[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".

[juleiie]

The thing is: your inability to understand this is not my responsibility.

I am content with knowing what I know and more people joining this particular abstract group makes no difference to my wellbeing or sense of satisfaction.