5 ms·

> If you’re not changing your mind, it’s likely you’re not actually having an argument If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could be change

by 9rx 2y ago

> If you’re not changing your mind, it’s likely you’re not actually having an argument If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could be changed) why would you have an argument about it in the first place? Discussing the already settled is rather boring. Unless one is grandstanding for some other purpose, people move on once they've made up their mind. They don't keep exploring the same ideas over and over and over again once they've settled. Argument is there to explore that to which you have not yet made a mind. Your mind won't change because there is no basis on which to change from.

filoleg 2y ago
> If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could be changed) why would you have an argument about it in the first place? Because, in most of those cases, my mind is made up given the information I’d had access to and the points I’ve seen/heard made regarding the topic up to this point. If an argument brings up new (to me) points and information, it is all a fair game, and I am not holding onto my “already made up” position that dearly. If I consider a position “already made up,” it is usually due to me rarely encountering anything new on that topic. But I am not going to pre-emptively declare “my mind is made up, and nothing can change it,” all it could take is a single piece of new info or a new point that I was yet to encounter. TLDR: the entire meaning of “my mind is made up on this topic already” to me personally is “over a course of a long time, I am yet to encounter any new materially relevant info on the topic that could change my mind, and all i keep hearing is the same stuff I heard before (but I am willing to change my perspective if there are any new and relevant points), so I expect the likelihood of my mind being changed on this to be low (given the low likelihood of any new relevant info being introduced)”. > Argument is there to explore that to which you have not yet made a mind. Your mind won't change because there is no basis on which to change from. Agreed wholeheartedly, except i would completely remove the “that to which you have not yet made a mind” part.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > I am not holding onto my “already made up” position that dearly. Perhaps this is just semantics, then? I wouldn't make up my mind until there is effectively no chance of there being an alternative I've overlooked. I'm confident enough in the available information to make up my mind that 1+1 does equal 2 (a topic I would find no interest in discussing further at this point; there is good reason we don't sit around all day talking about that), but for most things I don't have a mind made. If you can't hold it dearly, is your mind really made?
  - filoleg 2y ago
    Using your specific example: I consider my mind to be made up on 1+1=2, because I have zero idea what kind of a new information one could bring up to make me consider 1+1 not being equal 2. I am open to someone making such a point, I just consider the likelihood of that happening being insanely low (given the points I’ve encountered so far on that topic). All that “i made up my mind” means to me personally (stressing this part, because i know for a fact that it means an absolute “i won’t change my mind on this no matter what evidence you provide” to a lot of people) is “given all prior attempts and the evidence on the topic, I believe it is extremely unlikely you will manage to bring up any new legitimate argument to support your position, but I am open to hearing out what you got.”
    - 9rx 2y ago
      > I am open to someone making such a point Someone else is not you presenting an argument. You making an argument about what you know about 1+1=2 is what is boring. Let's be real: You're not going to do it. Why would you? You are already confident in your understanding. I mean, do it if you want. I'm not sure why you'd waste your time, though. You aren't going to gain anything from it. Only if you really had no idea what is going on and wish to understand a topic in more detail would you go down the road of getting into an argument. But when you are in that state you are not in a position to have made a mind.
      - filoleg 2y ago
        Agreed, I would not start an argument in favor of 1+1=2, just like I wouldn’t start an argument about sky being blue on a sunny day, because most people would just agree with me. The whole point of an argument is exploring ideas and learning something new, and I have zero new info on those topics that would go against what most already believe.
        9rx 2y ago
        > The whole point of an argument is exploring ideas and learning something new Exactly. Which is why argumentation becomes boring once you are at the point where you feel there is nothing left that you can learn. Not only does it become boring, but it encroaches on the time you have to broach subjects you want to learn about, so there is great incentive to move on for that reason as well. But when you are in a state where you still feel there is something left to learn, where you might drum up an argument to continue to learn and explore, you're not going to make a mind. That would be nonsensical. So the idea of argument changing your mind isn't practical, even if theoretically possible. During argument, there is no mind to change. Once a mind is made, argument ceases (fake argument with ulterior motives aside).
endominus 2y ago
This response is indicative of a completely different perspective on the idea of "argument" (and "making up your mind," a phrase that does not appear in the than the original article and would not fit with the framework of understanding expressed therein). The belief that your mind should or even can be "settled" on an issue - that you can examine the evidence, weigh it, judge it, come to a definitive conclusion, and then never think about it again - is not universal. There exist people who think probabilistically; issues are not definitively decided in their mind, but given some likelihood of being one way or another. Such people tend to have much more accurate understandings of the world and benefit greatly from constructive debate, revisiting the same issues over and over again as new evidence is brought up in these arguments. If you'd like to know more, I recommend reading the book The Scout Mindset by Julia Galef.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > "making up your mind," a phrase that does not appear in the than the original article and would not fit with the framework of understanding expressed therein While it does not explicitly appear, a mind cannot be changed if it was never made. Change, by definition, requires something to already exist. > revisiting the same issues over and over again as new evidence is brought up in these arguments. Right. But they can't change their mind as they never established something that can be changed. This is the state before a mind is made. It is possible that a mind will never be made. For complex subjects, it is unlikely that a mind can be made.
  - endominus 2y ago
    >But they can't change their mind as they never established something that can be changed. "I am 70% confident that candidate X will win the upcoming elections." "Oh, new polling data has come in that shows more support than I previously knew about? I'm now 80% confident of their victory." Why do you think change cannot occur unless a belief is certain?
    - 9rx 2y ago
      I have no mind formed when it comes to anything related to politics. I'm not sure how anyone reasonably could. There is so much information, and even more information not accessible, that making a mind is completely beyond grasp. If one thinks they have, I suspect they are out to lunch. Perhaps confusing their state with tribalism or some such similar quality. The fact that most people seem to enjoy a good political argument now and again solidifies the idea that they don't actually have a mind made. People lose interest in arguments once they've settled. Argument occurs in the state where one is unsure. It is how humans explore and learn about the world they don't yet understand.
padjo 2y ago
This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances. Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics. I think a better default is to revisit topics every now and then, listen to the counter arguments and change your position if you think it is warranted.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics. Absolutely. As you've read in other comments, mathematics is of the few areas where I have found room to make up my mind. For everything else, straight up: I don't know. The only way to change my mind from "I don't know" is to make it "I do know", but, as you say, outside of mathematics that realistically isn't going to happen. We collectively don't know and it is unlikely that we will ever know. > This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances. Okay, but what in the mathematics that I have made my mind up on do you believe is prone to change? Do you anticipate that we will eventually determine that 1+1 actually equals 4 or something? I will change my mind if in the unlikely event that incontrovertible proof does somehow come to be. I accepted it is theoretically possible to change minds. But, as I said, which is key to the whole thing, I will not spend my days arguing that 1+1=2 until I find out different. I am confident enough that 1+1=2 that I don't have to make that case to myself in front of others. Argument is a device for when you are unsure of something and want to learn more. There is no mind to change as you haven’t established a mind yet.
  - geye1234 2y ago
    > For everything else, straight up: I don't know. Montaigne said something similar, and Descartes' response was to attempt to make everything as certain as math. It didn't end well :-) Surely there is some middle ground? (I haven't read all your comments so perhaps you say so somewhere.) Not all objects of knowledge yield the same certainty, or precision, as quantity. That is not a fault in them or us, it is just in their nature. But we can have a fairly good idea. Examples are too obvious to enumerate. If we dichotomize between "knowing with the certainty of math", and "not knowing", we end in some pretty weird places.

by 9rx 2y ago

filoleg 2y ago

> If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could be changed) why would you have an argument about it in the first place? Because, in most of those cases, my mind is made up given the information I’d had access to and the points I’ve seen/heard made regarding the topic up to this point. If an argument brings up new (to me) points and information, it is all a fair game, and I am not holding onto my “already made up” position that dearly. If I consider a position “already made up,” it is usually due to me rarely encountering anything new on that topic. But I am not going to pre-emptively declare “my mind is made up, and nothing can change it,” all it could take is a single piece of new info or a new point that I was yet to encounter. TLDR: the entire meaning of “my mind is made up on this topic already” to me personally is “over a course of a long time, I am yet to encounter any new materially relevant info on the topic that could change my mind, and all i keep hearing is the same stuff I heard before (but I am willing to change my perspective if there are any new and relevant points), so I expect the likelihood of my mind being changed on this to be low (given the low likelihood of any new relevant info being introduced)”. > Argument is there to explore that to which you have not yet made a mind. Your mind won't change because there is no basis on which to change from. Agreed wholeheartedly, except i would completely remove the “that to which you have not yet made a mind” part.

9rx 2y ago
> I am not holding onto my “already made up” position that dearly. Perhaps this is just semantics, then? I wouldn't make up my mind until there is effectively no chance of there being an alternative I've overlooked. I'm confident enough in the available information to make up my mind that 1+1 does equal 2 (a topic I would find no interest in discussing further at this point; there is good reason we don't sit around all day talking about that), but for most things I don't have a mind made. If you can't hold it dearly, is your mind really made?
- filoleg 2y ago
  Using your specific example: I consider my mind to be made up on 1+1=2, because I have zero idea what kind of a new information one could bring up to make me consider 1+1 not being equal 2. I am open to someone making such a point, I just consider the likelihood of that happening being insanely low (given the points I’ve encountered so far on that topic). All that “i made up my mind” means to me personally (stressing this part, because i know for a fact that it means an absolute “i won’t change my mind on this no matter what evidence you provide” to a lot of people) is “given all prior attempts and the evidence on the topic, I believe it is extremely unlikely you will manage to bring up any new legitimate argument to support your position, but I am open to hearing out what you got.”
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > I am open to someone making such a point Someone else is not you presenting an argument. You making an argument about what you know about 1+1=2 is what is boring. Let's be real: You're not going to do it. Why would you? You are already confident in your understanding. I mean, do it if you want. I'm not sure why you'd waste your time, though. You aren't going to gain anything from it. Only if you really had no idea what is going on and wish to understand a topic in more detail would you go down the road of getting into an argument. But when you are in that state you are not in a position to have made a mind.
    - filoleg 2y ago
      Agreed, I would not start an argument in favor of 1+1=2, just like I wouldn’t start an argument about sky being blue on a sunny day, because most people would just agree with me. The whole point of an argument is exploring ideas and learning something new, and I have zero new info on those topics that would go against what most already believe.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        > The whole point of an argument is exploring ideas and learning something new Exactly. Which is why argumentation becomes boring once you are at the point where you feel there is nothing left that you can learn. Not only does it become boring, but it encroaches on the time you have to broach subjects you want to learn about, so there is great incentive to move on for that reason as well. But when you are in a state where you still feel there is something left to learn, where you might drum up an argument to continue to learn and explore, you're not going to make a mind. That would be nonsensical. So the idea of argument changing your mind isn't practical, even if theoretically possible. During argument, there is no mind to change. Once a mind is made, argument ceases (fake argument with ulterior motives aside).

endominus 2y ago

This response is indicative of a completely different perspective on the idea of "argument" (and "making up your mind," a phrase that does not appear in the than the original article and would not fit with the framework of understanding expressed therein). The belief that your mind should or even can be "settled" on an issue - that you can examine the evidence, weigh it, judge it, come to a definitive conclusion, and then never think about it again - is not universal. There exist people who think probabilistically; issues are not definitively decided in their mind, but given some likelihood of being one way or another. Such people tend to have much more accurate understandings of the world and benefit greatly from constructive debate, revisiting the same issues over and over again as new evidence is brought up in these arguments. If you'd like to know more, I recommend reading the book The Scout Mindset by Julia Galef.

9rx 2y ago
> "making up your mind," a phrase that does not appear in the than the original article and would not fit with the framework of understanding expressed therein While it does not explicitly appear, a mind cannot be changed if it was never made. Change, by definition, requires something to already exist. > revisiting the same issues over and over again as new evidence is brought up in these arguments. Right. But they can't change their mind as they never established something that can be changed. This is the state before a mind is made. It is possible that a mind will never be made. For complex subjects, it is unlikely that a mind can be made.
- endominus 2y ago
  >But they can't change their mind as they never established something that can be changed. "I am 70% confident that candidate X will win the upcoming elections." "Oh, new polling data has come in that shows more support than I previously knew about? I'm now 80% confident of their victory." Why do you think change cannot occur unless a belief is certain?
  - 9rx 2y ago
    I have no mind formed when it comes to anything related to politics. I'm not sure how anyone reasonably could. There is so much information, and even more information not accessible, that making a mind is completely beyond grasp. If one thinks they have, I suspect they are out to lunch. Perhaps confusing their state with tribalism or some such similar quality. The fact that most people seem to enjoy a good political argument now and again solidifies the idea that they don't actually have a mind made. People lose interest in arguments once they've settled. Argument occurs in the state where one is unsure. It is how humans explore and learn about the world they don't yet understand.

padjo 2y ago

This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances. Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics. I think a better default is to revisit topics every now and then, listen to the counter arguments and change your position if you think it is warranted.

9rx 2y ago
> Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics. Absolutely. As you've read in other comments, mathematics is of the few areas where I have found room to make up my mind. For everything else, straight up: I don't know. The only way to change my mind from "I don't know" is to make it "I do know", but, as you say, outside of mathematics that realistically isn't going to happen. We collectively don't know and it is unlikely that we will ever know. > This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances. Okay, but what in the mathematics that I have made my mind up on do you believe is prone to change? Do you anticipate that we will eventually determine that 1+1 actually equals 4 or something? I will change my mind if in the unlikely event that incontrovertible proof does somehow come to be. I accepted it is theoretically possible to change minds. But, as I said, which is key to the whole thing, I will not spend my days arguing that 1+1=2 until I find out different. I am confident enough that 1+1=2 that I don't have to make that case to myself in front of others. Argument is a device for when you are unsure of something and want to learn more. There is no mind to change as you haven’t established a mind yet.
- geye1234 2y ago
  > For everything else, straight up: I don't know. Montaigne said something similar, and Descartes' response was to attempt to make everything as certain as math. It didn't end well :-) Surely there is some middle ground? (I haven't read all your comments so perhaps you say so somewhere.) Not all objects of knowledge yield the same certainty, or precision, as quantity. That is not a fault in them or us, it is just in their nature. But we can have a fairly good idea. Examples are too obvious to enumerate. If we dichotomize between "knowing with the certainty of math", and "not knowing", we end in some pretty weird places.