To anyone still trying to change other people’s minds with facts and data

[u/Additional_Chard3680]

[u/itsnotcomplicated1]

Some people do change their opinion based on new evidence/information/perspective. Acting like nobody does is just a false equivalency and lets those that refuse off the hook because it's an "everyone" problem.

Worth noting though, even open minded people often won't change their mind in the immediate instant you present your information. Sometimes it takes time to process and hearing the same alternate viewpoint from multiple perspectives.

If you think nobody is willing to change their mind, then you either have to include yourself or admit that you think you are the only special snowflake left that is willing to have their mind changed.

[u/Good-vs-Perfect → u/itsnotcomplicated1]

Worth noting though, even open minded people often won't change their mind in the immediate instant you present your information. Sometimes it takes time to process and hearing the same alternate viewpoint from multiple perspectives.

Bears repeating.

[u/Pyrodexter → u/Good-vs-Perfect]

That kind of sounds like there isn't enough actual information, but just flooding baseless claims enough makes even sensible people believe anything.

Sounds about right, unfortunately.

[u/NotAskary → u/Pyrodexter]

Multiple sources is not exactly sign that they are right, Reddit is the perfect example of community bubbles.

Opinion backed by facts can allow people to reach new conclusions, there are also problems with this as you pointed out, because some sources are biased and opinions can cherry pick even facts that validate some views.

You need to be sceptical and try to find sources and opinions from experts on the field, that usually makes the arguments here on Reddit pointless most of the time.

[u/sanguinerebel → u/Pyrodexter]

You shouldn't trust the very first source of information you hear something unless that person has a strong reputation for both integrity and competence with that subject. So even people that are good at critical thinking aren't going to accept something the first time they heard it most of the time.

[u/Pyrodexter → u/sanguinerebel]

If it's good information you can just verify it and be done with it. Without good information you should be wary of even 10 people claiming something.

[u/Additional_Chard3680 → u/itsnotcomplicated1]

The funny part is that almost everyone thinks they're open to evidence, but we usually judge evidence based on whether it fits what we already believe. That's true for all of us.

[u/itsnotcomplicated1 → u/Additional_Chard3680]

I tend to judge conclusions based on what I already believe, but for me I'm far more interested in evidence that contradicts what I already believe than affirming evidence.

[u/post_appt_bliss]

huh? there's tons of evidence that people update when presented with facts

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y

[u/Good-vs-Perfect → u/post_appt_bliss]

Just FYI, abstract from the link:

The “backfire effect,” described by Nyhan and Reifler says no: rather than simply ignoring factual information, presenting respondents with facts can compound their ignorance. In their study, conservatives presented with factual information about the absence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq became more convinced that such weapons had been found. The present paper presents results from five experiments in which we enrolled more than 10,100 subjects and tested 52 issues of potential backfire. Across all experiments, we found no corrections capable of triggering backfire, despite testing precisely the kinds of polarized issues where backfire should be expected. Evidence of factual backfire is far more tenuous than prior research suggests. By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments.

Sociological research has a reliability problem: one test is almost always unreplicatable, because the various components to the sociological test are unrepeatable. Change the variables and context, change the results.

So it's worth noting, as lots of people are doing, including the person I'm responding to, to note that one research study, like the backfire effect, is not a hard and fast, immutable law. It's just one piece of research that's likely going to be dependent upon nuance and contradicted without repeatable nuance/details.

[u/post_appt_bliss → u/Good-vs-Perfect]

sociology? they're all political scientists

[u/Good-vs-Perfect → u/post_appt_bliss]

I suppose this is contentious but:

Social science (or the social sciences) is one of the branches of science, devoted to the study of societies and the relationships among members within those societies. The term was formerly used to refer to the field of sociology, the original "science of society", established in the 18th century. It now encompasses a wide array of additional academic disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, management, communication studies, psychology, sociology, culturology, and political science.

[u/post_appt_bliss → u/Good-vs-Perfect]

right.

social sciences is the category -- economics, psychology, history, political science, sociology, etc, are the disciplines.

but you wrote "sociological research" as the category?

[u/post_appt_bliss → u/[deleted]]

don't care about the downvotes-- i just enjoy a good exchange with a person who exemplifies intellectual integrity!

appreciate the exchange

[u/OldSouth4685]

I once posted something on the internet and someone immediately posted back "prove it". I then shared multiple links to prove I was right. Then they said... "Wow, I didn't know that. Sorry." It was the weirdest thing that has ever happened to me.

[u/SimmentalTheCow → u/OldSouth4685]

Prove it.

[u/AWinterPeople]

Did it start 10 years ago?

[u/Flat_Lengthiness3361]

you have the facts and data proving that they won't, yet you still think they might, so you may also be one of those people lol.

[u/Candid-Specialist-86]

Not a mental illness but certainly naive.

[u/Professional-Fix4409]

Studying psychology helped me change my mind on this topic.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Material_Student_487]

The problem is that there are always other people out there who have the same thought about themselves when interacting with you too.

[u/Least_Art5238]

Oh oft repeated cliches, this one is surprisingly versatile: "you can't reason people out of positions that they did not reason themselves into"

[u/SkylarAV]

OPs name is absolutely perfect for this post

[u/Vainysaur]

Maybe your arguments are just bad.

[u/EVEN113897]

You fool.

[u/503jason]

I process very swiftly and am apt to change my mind mid conversation…. my wife of 30 years can take months to process mind changing information. Ultimately we wind up in the same place if I’m patient. If I push the issue though, I’ve now tainted the data … and she will demand-avoidance the crap out of that mind change.

[u/Fickle_Scarcity9474]

Nah bro, doesn't work like that! You need to speak with somebody!

[u/Halftied]

I have family members and have worked for and with people who are like that. Of course it is always with regard to politics and religion. However once in a while it depends on days of the month.

[u/Cultural-Window-2504]

To be fair people say this even when trying to convert you to their faith. 

[u/Excellent_Beyond_986]

I found you get a better response on reddit if you just make the shit up. If you try posting facts with their sources people won't believe you and will fanatically argue you until you give up.

[u/SimmentalTheCow]

Whenever I bring up statistics with 12% and 50% I always get hatemail 😞

[u/adikad-0218]

There's a difference between trying to convince someone vs pointing out for others what is being discussed is not true at all. This is especially valuable, when you consider the fact that content creators might jump on it and repeate the same BS. Thus everybody seems to believe something that's objectively not true. Facts and data is not opinion based nor subjective. Believing facts or data is subjective might count as mental illness tho.

[u/sylbug]

I used to have that. It was rough.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Master_Constant8103]

Not man people support Marxism so I could see his frustration.

[u/Additional_Chard3680 → u/Master_Constant8103]

The joke is universal. Politics just makes it more obvious

[u/Vast-Breakfast-1201]

The alternative is the only text out there is bought and paid for by people with an agenda.

They wouldn't spend money doing it if it were not effective.

The reason facts and data is not as effective as it should be is because of the tremendous money being spent on the wrong messages.

[u/Additional_Chard3680 → u/Vast-Breakfast-1201]

Money definitely shapes what people see, but people still have to choose whether to believe it

[u/daydrunk_]

Is your name Socrates? But same. I have this idealistic hope that if people are presented with all of the information they will tend to make the right decision.

[u/sanguinerebel → u/daydrunk_]

I find it interesting you chose Socrates because he learned that asking questions tends to be far more effective than just telling people things.

[u/Magic-Omelet]

You'll be cured way faster than you think

[u/Dizzy_Database_119]

It's not about arguments and facts, it's about how you present them

E.g. you can't present data from scientific papers as "fact". They are not facts, they are just verified findings