“A man convinced against his will Is of the same opinion still.”
I think you need a longer time span to see this is quite often false. What has happened many times is I argue with my friend or my parent and “win” while they’re defending their position to the teeth. Months later, they present my argument to me as their own as if the previous discussion never happened. Some people’s forgetfulness amazes me, but I suspect I’ve changed my mind this way without noticing too.
Admitting you’re wrong is quite different from changing your mind. Even so, I hopefully don’t argue to win these days anymore.
Yes yes yes yes yes. This still amazes me every time it happens.
It can also happen without the “winning.” That is, I’ve had experiences like: Sam: “A, because X.” Me: “Well… I dunno. I mean, I’ve experienced X, sure, and I agree that X is evidence of A. But I’ve also experienced Y and Z, which seem to me to be evidence of B. And if I take (X and Y and Z) all together, (B and NOT A) seems much more plausible than (B and A).” Sam: “I still think A.” Me: “Well, I agree that (X and Y and Z and A and B) is not absurdly improbable, I just think it’s less likely than (X and Y and Z and not-A and B). So you might be right.” (wait a while) Sam: “Not-A, because B.”
And I know for certain that I’ve been Sam in exchanges like this as well. Worse, I know that in some cases I toggle. This is embarrassing, but it is what it is.
And I know for certain that I’ve been Sam in exchanges like this as well. Worse, I know that in some cases I toggle. This is embarrassing, but it is what it is.
How do you know? Have people told you this? I’d be interested to hear about a toggling situation.
I guess in some cases people know they’ve changed their mind, just not remember who exactly they had the crucial discussion with, so they don’t realize they’re admitting to you they were wrong. Most cases I remember can’t be explained this way because I’m probably the only one they’ve discussed these particular topics with.
In some cases you can sort of plant seeds in their minds and watch them grow over time without them noticing.
Yeah, essentially. I’ve been living with the same guy for 20 years, and when he reminds me that I’ve said “A” in the past I can remember having said A, despite believing that I’ve always believed not-A, and it seems more likely that I’m mis-remembering my own earlier beliefs than that I was lying to him at the time. Similarly, when he reminds me that he’s previously reminded me that I’ve said “A” in the past and I’ve had trouble believing that, I can remember that conversation, despite believing that I’ve always believed A.
Of course, it’s certainly possible that I’m just being suggestible and editing memories realtime, but it doesn’t feel that way. And if I’m that suggestible, which I might very well be, that makes it even more plausible that I’ve toggled. So I’m pretty confident that he’s right.
What has happened many times is I argue with my friend or my parent and “win” while they’re defending their position to the teeth. Months later, they present my argument to me as their own as if the previous discussion never happened.
I have known one person for whom this was a deliberate policy. He would never (he said) admit to changing his mind about anything. If he did change his mind as a result of an argument, he would merely cease advocating the view he now thought erroneous, and after some suitable lapse of time, advocate what he now believed, as if he had believed it all along.
Not that he said, but I guess it was a status thing. Another curious feature of his discourse was that on mailing lists he would never post a direct reply to anything, with a “Re:” in the subject line. He engaged with the conversations, but always framed his postings as if they were entirely new contributions—as if one were to participate here by only posting top level articles. I assume this was also about status.
FWIW, I always struggle to embrace it when I change my mind (“Yay, I’m less wrong!”)
But I admit, I find it hard, “advocating a new point of view” is a lot easier than “admitting I was wrong about a previous point of view”, so maybe striving to do #1 whether or not you’ve done #2 would help change my mind in response to new information a lot quicker?
Good to know someone else is experiencing this too. It probably relates to the cognitive dissonance thing Chris was talking about in the earlier post, which is the reason I suspect I might be making the mistake too. I think it deserves a name of it’s own, if it doesn’t already have one.
I don’t think it’s just forgetfulness. I’ve had my mind changed by an argument. What has never happened is for my mind to be changed during an argument (barring cases where I can just look it up). Changing your mind takes some serious time and thought, as it should. It’s not that I don’t want to lose face admitting I’m wrong. It’s that I don’t feel like bringing it up again.
I agree it’s not just forgetfulness and what you’re saying probably happens more often. The situations I had in mind though cannot be explained your way.
Changing your mind takes some serious time and thought
I agree, but I think often most of that transformation happens subconsciously.
I think we should rather focus on changing people’s minds than getting them to admit they’re wrong.
I once went to a talk in which Christopher Zeeman modelled this behaviour using catastrophe theory. I’m not sure you need the mathematics for the thesis, which was (roughly) that arguing for your position pushes people towards it in their underlying beliefs, but also pushes people to be more defensive about their initial beliefs (because it’s a conflict situation). When they go away afterwards and calm down, they may find that they have moved towards your your position … without necessarily remembering the argument as having any part in it.
He claimed to have applied this theory successfully to push a committee he was on, by making a big fuss months before the final decision on the topic was needed.
“A man convinced against his will Is of the same opinion still.”
I think you need a longer time span to see this is quite often false.
No, it is quite often true, though obviously not an absolute. I’ve seen people concede to an argument, only to entirely forget about it and start from scratch from their original position. I know that they weren’t just pretending because I have done this myself—and if it weren’t for the internet and some dude pointing back to my history, I’d have never known about it. A deeply held belief is well-entrenched in memory, whereas a change of mind and the rationale for the change can be easily forgotten.
I’ve also done like you said, and incorporated other people’s arguments against me as my own, after I’ve changed my mind. After all, a valid argument is valid no matter who made it, and I know I am very prone to source amnesia.
My experience arguing with other people is that you cannot change a person’s deeply held beliefs (you can be one of many contributors to an eventual change, but there’s no way you alone can do it). If you want any chance of success changing someone’s mind, correct them on easily verifiable facts, not on complex topics.
It can be both quite often true and quite often false. Thank you especially for “source amnesia”, it’s perhaps the most important part of the phenomenom, though doesn’t fully explain it.
My experience arguing with other people is that you cannot change a person’s deeply held beliefs
My experience is it depends on the person, and how much their environment reinforces those beliefs.
If you want any chance of success changing someone’s mind, correct them on easily verifiable facts, not on complex topics.
While this is good advice, I think people incorporate much more from an argument than they explicitly accept or recall. It takes time for good arguments to sink in, and that can happen even if you don’t consciously think about them.
Are you sure it’s forgetfullness? if someone is after status, it is instrumentally rational to never admit to updating, and it is also instrumentally rational to update to better arguments. They are exercising a rational have-your-cake-and-eat-it strategy.
This is definitely A Thing that happens. But I still think it’s more common for people to somehow rationalize not changing their mind, even in the long run.
I wasn’t suggesting this is the only way people change their minds. I think we should concentrate on how to make it happen more often, not necessarily caring about people admitting they’re wrong.
I think you need a longer time span to see this is quite often false. What has happened many times is I argue with my friend or my parent and “win” while they’re defending their position to the teeth. Months later, they present my argument to me as their own as if the previous discussion never happened. Some people’s forgetfulness amazes me, but I suspect I’ve changed my mind this way without noticing too.
Admitting you’re wrong is quite different from changing your mind. Even so, I hopefully don’t argue to win these days anymore.
Yes yes yes yes yes.
This still amazes me every time it happens.
It can also happen without the “winning.” That is, I’ve had experiences like:
Sam: “A, because X.”
Me: “Well… I dunno. I mean, I’ve experienced X, sure, and I agree that X is evidence of A. But I’ve also experienced Y and Z, which seem to me to be evidence of B. And if I take (X and Y and Z) all together, (B and NOT A) seems much more plausible than (B and A).”
Sam: “I still think A.”
Me: “Well, I agree that (X and Y and Z and A and B) is not absurdly improbable, I just think it’s less likely than (X and Y and Z and not-A and B). So you might be right.”
(wait a while)
Sam: “Not-A, because B.”
And I know for certain that I’ve been Sam in exchanges like this as well. Worse, I know that in some cases I toggle. This is embarrassing, but it is what it is.
How do you know? Have people told you this? I’d be interested to hear about a toggling situation.
I guess in some cases people know they’ve changed their mind, just not remember who exactly they had the crucial discussion with, so they don’t realize they’re admitting to you they were wrong. Most cases I remember can’t be explained this way because I’m probably the only one they’ve discussed these particular topics with.
In some cases you can sort of plant seeds in their minds and watch them grow over time without them noticing.
Yeah, essentially. I’ve been living with the same guy for 20 years, and when he reminds me that I’ve said “A” in the past I can remember having said A, despite believing that I’ve always believed not-A, and it seems more likely that I’m mis-remembering my own earlier beliefs than that I was lying to him at the time. Similarly, when he reminds me that he’s previously reminded me that I’ve said “A” in the past and I’ve had trouble believing that, I can remember that conversation, despite believing that I’ve always believed A.
Of course, it’s certainly possible that I’m just being suggestible and editing memories realtime, but it doesn’t feel that way. And if I’m that suggestible, which I might very well be, that makes it even more plausible that I’ve toggled. So I’m pretty confident that he’s right.
I have known one person for whom this was a deliberate policy. He would never (he said) admit to changing his mind about anything. If he did change his mind as a result of an argument, he would merely cease advocating the view he now thought erroneous, and after some suitable lapse of time, advocate what he now believed, as if he had believed it all along.
Did he have a reason for this policy?
Not that he said, but I guess it was a status thing. Another curious feature of his discourse was that on mailing lists he would never post a direct reply to anything, with a “Re:” in the subject line. He engaged with the conversations, but always framed his postings as if they were entirely new contributions—as if one were to participate here by only posting top level articles. I assume this was also about status.
FWIW, I always struggle to embrace it when I change my mind (“Yay, I’m less wrong!”)
But I admit, I find it hard, “advocating a new point of view” is a lot easier than “admitting I was wrong about a previous point of view”, so maybe striving to do #1 whether or not you’ve done #2 would help change my mind in response to new information a lot quicker?
If you don’t mind saying, did you like this guy? Just from this comment, I think he’s an asshole, but maybe I’d think differently if I knew him.
I didn’t know him personally, he was just on a couple of mailing lists I was on. I don’t think I would have cared to.
+1 this memory thing is a thing.
Good to know someone else is experiencing this too. It probably relates to the cognitive dissonance thing Chris was talking about in the earlier post, which is the reason I suspect I might be making the mistake too. I think it deserves a name of it’s own, if it doesn’t already have one.
I don’t think it’s just forgetfulness. I’ve had my mind changed by an argument. What has never happened is for my mind to be changed during an argument (barring cases where I can just look it up). Changing your mind takes some serious time and thought, as it should. It’s not that I don’t want to lose face admitting I’m wrong. It’s that I don’t feel like bringing it up again.
I agree it’s not just forgetfulness and what you’re saying probably happens more often. The situations I had in mind though cannot be explained your way.
I agree, but I think often most of that transformation happens subconsciously.
I think we should rather focus on changing people’s minds than getting them to admit they’re wrong.
I once went to a talk in which Christopher Zeeman modelled this behaviour using catastrophe theory. I’m not sure you need the mathematics for the thesis, which was (roughly) that arguing for your position pushes people towards it in their underlying beliefs, but also pushes people to be more defensive about their initial beliefs (because it’s a conflict situation). When they go away afterwards and calm down, they may find that they have moved towards your your position … without necessarily remembering the argument as having any part in it.
He claimed to have applied this theory successfully to push a committee he was on, by making a big fuss months before the final decision on the topic was needed.
No, it is quite often true, though obviously not an absolute. I’ve seen people concede to an argument, only to entirely forget about it and start from scratch from their original position. I know that they weren’t just pretending because I have done this myself—and if it weren’t for the internet and some dude pointing back to my history, I’d have never known about it. A deeply held belief is well-entrenched in memory, whereas a change of mind and the rationale for the change can be easily forgotten.
I’ve also done like you said, and incorporated other people’s arguments against me as my own, after I’ve changed my mind. After all, a valid argument is valid no matter who made it, and I know I am very prone to source amnesia.
My experience arguing with other people is that you cannot change a person’s deeply held beliefs (you can be one of many contributors to an eventual change, but there’s no way you alone can do it). If you want any chance of success changing someone’s mind, correct them on easily verifiable facts, not on complex topics.
It can be both quite often true and quite often false. Thank you especially for “source amnesia”, it’s perhaps the most important part of the phenomenom, though doesn’t fully explain it.
My experience is it depends on the person, and how much their environment reinforces those beliefs.
While this is good advice, I think people incorporate much more from an argument than they explicitly accept or recall. It takes time for good arguments to sink in, and that can happen even if you don’t consciously think about them.
Are you sure it’s forgetfullness? if someone is after status, it is instrumentally rational to never admit to updating, and it is also instrumentally rational to update to better arguments. They are exercising a rational have-your-cake-and-eat-it strategy.
Why not both? (in which unintentional selective forgetfulness causes optimal status seeking behavior)
Evolution makes creatures which are instrumentally rational to some extent, but they don’t necessarily need to be instrumentally rational on purpose.
This is definitely A Thing that happens. But I still think it’s more common for people to somehow rationalize not changing their mind, even in the long run.
I wasn’t suggesting this is the only way people change their minds. I think we should concentrate on how to make it happen more often, not necessarily caring about people admitting they’re wrong.