Ask Lemmy

You've got to figure out your audience. You can't change people unwilling to change. Since most people online prefer an echo chamber to reasonable discussion, you'll overwhelmingly encounter those that won't change their mind.

That said, I still find it mostly worthwhile to have SOME back and forth with those people because others will read it. I feed some trolls a few scraps in hopes that lurkers will be able to discern the better argument from it. Don't go in too deep, and once the ad hominems come nonstop from them, or you can't keep your next reply from containing them, stop.

I've had my mind changed plenty of times, but I'm also open to the idea I can be wrong. If you are talking with people that can't manage that much, you won't feel like you've "won" any arguments because it's coming down to two people saying the other is wrong without allowing themselves to be the one in the wrong.

All that said, I've had way better discussion here than reddit.

Don't know about changing my opinion while actively arguing with someone, but I have had opinions that formed for the first time when I read through comments of other people arguing. So, there's still some value in arguing your own points for a third person observer. :)

I've both had my mind changed and had others change their mind when talking online, but I don't think it's the norm if I'm being honest. Most people don't seem to enjoy having their views challenged and someone feeling defensive will very rarely approach discussion with an open mind. I say this as someone who gets defensive and struggles at times with this very thing. We're all flawed. 🙃

Yes, it happens from time to time on lemmy. People convinced me to their point of view couple of times as well. As long as someone actually wants to talk and not just silence you it's possible. I was way less likely on Reddit.

On individual points, yes, but I hardly engage these days. This was also back in the days of forums and fark more than on modern SNS

Yeah, several time on lemmy. Maybe like once ever for 7 years of reddit lol.

You could never know. A lot of people are not self confident enough To admit they were wrong. Even of they do, they may not tell you.

Most of the time it doesn't escalate into a contentious debate, sure. Lots of discussions where the things I read change my view on things, and I'm sure my own comments change others' view on things too.

But by the time it starts to take on the style of an actual debate, there's less room to convince someone who feels strongly enough to engage in the debate. Still, it's worth doing sometimes because in these public forums, the debate might be read by thousands of lurkers, some of whom didn't feel strongly enough to have a view, but walk away convinced that one of the two sides is more correct.

I know I've been convinced of a side while watching two others debate.

I have had my mind changed, or at the very least been introduced to new ideas that I then went on to explore, which led to me changing my mind.

Online arguments are for the audience, anyway. This is more obvious if you watch some old debate videos from the mid 2010s, especially involving right wing "intellectuals" like JP. He is clearly uninterested in convincing his opponent. Most of the time, his aim is to (a) confuse and (b) enrage his opponent, and then adjust his suit and tie, lean back, and smugly tell them to calm down.

It's not debating to convince your opponent (or even the audience) of your ideas, hence his tendency for useless tangents and unnecessarily esoteric language. It's debating to look like the smart and collected guy, while making your opponent look unhinged in comparison. It's not about the substance, it's about the show.

Debates aren't always about changing the mind of the person you're debating, they are about presenting your ideas to an audience.

Have you ever perused a thread on a subject and had your mind changed without engaging? Maybe you had the wrong perspective and changed your mind or didn't know enough to have an opinion going in but came out with a more informed stance?

That's why I do it. And I've had that happen numerous times.

I've definitely had people reconsider their stance by bringing in more data or an alternative perspective but I'm not sure if anyone has ever admitted to having their view change about something. Then again, I don't always announce it either despite the fact that it does happen so I guess it's safe to assume I've then made it happen too.

In all honesty though, most online arguments are people talking past each other and disagreeing on minute details. Often the conclusion is "we're broadly in agreement but we disagree about this one thing."

That's why it's so ridiculous that people treat disagreement as if the person must then hold the exact opposite view. That is almost never the case.

Yes, there were a few times I have managed to convince someone on here, even on "political" topics. Not so much on Reddit.

Plenty of times I've been convinced that I was wrong about important things as well, which I always try to own.

I wouldn't say there's definitive "winning" or "losing" an online argument. This is a public forum, your arguments are there for everyone to see, even if the person you're talking to still disagrees by the end it may help someone else form a more informed opinion.

Yes but I don't remember what

As person who use to be anti gay and racist I was changed.

Now I'm bi and have admitted to having it bad for women of color.

Which has led me to a happier life overall. Loving people is a lot easier than hate I can tell you that.

Debating is not how you change someone's mind. You can change the mind of an undecided audience perhaps, but not who you're debating.

The other way around (who has been convinced themselves) would make more sense imo, because when people change their mind about things it happens after they've had time to process it, not immediately on the spot. If you change someone's mind with an argument online you are likely not going to find out about it. I've changed my mind about a lot of things and what people say online plays a big role in that, but it happens later, unless it was like a clear factual oversight on my part in which case I try to admit glaring mistakes.

I discuss on social media media to hear other opinions and it constantly helps me to change my mind. I won’t broadcast that though. I presume the same is true for most others as well.

Not exactly, but one time way way back in the day when I was on Reddit, I was debating this far right guy on some kind of culture war issue and I told him if he was such a gigachad who was gonna get a wife and make a ton of white babies, why not do it? Get offline, delete his reddit, and go live in the real world.

He messages me, "okay" and some time later, I see he deleted his reddit account. Legit, it was gone. I felt almost proud of him in that moment. I hope he is out there living his best life and moved away from online arguing.

My strategy is usually to ask them questions that challenge their assumptions. Studies have shown this to be the best way to get someone to change there mind. However, most of the time they stop replying before I can gage if they have changed their mind or not. I assume that my questions make them uncomfortable so they stop engaging instead of evaluating their opinions.

Once, maybe 3 years ago or so, I had the ignorant belief that if the US went to war with Iran, it would be a walkover. (Mind you, this was at least a couple of years before the US was dumb enough to do it.) Someone on Lemmy made very logical and cogent arguments as to why it would be orders of magnitude more difficult than I thought. I read their points and was actually fully convinced that their standpoint was correct. And now here we are in this shittiest of timelines, and that individual was proven correct by, of all things, reality.

I try to. Debates aren’t (or at least in an ideal world shouldn’t be) a victory to win over the other party. It’s to present your ideas and convince. Because of that I try to do it for a few reasons. Namely:

I would wish the other party to hear me out, I should do the same. Especially in a debate with emotional stakes putting yourself in there shoes can help

And considering the other party’s point of view puts you in a position to understand them, and if you’re going to be debating against it then that’s important to know

Plus, especially in politics, I feel as if I become naive enough to become convinced by an idea of moral dubiousness then that is partly a failure on my part to be fooled by it

It's rare, but I've been on both convincer and convinced sides. If both people arguing are rational, it often ends with both of them learning something new and adjusting their worldviews to fit each other.

Though usually it very quickly becomes obvious whether the other person actually looks for a debate or is just trying to provoke an emotional response.

I can’t remember changing anyone’s mind, but I've changed my mind when someone has given me more information than I previously had. “Oh, huh, I hadn’t thought about that. I think you’re right” type of thing.

Not in an actual argument but reading a back and forth between two people as long as at least one of them is giving solid info and the other one is semi coherent, it's changed my mind.

I convince myself I convinced them.

The main problem is that people don't even know how to talk to each other, much less make a convincing case to have someone change their mind. It is possible though. If a black man can convince dozens of KKK members to abandon their racist beliefs through conversation alone, then there's a reliable and repeatable way to change deeply hardened ideas. But no one wants to bother to learn this, they would rather shout at others and try to "own those retards" to make themselves feel better.

Daryl Davis

Podcast with Daryl Davis

Different podcast on changing people's minds on polarising social topics with deep canvassing

Also worth considering how open you (the royal "you", not OP specifically) are to having your own mind changed; before getting worried about the minds of others.

Yes, I have changed a mind or two. Low single digit percentage, I'm sure. I'm more focused on countering bad information information or presenting a perspective that hasn't been represented yet. I don't really expect to change the mind of the person I'm arguing with.

As for not getting sucked in, does the Lemmy app you use have User Tags? Best feature reddit was completely missing (aside from, you know, the whole FOSS federation thing). I use the feature to apply a tag and color to users. I use yellow to warn myself about someone who I think previously argued in bad faith or might be trolling, a "proceed with caution" warning. I use red for "do not engage"; on reddit I probably would have blocked them but just red-tagging them, I can still see the rest of the community respond to them. Any time a post or comment comes up from someone I've red-tagged, I know not to get sucked in. I use Voyager app on Android. I don't block much, just spam, bots, and full Nazi/CSAM apologist types.

In his book Synergetics , Buckminster Fuller points out (don't have the exact quote) that you almost never hear a politician say, "you know, the evidence and logic of the other side are now overwhelmingly persuasive; I must change my political affiliation" -- but among scientists, you hear the equivalent all the time.

Only with debating reasonable people. Otherwise they just detract, use whataboutism, or unplug.

Online debates are more about influencing the audience, who are undecided, the opponent doesn't matter.

Have you ever changed your mind?

I often feel like debate entrenches a belief in both audience and debaters.