As someone who has changed his mind, I've found that it is wrong to think that minds can't be changed. When people complain about how minds aren't changed, they are typically complaining about minds not changing now, i.e. At the point of debate. But minds can change over time, it's just that you don't get that immediate feedback that you want.

Exactly. I'm tired of self-proclaimed internet veterans witnessing people digging in on individual online conversations and then concluding that nobody ever changes their mind and all debate/discussion is pointless. I have done a 180 on so many positions I used to have thanks in no small part to people online who did not take this asinine defeatist perspective and went ahead and engaged in debate while the other side (including me) just dug their heels in during the actual conversation.

I think a lot of people need to be educated about what the benefits of debate are and how they manifest slowly over time.

I feel that in many ways, there is a take-a-side mentality bred into all of us via social cues from a young age. Your football team, the city/country you are from, the education provider you attended. And as I've gotten older, I've become more and more convinced that in many instances, people view position switching as some sort of deadly sin. So they stay locked into their opinion. I have a mate who is pretty smart, but a lot of his ideas and beliefs come from his Dad, and as a result, you are no longer just breaking down his opinion, you are attacking the Father figure's. And over the course of our friendship, we have always had running debates on various things, and I was struck recently by his comment of "Well, you didn't always think that". The comment was made in a pretty smug way, like I had somehow lost the debate because at some point, realised that I was probably incorrect. I think this is the most damaging thing, like there is a certain level of pride taken in just taking A position. Not necessarily arriving at one through debate or critical thinking.

This needs to be said. I just which there was a better way to retroactively deliver that feedback. That could diminish defeatism.

The issue is that most people on social media aren't looking for enlightenment, they're looking for validation. If they don't find it from one source they'll likely seek out a more suitable one. The only one who can change a person's mind is that person, all the rest of us can do is encourage.

If the people are participating in social media forums where debate happens or can happen (without it being considered rude), then they have not yet fully enclosed themselves into a comfortable echo chamber. If they aren't just there to troll, and seem to be engaging honestly, then debating with them is not a waste of time. Nobody is going to change their mind to match yours during one single online discussion (unless they come in wanting to have their minds changed and experience a lot of social pressure to admit to it, a la /r/changemyview). The audience matters, and even the person you're arguing with will likely remember the points you made, even if only to counter them, the next time they voice their opinion. The same goes for us. We learn more about their side and where they're coming from each time, and that counts for something.

> I have done a 180 on so many positions

Care to give any examples and the reasons for your first position and subsequent change?

I used to be a very conservative religious person. I had a whole package of beliefs that were ingrained into me from birth, and I grew into them and claimed them as my own. I thought that homosexuality was very damaging to society. I thought that human caused climate change was either fake or that there was nothing to worry about even if it were true. I did not believe that humans evolved, or at least I was somewhat conflicted about that. I thought that creationism belonged in schools. At one point in my early twenties I even listened to Rush Limbaugh and agreed with him (I cringe every time I remember that). I knew so many things, and I was happy to know them.

I also liked to think analytically and enjoyed the intellectual stimulation I got from certain online forums (this one included). I liked how people would trade counterarguments and keep each other honest by pointing out bad thinking or logical fallacies. When someone would argue against something I believed in, I would argue back. From their perspective, my mind was not being changed and they were wasting their time, but from my perspective, the things they would call me out on stuck with me. I tried to avoid falling into logical fallacies and bad arguments because I knew I'd be called out on them. This restricted the ways I had to justify my beliefs, so that made it challenging. Then at church I noticed that nobody was being held to these standards at all, and fallacious reasoning was being let fly freely and constantly. I experienced a lot of cognitive dissonance during that point in my life which ultimately led to deeper investigation and study. I give a lot of credit to honest online debaters who pushed back on my ideas and kept me honest about the substance of my arguments.

Minds can be changed. For one, propaganda does work. If only minds could be changed using more honest means... Granted, education works too, to some degree. But that requires even more work on both parts.

> you could think the moon is square, doesn't bother me one bit. i'm living my life, not yours.

The problem is when this wrong headedness starts to interfere at a public policy level, like climate change.

It's also extremely difficult to talk to someone who truly thinks the moon is square. Suppose I actually want to talk about the moon? Or suppose I admit there's a lot I don't know about astronomy (a fascinating subject!), and this person thinks it's an invitation to speak about astrology?

What I mean is, it doesn't even have to affect public policy to be bothersome. It also affects informal small-talk with acquaintances.

There is, however, a rather large difference between "bothersome" and "a bunch of idiots voting for things that are going to kill people, possibly even me... and winning".

Yes, fully agreed, the latter is dangerous. The former is still annoying, though.

For what it's worth, I've had luck moving some people's anti-science opinions by meeting them at their level of understanding, and offering some compassion. Might help that they are relatives and not total strangers though.

To me it's more like wanting your city to be a clean place. You see some trash, you pick it up and throw it in a trash can, even if it's not yours.

When people have clearly wrong beliefs (e.g. a square moon), it might not matter all that much to you, but they might harm someone else by spreading the trash, or worse, connect with like-minded people and create a real danger for others (legislate pi to be 3). That mind of trash is no less a part of your environment than the physical street, and I think it's a very good thing if you make an effort to pick up the trash, even if it's not yours.

>i learned about 5 years ago that changing peoples' minds is an impossible, pointless task.

And you learned the wrong thing. It is possible to change peoples minds and behavior with online conversation. It just isn't easy and it doesn't go quick (a single line directly pointing out a flaw often isn't enough, you have to bring across that you exerted effort, to show you care). If over time enough people invest time and effort into pointing out that you are wrong in something, you will change your mind. You might not admit it, you might not even notice it, but it will happen.

You might be right that it is perhaps not the fastest or most efficient approach, when you suggested spending time and money on actually influential things (though I'm not sure what you have in mind there).

Just look at the responses you have received so far here. Several people with different backgrounds have responded to you and said "you are wrong, you can change people's minds in online social interactions".

Now you have a choice. Will you hold on to your (really not very good for mankind as a whole) statement, so that it self-fulfills and you can still consider your own opinion correct and your thoughts and behavior consistent?

Or will you take that leap and believe people can change and act accordingly going forward?

Edit: I hope you realize that if you respond to my plea with a convincing statement and I believe you and change my mind, we both enter seriously troubled waters.

After all, do you really want to change my mind on the fact that one cannot change someone's mind in a social media setting, in a social media setting?