= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Nov. 17 - Nov. 23, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (322)
That's kinda a general issue in humans and usually goes by the name of Confirmation Bias.
For example, debates about religion or, say, global warming work in exactly the same way.
But I don't think it's just confirmation bias. People do get won over by arguments. People do change their minds, convert, etc. And often after changing their mind they become just as passionate for their new cause as they ever were for the old. But what is persuasive and what is logical sometimes seem disjoint to different people.
You are right that these things afflict some areas more than others. Politics and religion are notoriously bad. And I do think a large part of it is that people simply have very different standards for what a successful argument looks like, and that this is almost an aesthetic.
Sure, confirmation bias is a force but it's not an insurmountable force. It only makes changing one's beliefs difficult, but not impossible.
I agree and I don't find this surprising. People are different and that's fine.
Take the classic "Won't somebody please think of the children!" argument. I, for example, find it deeply suspect to the extent that it works as an anti-argument for me. But not an inconsiderate number of people can be convinced by this (and, in general, by emotional-appeal strategies).
I guess what kind of people are convinced by what kind of arguments would be an interesting area to research.