[ci5er]

> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate.

You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement are already agreed to! :-O

What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational debate (or even discussion that doesn't go off the rails) and not? Politics, economics (because it's related to politics?), and religion - no. No rationality to be had there. Anything that have to do with harmful invisible vapors (vaccines, electromagnetics, radiation, environmental toxins) and health - no. Any form of "alternative lifestyle", including digital nomadicism (!) - no. Law - all over the map. Computer programming - all over the map.

In fact, right now, I'm trying to think of something that humans debate rationally, and I'm having a difficult time thinking of one (I'm sure they exist - but I'm only lightly caffeinated so far).

Regardless of my inability to think of topics that we (humans) can debate about rationally, why do some topics "work" for rationality and some not?

> Move on and repeat.

Why? You just said it almost never helps.

[acjohnson55]

> Why? You just said it almost never helps.

Yeah, great question! I didn't really address that part.

What I really meant is that I almost never "win" the argument. I've overtly changed someone's mind before, but that's like 10% of the time, at best. So making that my goal wouldn't be a good idea.

More often, I can get the other person to expand their point of view, even just a little bit. I can gain some credibility in their minds as someone they may disagree with, but can respect. And it opens the door to the perception that maybe the point of view I represent isn't directly opposed to their tribe. For people I tend to debate repeatedly, I can tell there's a shift over time.

Not to mention the fact that I'm not always right. I learn a lot from people who aren't already inclined to mindlessly Like everything I post. Debating people makes me a better thinker and persuader.

But I think most importantly, I do it for the audience. I suspect that in many of these debates, the lurkers are much less entrenched in their point of view than me or the person I'm debating with. Those are the people I really want to move. And that's a big reason why it's crucial to be civil, sincere, and avoid blowing up on people. Nothing turns off a neutral onlooker like someone being an asshole, even if it's righteous.

[ci5er]

That makes a ton of sense. I almost always forget that there is an audience -- and that the audience, because they aren't in participant mode might well be less in their chosen position. Thanks!

[ It still baffles me why people would take on a non-rational position on (say) power generation. It's just engineering and physics. Anyone can look up the math in any library - it doesn't really even change that often! ]

[linkregister]

Even the most fundamental comparison between two energy production techniques requires hours or days to calculate all relevant aspects: cost, production cycle, transmission, and storage. It isn't that surprising that anything that requires that much work could be considered as an article of faith.

Most people take the analysis provided to them by their trusted authorities: newspapers, magazines, television, public figures, esteemed friends and family; and form their world view based off of that. "Team" membership and identification also are prominent.

[ci5er]

I think "Team" membership is key -- it tells which opinions they are likely to listen to. Any team can rustle up a credentialed opinionator that didn't do the math themselves (or will say anything, just, because) to round arm the rubes with talking points to unleash onto Reddit (or wherever). It would be a quite the dance spectacle, if it didn't make my stomach hurt. And, the worst thing is? My brain is just as broken (for the purpose of thinking rationally) as any of theirs! :-O

[smsm42]

10% of the time? You are either a genius of persuasion or choose your battles very carefully :)

[Xgatt]

I will always remember what my neuroscience professor told me in college: "You know, after having worked in this cutting edge field for almost two decades, with some of the greatest thinkers in the world, I have learned one very important thing. Given all of the mounting research, vast amounts of data, and incredible imaging technologies, at the end of the day people will believe whatever they damn well want to."

[ci5er]

> "... at the end of the day people will believe whatever they damn well want to."

I finally learned this and, after long denial about it, now "know" this as a fact about the universe. Or at least humans. That humans operate 1000% out of beliefs and that they didn't come to those beliefs rationally. And that you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

It's actually been hard for me to come to grips with this emotionally and to integrate it into my day-to-day operational instincts/intuition.

[mistermann]

You forgot: gender, ethnicity/culture

[ci5er]

Disagreements about gender and ethnicity/culture? I don't get it. Do people debate about those?

[smsm42]

And how. Starting with existence of those as such, and to how to define ones, and who can be rightly considered belonging to either one of them. All the time.