Happens way too often😮💨
Happens way too often😮💨
Comments
50-
-
It worked on me 🤷♀️
I used to be rightwing but after learning things about how the world actually works the contradictions were too much and I changed my mind about many things and now I am a filthy socialist.
I have also been able to change a few peoples minds on some things.
-
Welcome to the fold comrade🤝. Currently in the process of trying to deradicalize my family from the right as well
-
Hey I’m interested in you as a datapoint.
Friend of mine suggested that left vs right is fairly ingrained from near-birth, like temperament. I’ve been thinking about it and personally my leftism certainly does feel like a predisposition, as much as I’m able to entertain and accept some subset of right wing ideas.
Do you think that you were always left leaning but biased by upbringing, or does it simply feel malleable to you? Could you see yourself swinging back on a balance of evidence?
-
I find the idea that your politics are ingrained from birth to be harmful and a similar mindset has been used by the right to demonize the mentally ill and criminals I am a strong believer in rehabilitative justice most people are not completely doomed to be bad people even nazis can change their ways.
in my case I considered myself a rightwing libertarian I always had a bit of an anti-authoritarian mindset but it was misdirected by my upbringing and education. I do think there are a lot of right wing people who don't necessarily like authority you can see this with their skepticism of the government, big pharma, their propensity for conspiracy theories about "elites" but it has been co-opted in a way that does not actually challenge authority.
the right teaches people that instead of rightfully blaming the problems of capitalism on capitalism they find other groups of people for you to blame these problems on and since the education system is so biased a lot of people will just buy into this they don't know any better they have been lied to in some cases their whole life. I blame the education system so much for the rise of the far right.
I did buy into some bigoted ideas I was transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant learning the actual facts about this learning that I have been lied to about all of these people I changed my mind and it taught me an important lesson about myself I am capable of hate. a lot of people who are bigoted don't see it as hatred because they are not seething with anger, for example with my transphobia I thought that they were mentally ill and needed treatment to "fix" them it didn't come from a place of hatred but pity it is still just as harmful.
my mindset is not the same as it used it has definitely changed can it change again sure but I highly doubt I would ever become right wing again because most of their ideas are thoroughly based off of misinformation and I have spent a lot of time deconstructing that and I also try my best to change people's minds so I am exposed to right wing bullshit on a regular basis I know exactly why these people are wrong and if I don't I research.
knowledge is power
-
-
Same. I was an ethical vegetarian once. Then i found out why vegans are vegans and had to accept that there was no such thing as being an ethical vegetarian.
-
-
To be fair, 'scientific studies' are increasingly less reliable, so quoting them as 'facts' has less weight. It used to be that any average person could look at an abstract and have a good enough idea to accept what the study found as fact. In 2025 this is less so, because you can't just read the abstract. You also need to read the methodology and ideally who financed the study, since half the studies published are manipulated.
Not that it makes a great difference, but still.
-
yeah well I still think OP is right
-
You son of a removed.
-
-
That's why you must stick to studies that are peer reviewed. This isn't new, but most people don't know the difference. Studies that are a result of lobbyists paying off doctors generally lose credibility the moment you use that litmus test. It's no guarantee but most of these sham studies are pretty low effort.
-
Not to mention, it's not like there's a study showing that it's impossible to ever change people's minds. If you want to try to convince someone even though you most likely won't, it doesn't make it pointless.
-
-
To be fair, this is A pretty complex thing, you can show facts to some people and if it doesn't fit their narrative they will not follow, but there are others who are open. What he should have said was okay there is a trend of this but in my personal experience there are people who do not have this issue as well. And that's not even considering how you approach something, if you come in guns blazing and condescending people will shut you down no matter what facts you have. If you come in understanding and willing to discuss, people are more open to changing their mind. It kind of sounds like op found the two articles didn't actually read them and considered herself the "winner" on this
-
Assuming the papers actually dispute the original claim, you'd expect the person to whom OP's referring to not require that approach but accept the facts and admit their wrongness upon viewing the data. The situation just ends up being ironic otherwise.
-
I mean yeah, i don't know many people who can just "Read" an entire damn research paper, but usually the abstract is sufficient and taking a look at a few gathered data points. But in my experience, like you said, sometimes the paper just concludes not too strongly one way or another
-
-
if you come in guns blazing and condescending people will shut you down no matter what facts you have
I love that approach, but then I'm not trying to change minds of those who lack the wisdom to prioritize the truth & objectivity over themselves and should know better. Merely trying to vindicate a neglected consideration for cooler minds. If someone's ready for it, then great, and if not, then we can admire & ridicule their folly: reality doesn't care. Defending truth & rationality is reward enough & those too foolish to appreciate it can find their own way there.
It's pretty much acknowledging
you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
It's good enough to point out the water & even be insolent about it: the horse only prolongs its dehydration by not drinking, & there are better horses. I'm not a horse trainer.
-
-
I guess he fit the data of those two sources pretty well then.
There is a nice paradox here. If he conceded, he would've proven himself correct but in the same breath admitted he was not correct, and if he refused to believe those two sources he would've claimed himself correct but proven the sources correct. 🔄
-
To pass through this door, you can ask us only one question. One of us always lies about changing our mind when presented with facts, and the other doesn't.
-
-
Do people deny that there are pipelines and people get radicalized online? You usually change your opinion only a bit each time but over a while, you can end up somewhere else. Don't know how the TWO sources measured it but TWO sources isn't that much. Source: I have none
-
Would be nice if this weren't posted every single week.
-
Source?
-
It's an older meme, but it checks out
-
"Studies show that 9/10 doctors recommend smoking and that it's safe and healthy."
-
Can I see those studies?
I suspect people might not change their minds overtly but might internally, slowly, over time.
It's way easier to admit you were wrong to yourself in your head than to another human being.
-
I don't know the exact papers OOP cited, but here's one that is strongly supported.
Essentially, the researcher proposes that motivation influences reasoning not just by adding bias, but by affecting which cognitive strategies (beliefs, rules, memories) people use. Motivated reasoning is constrained; people are better able to reach their desired conclusion when they can construct plausible justifications for it. They are not completely free to conclude anything they like. So even when motivated to be accurate, bias may persist if individuals don’t have or don’t use more appropriate reasoning strategies.
-
People seem to be more attached to ideas they had themselves, rather than ones others tell them. I suspect it's more successful to lead them to a conclusion they feel they came to on their own.
-
-
9 out of 10 RFKs reccomend brain worms.
Mine is the time I tried to convince an anti-abortion person on Facebook that when she claimed some ABSURD number of abortions were taking place that it was not possible. Whatever figure she gave, I took it and did some quick guesstimating math, showing my work, and it led to the conclusion that if her figure was right, around 50% of women on earth who were capable of pregnancy were not only getting pregnant every year, but also were having at least one abortion per year. She was completely undeterred by the fact that she probably was overestimating the number of abortions occurring by like 30 times or probably much more.
That's when I realized that facts are not important to certain people. 30 times overestimated or not, didn't matter. Even one was enough to give the exact same weight to the issue.
You're telling me that the facebook picture that says that liberal blue haired lesbian women get an average of 300 abortion per minute is lying? Well I just don't think I can believe you.
If I were a blue haired lesbian, I would have an abortion every day. Just to own the MAGA's.
I'm a man and I abort several times every day (when my computers doesn't do what I like).
Your first mistake was trying to convince someone on Facebook of something at all
It's important to realize that convincing someone of something is not immediately evident. They didn't even necessarily know themselves. It's possible she never repeated that "fact" because of what you said.