[cogman10]

> What is the goal when you start arguing with someone online? Is that goal achievable?

For me the goal is twofold. I'm arguing for the people reading the comment chain, not necessarily the commenter's sake. I know it's nearly impossible to convince someone you are arguing with. But also I do try and have an open mind. It's not common that I change my position, but it does happen.

For example, I was once a climate change denier. It was debating with people online which caused me to reflect and change that position.

[malfist]

> I'm arguing for the people reading the comment chain, not necessarily the commenter's sake.

I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online. All too often these days, folks are just engaging in point scoring type arguments and readers just agree with their tribe.

Not saying it doesn't happen, nor that it's a good goal taken with care. But me personally the ROI just isn't there (your calculus is different, and that's okay!)

A lot of times when I engage in arguments online, I think of it more as showing nuance to a person. I'm not trying to persuade them, I'm not trying to win, I'm just trying to show them that the problem space is a bit more complicated than their view is showing them. At least that's how I justify it to myself when I do engage. And of course, I'm no where close to perfect, I engage in petty point scoring arguments because it feels good at the time but isn't fruitful or healthy in the long run.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online

I do, and I have. I’ve also argued something with someone and come out the other side convinced of their position. (Sometimes immediately. More often down the road. Nevertheless, a valuable exchange.)

[EvanAnderson]

A very similar experience here. Reading comment threads over the years has absolutely turned me on to perspectives I never even conceived of previously. I've reconsidered my positions (on political and technical matters, mainly) by reading the discourse in comment threads.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Sometimes I post to clarify my own position. Writing helps with that.

There's a whole field of street epistemology which is about persuading people. Arguing with them is one of the least effective ways to do that. Socratic dialogue sometimes works, although for any belief that has an emotional root you're likely to hit a crash out point.

It turns out the most effective techniques are manipulative. The best persuasion doesn't look like argument or persuasion, it looks like something self-evident you can't help agree with.

[rho4]

> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online

HN comments sway me more than any other source nowadays. Reading comments not directed at myself probably makes it easier because my ego does not feel attacked.

[datsci_est_2015]

> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online.

Counterpoint, literally doing that right now in this thread as I’m considering the merits of online discourse in the context of stoicism.

[malfist]

I'm glad to be wrong!

[firesteelrain]

The only times it has helped is when I am researching something like say gardening or researching a product. I find the back and forth between people helpful in making my decision on what to do.

[laurentlassalle]

Personally, I really enjoy reading the back and forth :-)

[juleiie]

Honestly if you change your opinion under effect of some online strangers then it wasn't a strong conviction in the first place

[cogman10]

The online stranger's argument was convincing because they brought a lot of evidence from research papers to general climatologist opinions which completely debunked a lot of the talking points I'd used (without me exposing those in the conversation).

It also made me go back on my own sources and question where they were coming from. Let's just say the anti climate change positions become a lot less convincing when you dig into their sourcing and find a large number of them literally funded by the likes of Koch industries or Glenn Beck's personal companies.

[juleiie]

Climate change being anthropogenic is so easy to verify nowadays that when someone has contrary conviction it isn’t because they don’t know the data.

Data won’t help it at all. It’s available two clicks away, there is no shortage of it.

People want to believe otherwise and you will never actually convince anyone on the internet using data on anything in 99% of the cases.

Persuasion is an art and most of the people on the internet have no clue how to manipulate human mind to instil beliefs.

I can give a short rundown on persuasion as non autistic individual actually having those skills:

1. Always say that you understand somebody point of view. Appear interested in what they have to say and respect their beliefs.

2. Intertwine few uncomfortable questions in their point of view, very gently and non argumentative. These are the seeds of doubt.

You are a farmer it’s like gardening and watering a flower. You must be gentle with new sprouts of doubt. Tend to the garden of new beliefs and one day they will bear fruit.

[cogman10]

> Climate change being anthropogenic is so easy to verify nowadays that when someone has contrary conviction it isn’t because they don’t know the data.

I agree and this is true. But my opinion and position there shifted around 2010 or so.

It's true the data was there and available in a few clicks. But I wasn't seeking it out and instead was relying on trusted sources that were lying to me.

Now-a-days, though, even my parents are on board with climate change being real. It's just too apparent for anyone that can remember what the world was like 10 or 20 years ago.

[grayhatter]

You say that like it's a bad thing, and not the defining characteristic of an well educated and well rounded human.

One of the best ways humans have developed for information transfer is rhetorical debate. You're supposed to argue for whatever you believe in vehemently, but critically, abandoning it as much as necessary to adopt a better, more accurate understanding or model.

Unquestioned or unchallenged ideas are significantly less valuable than challenged or improved ones. Arguing for and defending what you know is a good thing, holding on to convictions that aren't improving your life or the life of others is fucking stupid. And the idea that you can't learn something from another human because the medium is the Internet, is certainly a take to read from someone making a comment on the internet.

[csrse]

Why? If the argument is well argued, and makes you have better understanding of the issue, does it teally matter who you argue with? Can you only have your deeply held convictions changed from your own sphere? The implications are a bit disheartening in that case.

[juleiie]

Nobody thinks this way about actual strong convictions they held like belief in god or abortion or polygamy.

This works only for very narrow set of topics about numbers and data.

Even the same academics that would change their mind quickly about some theory would never actually change their mind on their strong ideological convictions. I know it from real life examples.

Strange that it needs to be articulated so loud and clear.

So I repeat again if you changed your mind under influence of an internet stranger then it wasn’t a very strong conviction.

[bigbadfeline]

> Nobody thinks this way about actual strong convictions they held like belief in god or abortion or polygamy.

There's no need to change that kind of strong convictions, what needs to change is the desire to use such convictions as justification for policies imposed onto others.

> Even the same academics that would change their mind quickly about some theory would never actually change their mind on their strong ideological convictions

Again, that wouldn't be a problem if they recognized the right of others to think differently. Their propensity to invoke "science" to justify intrusive policies, one way or the other, is the real problem.

> So I repeat again if you changed your mind under influence of an internet stranger then it wasn’t a very strong conviction.

To paraphrase Keynes here, those who don't change their minds when facts change are simply fools or trolls. And the realization of change may come from a single word, of people known or unknown, or even without words - it doesn't matter, change must take place when change is due.

We could argue about the semantics of "very strong convictions" until the cows come home, but it won't do any good if we haven't beforehand agreed upon "why we argue".

[juleiie]

If they believe something is right, or even “good” then of course they think everyone else should probably do alike.

Look, I don’t even know why are we arguing over what exactly? I don’t know. Seems like truisms

I don’t even know what is exactly your opposite view on anything right now and if it indeed exists or what is the point of this exchange.

I just said basic truth - majority of people won’t change mind under influence of online strangers and if they do their convictions weren’t that strong to begin with.

You could of course provide me with data that this is not true and people change mind under online strangers persuasion all day everyday

[bigbadfeline]

> I just said basic truth - majority of people won’t change mind under influence of online strangers > You could of course provide me with data that this is not true

Actually, it's the other way around - you have to provide data showing that the majority of people won't change their minds under the influence of online strangers regardless of the quality of arguments and the time they spare to participate in discussions. That's how proper studies are done.

> Look, I don’t even know why are we arguing over what exactly?... Seems like truisms

As I said, that depends on the semantics of "strongly held convictions". Do all people have them or are they just for bigots?

See, you fail to convince me not because you're stranger but because the quality of your arguments is lacking - you seem to conflate these and then, instead of finding a productive reason to participate in the discussion, you jump to the defensive "I'm just writing truisms".

[Tangurena2]

I think that you are thinking of faith rather than something reasoned.

[8note]

people tend to like things more the more times they're exposed to it.

that includes other people, ideas, and arguments.

people dont change their mind by considering the evidence, its emotional and you confabulate the new reason for your new preferences

[9rx]

Of course, the genetic fallacy is just that: a fallacy.