[Icy0]

> when the opposite side cannot be convinced by rationality, which is most of the time

Which possibility is the "failure" possibility here, that the opposite side gets convinced, or that the opposite side doesn't get convinced? I'd argue the opposite side getting convinced is the failure. This one singular exchange somehow managed to convince him of your viewpoint amidst his entire lifetime of experiences that led him to conclude the opposite.

I think it's the old rationalist way of thinking to think "If your mind isn't changed by a syllogistically correct argument, you must not be arguing in good faith (or otherwise can't be convinced by rationality)."

Everyone arrives at conclusions about various topics from the data they obtain throughout their lives through a continuous complex inference process they cannot communicate. Included in this process is a judgment of which sources are credible and which are less credible. Your friend is more credible than the guy who is showing you a study that contradicts your belief, for the purpose of changing your mind. (There are lots of studies out there so it is not hard to find one that supports your argument.) Trying to distill this complex inference process into a linear argument will necessarily lead to an inaccurate representation of how they arrived at the belief.

Doesn't mean everyone's right, though. Governments, cults, and friend groups are very good at shaping the data an individual receives. Even in these cases, you can see how based on the limited information that they do receive, it is quite reasonable from that internal perspective to believe what they do believe.

Arguments would be better if by "argument" we mean some effort, no matter how difficult, to communicate how you arrived at the beliefs you have, rather than a "well" crafted linear rational argument.

[nuancebydefault]

> Arguments would be better if by "argument" we mean some effort, no matter how difficult, to communicate how you arrived at the beliefs you have, rather than a "well" crafted linear rational argument.

Strong point, have you. How did you arrive at the belief that an argument strengthened by such effort, would be better?

[Icy0]

To be clear, I meant that the conversation (the argument) would be a better experience for everyone involved, not the argument itself being somehow strengthened by it.

Nevertheless, I'll try to recall how I arrived at this conclusion. The biggest influence was seeing for all my life, the left and right in America each claim the other is stupid, irrational, and un-convinceable by rational argument. When I was 16 it really did seem to me that the right was the irrational side here, but seeing everything come full circle with what's happening on the left these days, I realized it's kind of weird and unlikely that half the population, divided on a political line, is actually worse at thinking than the other half.

(See the bottom of this thread for a vivid example.)

[nuancebydefault]

Thanks for this. Indeed I can confirm the conversation is conceived to be stronger. That said, still I am not convinced that about half the population would not be worse at thinking, the weird it may be.