[DesuMaiden]

Seems to the case from my experience. It is not like you are actually going to able to change another person's mind from debating them. The only practical use of public debates (whether in the real world or online) is that they allow people sitting on the fence to make a decision depending on which side(s) makes the more persusive point. But since many (if not most) debates end up being unreliable because of the popularity bias (as in, the most popular opinion of a particular place almost certainly dictates the winner of a debate. For example, on a Christian forum, you are probably forced--by rules of the site--to make statements that put Christianity in a positive light), most debates end up just being a popularity contest of whatever idea is most popular wherever the debate takes place.

I just don't see the point of debates. Unless someone here can convince me otherwise of course, I would change my opinion. But I'm pretty sure there are many people that share the same view or recognized the same problem with any form of debate. This is why I don't engage in debates with anyone anymore...I realized the futility of such efforts a long time ago, and I just wanted to share my thoughts on this topic.

[ROCKMAN]

D - True: changing opinions is difficult. But challenging opinions based on incorrect facts is not "debating". If you followed many of the Rockman's posts they often presented DOCUMENTED FACTS that prove such opinions as unsupportable. And just as often you don't seen responses. Which IMHO means such invalidated opinions aren't changed. They simply alter their arguments to support modified opinions. Which I do find rather satisfying: a lack of a rebuttal says it all IMHO.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Seems to the case from my experience. It is not like you are actually going to able to change another person's mind from debating them. The only practical use of public debates (whether in the real world or online) is that they allow people sitting on the fence to make a decision depending on which side(s) makes the more persusive point. But since many (if not most) debates end up being unreliable because of the popularity bias (as in, the most popular opinion of a particular place almost certainly dictates the winner of a debate. For example, on a Christian forum, you are probably forced--by rules of the site--to make statements that put Christianity in a positive light), most debates end up just being a popularity contest of whatever idea is most popular wherever the debate takes place.

I just don't see the point of debates. Unless someone here can convince me otherwise of course, I would change my opinion. But I'm pretty sure there are many people that share the same view or recognized the same problem with any form of debate. This is why I don't engage in debates with anyone anymore...I realized the futility of such efforts a long time ago, and I just wanted to share my thoughts on this topic.

I hear you and you're right that it's difficult to change many peoples' opinions.

OTOH, debates can educate people on issues, and that's generally a good thing, IMO.

Of course you need an educated enough populace to be able to reason, and use facts, research, and logic to discern the difference between, for example, well documented scientific fact and complete emotional nonsense -- for people to be able to reach reasonable conclusions about complex topics.

What concerns me most in the modern world is how poorly educated the masses apparently are, and how that trend is apparently getting worse.

Do they have people write papers anymore in high school and college? Do they correct those papers? Do things like grammar and using the right word count? Because if they do, based on internet comment areas in general, I don't see how people aren't flunking out of school in droves.

(I'm not saying precise grammar is all-important. I make plenty of mistakes and don't bother to be precise myself. But when a huge proportion of people don't know the difference between things like there and their, its and it's, too and to, bare and bare, and on and on (and I'm talking several instances in a post -- not a single typo), it sure starts to look to me most of getting a modern education is about showing up and not making trouble, and less about substance.)

And then no wonder people substitute emotion for facts and logic to determine "the truth" about subjects like:

1). Is AGW real, and is it a serious problem?
2). Is evolution real, and how do we know?
3). Does the earth revolve around the sun, or the sun around the earth?
4). Is the earth flat?
5). Or ANY subject, if researched on Google and evaluated for "truth".

In democratic societies where people vote on leaders, based on their promises, platforms, debates, etc. -- I think this concept matters a lot.

[Newfie]

This article may give you some insight on how to be more effective at changing people's minds, including your own.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorke ... -minds/amp

[Outcast_Searcher]

This article may give you some insight on how to be more effective at changing people's minds, including your own.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorke ... -minds/amp

Thanks Newf. Reading the first part of the article (I haven't finished it yet, but I wanted to mention this before my hazy old memory forgets to!) reminds me of many similar concepts in a book I'm a little over half through, and have really been enjoying.

It's on the evolution of behavioral economics. It's called "Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics", by Richard Thaler.

Apparently economics is an area where the human capacity for irrational behavior and thinking is yuuuge.

OTOH, traditional economics always just assumed "rational man" and GREATLY resisted ANY attempts to show people aren't rational. (In fact, I got chastised for asserting that people are most certainly NOT rational in college in my first economics class. The professor actually seemed annoyed, instead of just pointing out that we make that assumption to make the models simple, or we don't know how to model well for irrationality, etc. This was in 1978, as I recall).

So you have this (IMO) hilarious series of lectures showing examples of why people are NOT rational or even close, when it comes to economic behavior. And these lectures are based on specific scientific experiments with hard data clearly supporting Thaler's case for each experiment.

But the reaction of the "rational", "educated" economic experts? Why, almost universally complete denial of course, to the extent the excuses made were often comically stupid/irrational.

...

In hindsight, our irrationality as a species seems rather obvious though. If it weren't, could we possibly have made our world any more screwed up, big picture? Some things work very well in isolation and detail. The complexity of a powerful computer, a modern ICE car, etc. is kind of awesome, IMO. But when the whole system and its glaring problems (and lack of meaningful long term fixes) is contemplated, it's like The Three Stooges are in charge.

[Plantagenet]

Almost everyone's views and opinions change and evolve with time. The most general pattern is for people to go from being "liberal" when young to becoming more "conservative" when old.

This does suggest that people's opinions are not set in concrete. While few people will completely switch their views in response to a single debate, as people gain wisdom and experience through the years their opinions do slowly change and evolve.

[sparky]

.
"Is engaging in debates a futile effort ?"

......99% of the time , YES!!

[mmasters]

Apparently economics is an area where the human capacity for irrational behavior and thinking is yuuuge.

Indeed, especially the young Bernie Sanders supporters, they think you can tax the rich 95% and get everything free. They have no common sense in economics. I lost a friend of almost 20 years after debating him about Sanders last election. People don't think about what happens when the rich decide to leave the country and what happens when you remove the incentive to become rich. Truth is taxing them now 95% would get us about 2 trillion dollars a year extra. With that you could get some watered down medicare for the masses but you wouldn't have any extra for free college, universal basic income or any of the other crazy proposals.

[vtsnowedin]

Apparently economics is an area where the human capacity for irrational behavior and thinking is yuuuge.

Indeed, especially the young Bernie Sanders supporters, they think you can tax the rich 95% and get everything free. They have no common sense in economics. I lost a friend of almost 20 years after debating him about Sanders last election. People don't think about what happens when the rich decide to leave the country and what happens when you remove the incentive to become rich. Truth is taxing them now 95% would get us about 2 trillion dollars a year extra. With that you could get some watered down medicare for the masses but you wouldn't have any extra for free college, universal basic income or any of the other crazy proposals.

Those are all good debate points about taxes but don't get to the question about the value of debating for it's own sake. If people are debating an issue they are not fighting the issue with sword and shield so even if a solution is not achieved the cost to the populous is much less.
A one percent chance at a solution tried a thousand times would yield a one hundred percent success rate and cost much less then one war solution tried one time.

[AgentR11]

The point of a debate is to present your position and come to better understand the position of your opposition. A change of opinion CAN happen, but its not the point.

[Newfie]

Maybe.

One can take a debate from an adversarial point of view, competition, who wins.

Or from a formal view, set time limit, rebuttal.

Or in the form of dialog, preferably. Where the folks exchange ideas, withdraw, consider the points, revisit the points and discuss more. While you may not change a mind (even your own) you may learn something or change your world view.

Lots of reasons to debate/discuss.

[ROCKMAN]

Plant - "This does suggest that people's opinions are not set in concrete." An alternative view: the opinions of older folks are just as set as younger. But over time one's self-interest changes and the tendency is to re-pour that block of cement. For instance when young and low income one might be all for higher tax rates. Add 30 years and increase income significantly that "opinion" about wealth "redistribution" can change a good bit. And both opinions of the same person can be just as rigid.

[Ibon]

In the topics that we discuss here on this site I often think of this as a slow grinding through the years and decades as you reconsider again and again the challenges and consequences of moving this juggernaut of humanity through transitions that will be forced upon us. I have to say that in 40 years of considering this topic my major underlying opinions haven't changed much or been proven wrong. I have always seen forces of change being imposed on us rather than coming from enlightened response. Or at best enlightened response coming late as a result of external guidance in the form of consequences.

Our resiliency as a species is profound and is not going to change any time soon. Adaptations coming up will underscore this.

A lot of debate here is just passing the time at a given moment as the real glacial changes move about in a time scale way beyond any of our lifetimes.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Plant - "This does suggest that people's opinions are not set in concrete." An alternative view: the opinions of older folks are just as set as younger. But over time one's self-interest changes and the tendency is to re-pour that block of cement. For instance when young and low income one might be all for higher tax rates. Add 30 years and increase income significantly that "opinion" about wealth "redistribution" can change a good bit. And both opinions of the same person can be just as rigid.

Absolutely. (Perceived) self interest is as good a model as any for human decision making, and evidence for that is almost everywhere. Given how we evolved, one could argue it's a natural law. (Little question that animals act that way, when the safety of "the herd" is taken into account). But of course, then there's altruism. So coming up with hard and fast rules on these things is well nigh impossible, IMO.

[Plantagenet]

Plant - "This does suggest that people's opinions are not set in concrete." An alternative view: the opinions of older folks are just as set as younger. But over time one's self-interest changes and the tendency is to re-pour that block of cement. For instance when young and low income one might be all for higher tax rates. Add 30 years and increase income significantly that "opinion" about wealth "redistribution" can change a good bit. And both opinions of the same person can be just as rigid.

Absolutely. (Perceived) self interest is as good a model as any for human decision making, and evidence for that is almost everywhere. Given how we evolved, one could argue it's a natural law. (Little question that animals act that way, when the safety of "the herd" is taken into account). But of course, then there's altruism. So coming up with hard and fast rules on these things is well nigh impossible, IMO.

Which brings us back to the utility of debates.

In a debate one side says "A" is bad, but "B" is good while the other side says the opposite.

BOTH SIDES are appealing to self interest. There is just an honest difference of opinion as to what is the best course of action to take. No one ever goes around saying lets do "B" because its evil and terrible. Even ISIS think they are the good guys and firmly believe Allah wants them to blow up Christians.

AND ONE MORE THING on the utility of debates. Yes, most people are locked into their own positions and won't change views. But there is a small minority of people who actually do change their minds when presented with new information. In elections these people are called "SWING VOTERS." They change their minds all the time. Look at the last election---a whole lot of people who voted twice for Obama and the Ds suddenly changed their mind and voted for Trump and the Rs in hopes that he could make things better for them after giving up on the the Ds.


If you don't think people can ever change their minds, then how you do explain Obama voters switching to Trump?

[Outcast_Searcher]

If you don't think people can ever change their minds, then how you do explain Obama voters switching to Trump?

I don't think most of the folks in this debate are saying or implying that people can't ever change their minds. I think they're saying they tend not to very often and it takes lots of convincing. And this is a generality.

Politicians flip flop quite a bit on key issues over the course of their careers. Some even change parties. (They may lie about it (they're politicians after all) or make excuses, but it's well documented. So there's one concrete example showing some people do change their minds on things.

And I agree on some Democrats switching to Trump. Voting their perceived self interest. Liberals may hate the thought and insist they're stupid, but most Trump voters, IMO, either were voting against the worst of all their fears (HRC as POTUS) or for issues they felt strongly about (like lower income taxes or "doing something" about illegal immigration). Hating it doesn't change the motivations.