Has your opinion ever been changed using a forum?

Boards.ie, is a fantastic site for chat, debate and arguments.

But has anyone actually ever managed to persuade someones view or opinion?

reading posts and threads its and there is good solid arguments from all sides in relation to various topics, but I never see anyone hold their hands up and say,"you know what, you've changed my mind!"

So has it happened to anyone, or are we all just a bunch of arguing tossers?

kneemos

I now believe the Dole should be paid in vouchers.

Shenshen

Yes. Talking to Christians online has convinced me that really I'm an atheist.

Andrewf20

It's not that common it seems. I read a book last year on why good people are divided on politics and religion called the righteous mind by Jonathan Haidt. It said that people in general are ruled by the heart, not the head. In other words when it comes to say, gay marriage, some people have a gut feeling of disgust and will find arguments to support their position and in general no amount of contrary evidence or rational reasoning (as the other side would see it) will budge them.

keith16

I hate single mothers even more than I did before.

Daveysil15

I wouldn't say my opinion has been changed as such, but I do think about certain topics in a different way. I guess you could say I'm a bit more open minded.

Gatling

Seems to be a mix of decent people and up the Raaaaaaasaaaaaa types

Knasher

Yes, though for the life of me I can't remember what this opinion was on. I do remember thanking the person at the time for changing my mind.

And I've seen it happen elsewhere too. There are a couple of posters here who I disagree with on the majority of issues, but I have seen times where they have conceded an argument with dignity. And even though I mostly disagree with them, I have a hell of a lot of respect for them after that.

Roquentin

Andrewf20 wrote: »

It's not that common it seems. I read a book last year on why good people are divided on politics and religion called the righteous mind by Jonathan Haidt. It said that people in general are ruled by the heart, not the head. In other words when it comes to say, gay marriage, some people have a gut feeling of disgust and will find arguments to support their position and in general no amount of contrary evidence or rational reasoning (as the other side would see it) will budge them.

very true. often peoples decision making follows passion rather than logic and there is a lot of confirmation bias involved. you often see (maybe not on this forum) rival soccer fans debating which team is better man utd or chelsea and they think with emotion rather than logic. a lot of peoples opinions are already decided and what they see/hear/read serves to confirm that opinion. This is why public relations is so important

Dartz

I used to believe in the goodness of man...

Now. All homo sapiens must be exterminated.

magma69

I had faith in humanity before I went on the internet.

Roquentin

Dartz wrote: »

I used to believe in the goodness of man...

Now. All homo sapiens must be exterminated.

pol pots style:pac:

gramar

Andrewf20 wrote: »

It's not that common it seems. I read a book last year on why good people are divided on politics and religion called the righteous mind by Jonathan Haidt. It said that people in general are ruled by the heart, not the head. In other words when it comes to say, gay marriage, some people have a gut feeling of disgust and will find arguments to support their position and in general no amount of contrary evidence or rational reasoning (as the other side would see it) will budge them.

That's a load of rubbish.

Roquentin

gramar wrote: »

That's a load of rubbish.

you have kind of just proved him right with that statement

I've certainly gained a more informed opinion at times by reading posts by people with more information about a topic than I have. I can always be persuaded by an informed and well thought out argument if I can see how my thinking might be in error.

There's no shame in being open-minded and allowing yourself to be educated.

Links234

Dartz wrote: »

All homo sapiens must be exterminated.

Homophobe :mad:

Yep, was educated big time on transgender people and the issues they face day to day. Before I ever bothered to learn anything about trans people I wrote the whole community off as a kind of sideshow (for want of a better word). It shames me to say that. The sheer ignorance. Maybe it was a lack of exposure in my daily life or in the mainstream but after engaging on the topic on boards, I feel I've a better understanding. You can never learn too much.

strobe

Yeah a couple of things. My view on transexuals has changed. I would have been very dismissive of the dealy at one point, but engaging in threads on boards changed my view of the whole thing.
A single post on boards encouraged me to re-evaluate my opinion of The Beatles and start listening through their back catalogue with a more open mind and I changed my opinion of them.
I changed somewhat in my view towards homosexual adoption of children.
My view of devout Christians has changed, I would have viewed them provisionally as nutters before, but exchanging posts with some posters in particular on the A&A and the Christianity forum has given me a much more rounded and nuanced view of things I think (Christianity as well as Christians).

There's probably been quite a few things tbh.

wendell borton

I now realise we are mere pawns of our reptilian overlords.

Call Me Jimmy

Honestly every time I read something written by someone who has more knowledge on the subject than me I assume they're correct. Then if another person contradicts them but sounds more intelligent my view will sway to theirs. I think the word I'm looking for is impressionable.

thelad95

I have come to realize that there's a lot more people like me in this world.

Went from a leftie to a lib

Fuzzytrooper

I used to think most problems could be resolved through dialog. Now I realise that it isnmore appropriate to offer a kick to the face.

Call Me Jimmy

bluewolf wrote: »

Went from a leftie to a lib

Never go full-liberal

Dr. Mantis Toboggan

Changed my opinion on other people perhaps. Some people shouldn't be let near a computer or any other means to communicate with others.

realdanbreen

irishfreeview wrote: »

Boards.ie, is a fantastic site for chat, debate and arguments.

But has anyone actually ever managed to persuade someones view or opinion?

reading posts and threads its and there is good solid arguments from all sides in relation to various topics, but I never see anyone hold their hands up and say,"you know what, you've changed my mind!"

So has it happened to anyone, or are we all just a bunch of arguing tossers?

Good question. Whenever I watch programmes like Prime Time all I ever see are politicians or audience members with their own viewpoints and agendas. I have never heard one of them concede to someone elses view and say 'you have a poinr there alright' In fact most of them don't even listen to the other side of the arguement and are only waiting to interrupt with their opinion.

The_Valeyard

Used to be very left wing. But the some of the far lefties and atheists have turned me into a Centrist

mickstupp

I used to believe there were more rational people in the world.

AnLonDubh

bluewolf wrote: »

Went from a leftie to a lib

I assume lib means libertarian rather than liberal.

I'd be a little the same. Or more so rather than being unthinkingly left on any given issue, I now try to understand both sides a bit.

Laois6556

Before I used the internet I used to think that people doing silly things and hurting themselves was funny but now I think it's really funny.

realdanbreen

I used to oppose the death penalty but now would be all for it for pre meditated murder. Not as a deterrent to others but as pure simple punishment for the murder. BTW Hanging would be my preferred method of execution.

AnLonDubh

AnLonDubh wrote: »

I assume lib means libertarian rather than liberal.

I'd be a little the same. Or more so rather than being unthinkingly left on any given issue, I now try to understand both sides a bit.

Ya libertarian

KomradeBishop

I usually find, there's a lot to learn in discovering - in great detail - exactly how and why some arguments are fallacious/wrong, and that in general, learning everything there is to know about what is wrong/criticism-worthy with something, is by far the best way to learn almost anything (in part, because it stops you taking anything on faith).

Persuading people though? Depends on how complicated a topic it is - the more complicated a topic, the less likely the average joe is to be interested in it, and the more likely you are to find people who pretend to have 'special knowledge' of the complicated topic, and who try to seem authoritative/knowledgeable by using superficially sound (but ultimately fallacious) argument, instead of arguing with sound logic (using the complexity of the subject, to shield the fact that they know less than they pretend to), while rarely conceding ground.

Big giveaway for these bullshítters: Unprovoked condescension, particularly "you just don't get it" type arguments where they refuse to explain something, in combination with the above - often try to justify shít arguments and sidestep rebuttals with appeals to hypocrisy. These kinds of people pretty much end any chance of a productive debate, and on a few types of topics you see them group together to try and obstruct all debate.


There's plenty I've read that has changed my mind on Boards, but for topics where the quality of debate is low (often due to the above), there's not really an opportunity to learn anything new, because quickly you see that discussion on such topics usually just involves repeating the same fallacies/myths/talking-points again and again, and batting them down just gets boring after a while.

FactCheck

I don't know how much my personal politics have changed. If they've drifted more economically rightwards, it's been more from my real-life business experience and studies than simply chatting on a message board.

What I do find forums fantastic for, though, is exposing me to a range of different people (not just points of view, I mean actual people and their personalities and experiences) that I wouldn't have had otherwise. I think a lot of people don't really appreciate quite how sheltered (or maybe it would be better to say blinkered?) their upbringing was. I'd freely admit that mine was, and even at 30-odd I'm still surprised by the different ways people live and approach things.

This works both ways - you have sheltered kids who don't understand how somebody could never have had a foreign holiday, and other people who've never met anyone who wasn't counting their pennies the last week before payday.

I just find it all really interesting and I am continually surprised by it. I've lived in several different countries both as a child and an adult and it may be a holdover from when I was very young and there was all the pressure to fit in in a totally new school environment. I always want to know how people think and what their idea of normal is.

SeanW

Probably the biggest area that boards changed my views was about cyclists.

I used to think that transportation policy should be about serving people to the greatest extent possible, to a certain extent I still do. But after listening to cyclist after cyclist moan and bitch about how motoring taxes should be doubled, speed limits are all too high, motorists should be held responsible for accidents they don't cause and car drivers are responsible for every evil in the world after the Black Death who should be treated accordingly, I've come to the view that cyclists are bunch of hate filled twats and blatant hypocrites that shouldn't be listened to.

ThisRegard

I've learned that some people have comprehension issues, or just make things up on order to be outraged.

krudler

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I usually find, there's a lot to learn in discovering - in great detail - exactly how and why some arguments are fallacious/wrong, and that in general, learning everything there is to know about what is wrong/criticism-worthy with something, is by far the best way to learn almost anything (in part, because it stops you taking anything on faith).

Persuading people though? Depends on how complicated a topic it is - the more complicated a topic, the less likely the average joe is to be interested in it, and the more likely you are to find people who pretend to have 'special knowledge' of the complicated topic, and who try to seem authoritative/knowledgeable by using superficially sound (but ultimately fallacious) argument, instead of arguing with sound logic (using the complexity of the subject, to shield the fact that they know less than they pretend to), while rarely conceding ground.

This has become much more prevalent in AH these days, topics which start off interesting usually veer off into the same group of posters spending more time talking about each other's method of debate and arguing instead of talking about the actual topic on hand, if you follow particular topics you see the same people crop up all the time using the same type of posting style and it just descends into a "who gets the last word" mudslinging match until the thread dies after someone stops posting and feeding the fire, been there myself and it's always the same people.

krudler

krudler wrote: »

This has become much more prevalent in AH these days, topics which start off interesting usually veer off into the same group of posters spending more time talking about each other's method of debate and arguing instead of talking about the actual topic on hand, if you follow particular topics you see the same people crop up all the time using the same type of posting style and it just descends into a "who gets the last word" mudslinging match until the thread dies after someone stops posting and feeding the fire, been there myself and it's always the same people.

I quite agree, it gets tiring

AnonoBoy

bluewolf wrote: »

I quite agree, it gets tiring

NO IT DOESN'T!!!!

Did you know that we're all civil servants wasting the hard-working people's tax money by posting online constantly? That's what I learned on boards.

KomradeBishop

krudler wrote: »

This has become much more prevalent in AH these days, topics which start off interesting usually veer off into the same group of posters spending more time talking about each other's method of debate and arguing instead of talking about the actual topic on hand, if you follow particular topics you see the same people crop up all the time using the same type of posting style and it just descends into a "who gets the last word" mudslinging match until the thread dies after someone stops posting and feeding the fire, been there myself and it's always the same people.

The problem there is, dismantling and detailing exactly what is wrong with posters method of debate, is the only way to defuse their ability to use those methods, to hold a debate down at a very low-quality/superficial level.

If you don't point out what is in fault with not just someones arguments, but their method of argument in general as well, then you will just be playing whack-a-mole, waiting for them to lead the debate around in circles, so they can use the same batted-down arguments again and again.

If you play whack-a-mole and go around in circles like that, people just buy-in to the most superficially convincing argument by osmosis/repetition over time, even if they are riddled with fallacies - it's more like 'pretend' debating, which is really more a form of soapboxing - if you dismantle the fallacies and also concentrate on highlighting the method of argument, you can counter that.

krudler

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The problem there is, dismantling and detailing exactly what is wrong with posters method of debate, is the only way to defuse their ability to use those methods, to hold a debate down at a very low-quality/superficial level.

If you don't point out what is in fault with not just someones arguments, but their method of argument in general as well, then you will just be playing whack-a-mole, waiting for them to lead the debate around in circles, so they can use the same batted-down arguments again and again.

If you play whack-a-mole and go around in circles like that, people just buy-in to the most superficially convincing argument by osmosis/repetition over time, even if they are riddled with fallacies - it's more like 'pretend' debating, which is really more a form of soapboxing - if you dismantle the fallacies and also concentrate on highlighting the method of argument, you can counter that.

Indeed, it's just tiring and sucks seeing a good natured discussion descend into it, usually the thread dies because it's veered so far off topic that people lose interest in it. It's always the same posters and usually similarly themed topics as well.