support for the death penalty. They then usually say there's a difference between innocent life and people who've committed crimes at which point you're back to negotiating conditions and suffering seems like a pretty good condition to use. [Edit] It's also a messier issue because I think a component of the debate is shaming women for sex. That they should be forced to have their baby as some sort of penance for having sex. Obviously this is largely unsaid in favor of more palatable arguments, but if it's the true driver then it's hard to even start because you're not addressing the true motivation (which may not even be fully realized by the person arguing).
- pjc50 6y ago
  Suffering matters - of the mother. The death in hospital of a woman who was denied an abortion was the catalyst for the successful campaign in Ireland to get the constitution changed to permit abortion. #repealthe8th

paublyrne 6y ago

You're right on an individual level, but when you extrapolate a less argumentative approach and encourage curiosity rather than beligerence I do believe society overall is amenable to change. On a macro scale it works. I'm loath to point to abortion specifically as in the example as it's a devisive issue but Ireland which voted to allow abortion two years ago in a landslide referendum is an example of society changing its views as a whole, even while some individuals in that society remain immovable.

wuliwong 6y ago

From my own experience, I've had many many many conversations regarding topics like this that haven't changed my views in any substantial way. BUT, I have had a handful that did and those are so valuable that I think they it IS worth banging our heads into each other's walls most of the time for these rare moments.

evolve2k 6y ago

Damn. I ended up caught up in peoples reponses to the abortion debate question and totally forgot my disgust of Facebook which was top of mine as I started reading the comments. Ironically it confirms the article and how Facebook can keep distracting from focus on itself by having platform users head down rabit hole after rabit hole in an attempt to satiate their flawed human desire to be right all the time. Woah!

kelnos 6y ago

It's unfortunate you're being downvoted, because I think in many ways you're right. People -- especially people who hold strong views on divisive issues -- usually will not change their minds when presented with new evidence[0]. They're swayed by emotional appeals that get them to change how they feel about an issue. Sure, there are exceptions, and some people can be dispassionate enough to weigh evidence and change their minds, but that is definitely not the norm. [0] I read a fantastic article on this a year or two ago, but can't find it now; will update with an edit if I find it before the edit window expires.