> I used to go to StockTwits a lot to follow $SPY. The amount of people who do not want to see the other side of topics and instead land on simple reductionist

> I used to go to StockTwits a lot to follow $SPY. The amount of people who do not want to see the other side of topics and instead land on simple reductionist conclusions was very high. To ask them to exercise their muscle in trying to see both sides (like by asking them to consume + investigate facts before forming opinions) would be fruitless. Its about EXPECTING them to “see both sides”, or generally be rational. Meaning they bear the responsibility of their conclusions and they arent externalized on society. “Asking” them to is only important because it communicates the expectation, it doesn’t have to be convincing or cause change. > I feel like when it comes to politics, religion, etc. you very rarely find anybody who is willing to take their original view point, admit they no longer like it/"were wrong" and switch to an opposing one. Because a lot of it ultimately boils down to values. Besides, what is the alternative to expecting people to think for themselves on controversial topics? Get a group of people to think through issues and disseminate their conclusions? Obviously that is ridiculous but logically I don’t really see another option - either people are expected to think for themselves or they arent.