Why You Can't Win Arguments Online

[Zardoz]

Why You Can't Win Arguments Online

I have long suspected this, in my years here.

No matter what you say, sometimes it seems someone will find something, somehow to object to.

 

[Riverwolf]

An example of the "Backfire Effect" they spoke of that came to my mind is Pluto. (Always a planet to us 90s kids.)

I actually suspect that this desire for victory might, iteslf, be a decent shield against that possibility of being artificially unchallenged because of targeted media spoken of at the end of the video. Apparently, hate-following on social media is a thing, where people will follow other people they hate, because they hate them. People love to fight.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Why You Can't Win Arguments Online

No matter what you say, sometimes it seems someone will find something, somehow to object to.

Well, I object to THAT generalization!

 

[Revoltingest]

To consider how our brains trick us is a good thing.

 

[Quetzal]

Of course you can't win arguments online. I am too busy winning them instead.

 

[Buttercup]

Why You Can't Win Arguments Online

I have long suspected this, in my years here.

No matter what you say, sometimes it seems someone will find something, somehow to object to.

I have never seen this video before just now, but this is exactly why I don't enjoy debating online.

It's silly (to me) to carry on a conversation with strangers in short textual sentence bursts and expect to have any depth of conversation.

My strategy is to wait patiently and then slay opponents in person.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Of course you can't win arguments online. I am too busy winning them instead.

Well played, sir!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I have never seen this video before just now, but this is exactly why I don't enjoy debating online.

It's silly (to me) to carry on a conversation with strangers in short textual sentence bursts and expect to have any depth of conversation.

My strategy is to wait patiently and then slay them in person.

Very, VERY well played, ma'am!

 

[Sunstone]

First, I'm not certain that it is any easier to change someone's mind offline as it is to change someone's mind online. I'd like to hear more about why one might be harder than the other.

Second, in the years I worked in sales, I learned that getting a sale depended on reading the other person's motivations correctly. Precisely what would move them to agree to buy? Since my income depended on getting that right, I was keenly interested in reading people. And doing so often enough required me to ask a lot of questions and do a lot of very careful listening -- something I don't see much in debates on the internet.

On the net, there seems to be an assumption that you win debates through logical reasoning and empirical evidence. But that does not strike me as true -- either on- or offline. In my experience, you change opinions when you figure out what will motivate someone to change his or her opinion, and that is seldom logic and evidence alone.

But almost never do you see someone on the net try to address someone's motives, except in the most rudimentary or superficial fashion.

Third, the primary reason for using logical reasoning and empirical evidence in debates is quite often not to persuade others, but to examine one's own reasoning and ideas, using others as sounding boards.

Last, on RF, the people who've impressed me most have been the handful of folks who have "lost" debates! That is, the folks who've been open-minded enough to learn from others when they are wrong. In my view, that's more of an achievement than winning a debate.

 

[1137]

It's pretty hard to win an argument period, I feel like. There's a lot more room for uncertainty than most people believe.

 

[Corthos]

First, I'm not certain that it is any easier to change someone's mind offline as it is to change someone's mind online. I'd like to hear more about why one might be harder than the other.

Second, in the years I worked in sales, I learned that getting a sale depended on reading the other person's motivations correctly. Precisely what would move them to agree to buy? Since my income depended on getting that right, I was keenly interested in reading people. And doing so often enough required me to ask a lot of questions and do a lot of very careful listening -- something I don't see much in debates on the internet.

On the net, there seems to be an assumption that you win debates through logical reasoning and empirical evidence. But that does not strike me as true -- either on- or offline. In my experience, you change opinions when you figure out what will motivate someone to change his or her opinion, and that is seldom logic and evidence alone.

But almost never do you see someone on the net try to address someone's motives, except in the most rudimentary or superficial fashion.

Third, the primary reason for using logical reasoning and empirical evidence in debates is quite often not to persuade others, but to examine one's own reasoning and ideas, using others as sounding boards.

Last, on RF, the people who've impressed me most have been the handful of folks who have "lost" debates! That is, the folks who've been open-minded enough to learn from others when they are wrong. In my view, that's more of an achievement than winning a debate.

I only regret that I have but one like to give for this post...

 

[Quetzal]

Third, the primary reason for using logical reasoning and empirical evidence in debates is quite often not to persuade others, but to examine one's own reasoning and ideas, using others as sounding boards.

My comment on this is: what is the alternative? If someone is not motivated by evidence or logic, their argument, by default, is illogical and based on something that has no credible evidence to support it. If facts are not enough, then what is?

 

[Sunstone]

My comment on this is: what is the alternative? If someone is not motivated by evidence or logic, their argument, by default, is illogical and based on something that has no credible evidence to support it. If facts are not enough, then what is?

Back when I needed to motivate people for a living, I discovered that I made a ton more money when I could tie their decision to some kind of personal gain for them, such as keeping their job, a pay raise, increased prestige, etc. Only even more specific than those examples. Logic and evidence were useful mostly as a means of demonstrating that the gain would be realized.

 

[Quetzal]

Back when I needed to motivate people for a living, I discovered that I made a ton more money when I could tie their decision to some kind of personal gain for them, such as keeping their job, a pay raise, increased prestige, etc. Only even more specific than those examples. Logic and evidence were useful mostly as a means of demonstrating that the gain would be realized.

Well, yes. But often logic and evidence are completely dismissed from certain positions in arguments. This is clear when we get into election time. Voters will continuously support someone despite the evidence telling them that their candidate is not being honest. It becomes emotional/personal and that seems to trump evidence in certain cases. In my opinion, that is dangerous.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

My comment on this is: what is the alternative? If someone is not motivated by evidence or logic, their argument, by default, is illogical and based on something that has no credible evidence to support it. If facts are not enough, then what is?

I would suggest experience. Experience is rarely rooted in logic, and the evidence is the experience of the individual. That experience (or the memory and interpretation thereof) is often faulty is not usually relevant, and for most purposes, a sufficiently "logical" explanation can be created or found to justify the experience. If it works well enough to survive and prosper, then that is sufficient motivation to hold a position; that it fails based on someone else's experience and logic is not usually enough to get the first person to change their position--unless, as Sunstone suggests, you can connect that to some benefit that would supersede the original position--that is, a better, more useful experience and its interpretation.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, yes. But often logic and evidence are completely dismissed from certain positions in arguments. This is clear when we get into election time. Voters will continuously support someone despite the evidence telling them that their candidate is not being honest. It becomes emotional/personal and that seems to trump evidence in certain cases. In my opinion, that is dangerous.

I agree with you for the most part, but I don't see what you're saying as genuinely incompatible with my points.

In my view, you are not going to change a lot of minds through logic and evidence alone.

 

[Quetzal]

I would suggest experience. Experience is rarely rooted in logic, and the evidence is the experience of the individual. That experience (or the memory and interpretation thereof) is often faulty is not usually relevant, and for most purposes, a sufficiently "logical" explanation can be created or found to justify the experience. If it works well enough to survive and prosper, then that is sufficient motivation to hold a position; that it fails based on someone else's experience and logic is not usually enough to get the first person to change their position--unless, as Sunstone suggests, you can connect that to some benefit that would supersede the original position--that is, a better, more useful experience and its interpretation.

Experience and evidence are not mutually exclusive. If I go skiing and break my leg. I can make the claim: "Skiing has the potential to be dangerous because I broke my leg." My leg is broken, that is evidence linked to my experience.

Now, perhaps it is the formulation of the argument and that logical process that is the problem. Taken the above scenario you can form a bunch of arguments.

1. Skiing is dangerous because I broke my leg.
2. Skiing has the potential to be dangerous because I broke my leg.
3. Skiing is, in itself, not dangerous. I broke my leg due to personal negligence.

All three of these are arguing different things, right? But all of them are rooted in same experience.


This topic has a lot more depth than what I originally thought. In fact, I think I countered my own position... need to think on it some more.

To be continued...

 

[Quetzal]

In my view, you are not going to change a lot of minds through logic and evidence alone.

Ah, I missed that important word. In which case, I would be willing to go along with that.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Experience and evidence are not mutually exclusive. If I go skiing and break my leg. I can make the claim: "Skiing has the potential to be dangerous because I broke my leg." My leg is broken, that is evidence linked to my experience.

Now, perhaps it is the formulation of the argument and that logical process that is the problem. Taken the above scenario you can form a bunch of arguments.

1. Skiing is dangerous because I broke my leg.
2. Skiing has the potential to be dangerous because I broke my leg.
3. Skiing is, in itself, not dangerous. I broke my leg due to personal negligence.

All three of these are arguing different things, right? But all of them are rooted in same experience.


This topic has a lot more depth than what I originally thought. In fact, I think I countered my own position... need to think on it some more.

To be continued...

Yah. In marketing, advertising, PR, law, propaganda, etc., reasoning (use of logic and evidence) is only part of the arsenal of tools needed to change peoples' minds--emotions are another important aspect, and one has to learn how to recognize and manipulate those, because they don't respond well to logic and evidence--except experience. The great salesperson (whether they're selling industrial equipment, a product line, an image, a political candidate or ideology, a new government program...) manipulates them all to get the desired result. This can lead to a sense of cynicism amongst the practitioners...but that's another issue...

 

[Buttercup]

Back when I needed to motivate people for a living, I discovered that I made a ton more money when I could tie their decision to some kind of personal gain for them, such as keeping their job, a pay raise, increased prestige, etc. Only even more specific than those examples. Logic and evidence were useful mostly as a means of demonstrating that the gain would be realized.

Now, it's finally dawned on me why you're such a smooth talker. You've had lots of practice.




Edit: