How do people form opinions, and why are they so hard to break?

[Moss]

It's a heck of a lot easier to change people's minds or opinions in person than on the internet. Also, it helps if you let them figure out what's right or wrong theirselves...and sometimes, there is no right or wrong answer. I try not to tell people what I believe, I just tend to ask a lot of questions...then when they answer I tend say if I agree or disagree.

As far as how opinions are formed...experience...but what frustrates a lot of people is that people who have been through similar things still see things differently. But yeah know, that's what makes things interesting.

 

[Homie]

If there are no consequences at all to the change, how is it a change?

A change of opinion is a change of opinion, no matter if it has consequences or not.

They are hard to break because your on the internet. You'll find that people are a lot more easily convinced face to face. in fact, when you have some kind of charisma, you can convinced many people of about anything you want.

In my personal experience (and many others') this is completely wrong. It is just as hard in real life, this is not something confined to the internet.

Blasphemous, I understand why the brain might kick in with "anti-processes" at such a life-changing discovery, but in my experience people stauntly defend even opinions that would not make a big deal to them if changed.

For example, I have debated homosexuality with atheists and Christians alike, me believing what the Bible says. But would it make a big deal to me if I discovered that homosexuality in God's eyes was dandy and okay, no I can't see that it would. So what is the logical conclusion: I defend my opinion because I actually believe it, not because anti-processes are kicking in.

 

[Homie]

OK, I just figured that it might make a differance for me to "discover" that God thinks practicing homosexuality is ok. Because the Bible says that God says He doesn't think its ok, so such a discovery would mean some part of the Bible was wrong, which would make me question the Bible, like "If that is wrong, what else is? How can I trust the Bible at all now?". NOw this would make a big deal in my life because the Bible is what all my philosophy and ideas are based on. So discard that example, but I have a new.

I tend to support Israel in ISraeli/Palestinian discussions with fierce conviction and emotion (much more so than in homo discussions). But if I were to discover that Israel actually are the evil warmongers who kill women and children for no reason, and that Palestinians actually are the innocent lambs that Norwegian media make them out to be, how would that make a differance in my life? I have given this some thought, and I can't say that it would make a lick of difference. Life would go on with no apparent consequences whatsoever.

 

[Homie]

Double post. The page just wouldnt load.

 

[Sophie 378]

A change of opinion is a change of opinion, no matter if it has consequences or not.

Of course I agree a change of opinion is a change of opinion. But, I can't think of any changes of opinion that would cause no change at all in the way I think and/or act. Thinking about something differently means you think about it differently, that is a consequence, and may think about things connected to it differently, and may act differently, being possible consequences. A consequence I mean as a change (of whatever sort) resulting from an initial, causative change in opinion. If you change the way you think about something, why would you not change the way you act on it? Rationalizing a lack of change in the way you act from a change in the way you think is still a consequence.

So, say if you changed your opinion on how much you like cheese. You would then buy and eat less/more of it, that is a consequence. Say you changed your opinion on your avatar, for example not being quite as good as you thought it was yesterday. You might at least consider changing it, you may have thoughts about changing it or of dissatisfaction with it, which might be present in your subconscious every time you see it or consider going on CFC. Please, can you explain your position on this?

 

[Homie]

I already have explained my position on this. I hate to quote myself ALL THE TIME, but if people would read my posts and think, they wouldn't ask me questions I have already answered.

I tend to support Israel in ISraeli/Palestinian discussions with fierce conviction and emotion (much more so than in homo discussions). But if I were to discover that Israel actually are the evil warmongers who kill women and children for no reason, and that Palestinians actually are the innocent lambs that Norwegian media make them out to be, how would that make a differance in my life? I have given this some thought, and I can't say that it would make a lick of difference. Life would go on with no apparent consequences whatsoever.

How would this discovery change anything of significanse in my life?

 

[Rhymes]

In my personal experience (and many others') this is completely wrong. It is just as hard in real life, this is not something confined to the internet.

Thats because you defend lost causes

Seriously, stuborn people cant be convinced, in either worlds. But common people often change their minds. Maybe its a question of culture, and this reality might be true in some places (like here in Quebec) and false in other.

 

[Rhymes]

I already have explained my position on this. I hate to quote myself ALL THE TIME, but if people would read my posts and think, they wouldn't ask me questions I have already answered.


How would this discovery change anything of significanse in my life?

Well it could change, for one, your speech when talking about the subject. It could also change the way you act towards jews, maybe not in a significant way, but in a more subtle way.

This might not be much, but it is still a change in behavior.

 

[Homie]

Exactly, it is no significant change. So why would it cause anti-processes to defend my mind from this discovery, when it does not hurt me? Could it possibly be that I only debate in favor of the Israelis because I think the situation is quite obvious?

 

[Rhymes]

Exactly, it is no significant change. So why would it cause anti-processes to defend my mind from this discovery, when it does not hurt me? Could it possibly be that I only debate in favor of the Israelis because I think the situation is quite obvious?

Because if you admitted you were wrong you'd look like a fool in front of everybody you debated so strongly with. Its a matter of pride.

 

[EdwardTking]

People dont like backing down or being proven they are wrong, even on internet forums where 90% of us will never meet, we still dont like to admit we are wrong to a total stranger.

There are a number of other very good reasons why people won't change their opinions to match yours.


(1) Your opinion is Crap.

The fact that you can throw up endless arguments (if the earth was round, the Australians would fall off the bottom) does not mean it is right.


(2) Resisting Control

You have almost ordered them to change their opinion to yours.

Now it doesn't matter whose opinion is more likely to be correct.

Most people (sycophants and submissives apart) don't take kindly
to being ordered to change their views. They may interpret it
(and they may be correct in this) that you are trying to establish a
psychological oneupmanship edge to later bully that person about.

"This man may be right, but if I admit that; he will walk all over me."


(3) Several Valid Opinions.

There may be several valid opinions on a topic, each with
its own strengths and weaknesses.


(4) Skill In Debating does not Determine Objective Reality

The fact that from long practice of debating an issue, you can argue the strengths of your own opinion and expose the weakness of the other person's opinion better than they can; doesn't mean that their opinion is wrong; it may mean that you are a better debater (or a lawyer) or more familiar with topic.


(5) Trust

People may believe something because they trust the people who told them that. If they don't trust you; they likely won't believe you, if you argue against them.


(6) Multiple Opinions

Complicated people can often hold several different opinions about the same topic.


(7) Enjoying the Argument

They may deliberately adopt one opinion to provide a debating point.


(8) Artistic Adoption

They may know their opinion is bogus, but stick to it because they
want to be eccentric.


(9) Up Yours Knowall

They may strick to an unlikely opinion merely to counter annoy you.


(10) Logical Consequences

If I was to believe that smoking was bad for me, I would have to stop; and that is difficult because I really crave for a smoke, so best not to believe that smoking is bad for me; then I don't have to change.

Now if I was to admit that slavery was wrong, then I might have to stop raping the black slaves girls on this southern sugar plantation.


(11) Indecision can be Dangerous

Constantly re-evaluating and changing opinion in the light of new arguments can result in paralysis by analysis. Like a car is coming fast to you, do you jump left or right. The important thing is to decide and making any decision may be better than trying to make the best decision.


(12) Negotiation

They detect you want them to change their opinion and are holding
out for a trade, some tangible benefit for aligning their way with yours.

 

[Blasphemous]

(I'm gonna use the term "Modor" in this discussion starting with this post.
The term "Modor" was coined by Daniel Greenberg, apparently in the essay 'Children and Adults' from his book Worlds in Creation. The term refers to the totality of means by which a person understads the world around them and interacts with it. This includes every single tiny detail of your world-view, knowledge, and understanding. It includes your every opinion, your every prejudice, your every misconception. It is, one's Model of Reality [and as I have indicated I'm pretty sure this is the origin of the word.] None can interact with reality directly, that is without going through their Modor. The very recognition of "reality" is a part of the Modor.)

A person's Modor generally aspires towards coherence. That is, it will try to avoid having different components that the person does not thing make sense with together. This is because a model of reality that has some major or multiple minor internal inconsitencies is not workable for a living, thinking being. For instance, if I were to reach the conclusions that all Israelis are murderous pigs who love to slaughter the innocent, and also the conclusion that slaughtering the innocent is horrible and unacceptable, I would eventually realize that this either means I am not an Israeli or that one of the previous conclusions was wrong. If I conclude that I am not Israeli I will need to somehow reconcile that notion with the fact that I am a citizen and lifelong resident of the State of Israel. What will commence is a rapid breakdown of many internal definitions (like what the words 'Israeli' and 'slaughter' mean to me), harming my Modor, possibly beyond repair, as it may become so unworkable and impractical that my inability to function will get me killed. It's far, far easier to just reach the conclusion that one of my previous notions was wrong and discard one of those.
Now that I have demonstrated that a person and their Modor will always aspire towards coherence, and why, it becomes clearer why one would tend to reject any outside notions that contradict with one's existing Modor. If one would seriously consider, even begin to accept, a majority of arguments thrown at them, they would suddenly have loads of gaping inconsistencies in their Modor. People normally rework their Modor all the time on the small details, as knowledge expands and understanding deepens. If one were to add to that the need to constantly reexamine the major details as well, life would become significantly harder, possibly too hard. Additionally, every small change changes a whole lot, because as a (close-to-)coherent whole a Modor does not have completely compartmentalized notions, meaning every notion is deeply connected with some others. To make Modor-building managable, you have to keep sources of change to a minimum, and always prefer your own notions to external ones, since your own notions always fit in with one another better that they would with ones from someone else's head. That's why, like I said, people will sometimes come to agree with you long after an argument, as they take some small things you said into account and then later work them into a more coherent world-view. Their unlikeliness to accept things on the spot is a simple survival mechanism... Imagine how impossible it would be to build a coherent understanding of the world if you need to absorb a new idea every day, or worse, every time you converse with another person. It's simpler for the brain to assume in advance that a foreign notion will be harmful than to seriously consider every notion before deciding whether to use it or not. Still, change is possible because experience will often change your point of view, and because you will sometimes later accept a notion you scoffed at.
All of that said, it seems to me that some people do not really notice inconsistencies and manage to live with them rather well (by ignoring them), and these same people tend to pick up opinions all over the place and end up with an incoherent jumble of ideas. Everyone is probably like this to some minor degree, which is what allows peer pressure and herd behavior to work.

 

[Rhymes]

I think, blas, that this is only one factor among others. Sometimes, for exemple, the need of being socially accepted might take over the "modor needs". Sometimes, the need to satisfy your own pride might also take priotity.

Besides that I enjoyed the article

 

[Blasphemous]

I think, blas, that this is only one factor among others. Sometimes, for exemple, the need of being socially accepted might take over the "modor needs". Sometimes, the need to satisfy your own pride might also take priotity.

Well, the recognition of social needs is probably done in the Modor as well. If you realize (possibly subconciously) you will have to give up on some of your world's coherence in order to fit in and get the friends and fun that you want, you may be willing to make that sacrifice. But then, the recognition of this need may start you on the way to the kind of situation I mentioned where a person just ignores inconsistencies and gets their opinion from everyone they meet.

Besides that I enjoyed the article

Thank you.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I'd like to throw in "peer pressure" (I know this isn't the right term, but it's all I can think of). I grew up in Massachusetts as the one conservative thinker in a debating class of around 20. I don't think anyone ever conceded anything to me, whether they were wrong or right, just because the state of Massachusetts is SO liberal. With strength in numbers, no one was willing to back down.

 

[Blasphemous]

Peer pressure is in the end another very effective survival mechanism. Going against the grain is not a feature that is selected for. Also, since the truth is so very slippery, it's often more effective to live with everyone else's truth than to live with the real truth. (Check out Orwell's 1984 for some really extreme examples of this if you haven't yet. In fact, check it out no matter what if you haven't yet, it's awesome and oh-so-important.)

 

[MRM]

Hm - don't know if "peer pressure" really work in an anonymous internet forum. But IMO one simple argument is missing here. The impression that the majority is sticking to their arguments is maybe biased. Why ? Very simple. Those who made up their minds are often discussing longer and harder - those who are undecided about an issue, and maybe would change their opinion maybe just read more then they write...

and the other point ( but this is already mentioned ) in politics there is most time not the one and only truth, there are often many different of them...

 

[BasketCase]

When somebody goes silent in a forum, it can be tempting to assume that you won--however, I have verified proof that we CFC'ers don't stop posting because "we lost". We stop posting because there's too many threads to keep track of, or because real life distracted them.

The Proof

Based on the above, my opinion is that it's next to impossible to win an argument in an online forum. That's my opinion, and you're gonna find it very hard to break....

(Oh, come on, you all saw that one coming! )

 

[Homie]

Basketcase, your poll is missing one option so I didn't vote. I would vote for
"The discussion has degraded into an insult throwing competition, and so I see no point in continuing"

 

[Meleager]

You are all asuming that humans want to seek out the truth. Whilst some do you also have to understand that many people are simply too used to their comfort zone. Even if they never admit it, reasurance in their own beliefs are more important then actively "evolving" those beliefs.

I believe this is the main problem. And I wont listen to anyone who disagrees