Sounds to me like you enter conversations with a pre-made idea of what you want the conclusion to be.

Questions to ask yourself if you feel that way regularly:

Have you considered that various shortcomings might hold different weights to people depending on their background, experience in other adjacent domains, etc? That what is factual for you might not be so to others?

How do you know that your analysis of the shortcomings are correct/pertinent? That the person you're talking to hasn't delved in it as deeply as you have and just reached a different conclusion? Are you the close minded one for having decided early in the conversation that because you've thought about it in a certain way in the past, any interlocutor who thinks of it differently is necessarily wrong and stubborn?

Note how I said ‘after enough conversing‘.

I do give the benefit of the doubt for as long as I can. I admit to understanding positions that are premised on different values. I have a hard time when once I understand the values, inaccurate steps are taken to reach a false conclusion.

What I’m talking about is more akin to talking with someone making a mistake in a proof, being pointed out the mistake, but still digging their feet in to not admit the mistake.

I’m fine if assumptions aren’t shared, but not when conclusions don’t follow logically from assumptions.

Being open minded isn’t akin to listening to everything and anything- there are limits.

So no, it is not that ‘I enter conversations with a pre-made idea of what [I] want the conclusion to be.’

Actually, you likely do. You appear to expect rational self consistency.

Not all humans present that. They have reasons, some of which may just be their nature.

> Actually, you likely do.

Well sure everyone does, to some degree. But I thought dyarosla's clarification was quite sound, particularly this part: I admit to understanding positions that are premised on different values.

In my experience, a lot of people are completely ignorant of this important idea, that values (or axioms) are a crucially important part of disagreements, that someone may be approaching the same general topic from a very different perspective than you. Not only do some people not know/appreciate this, I've encountered several people who completely reject this idea if you point it out to them.

I am not judging on "sound", just pointing out that self consistency is the core exception.

That statement on "values", coupled with the other ones, all support strong self consistency.

How people evaluate things can, does, will vary from a highly rational POV.

Is logical consistency not a core tenant of a rational argument?

I’ll concede that some people don’t value logical consistency - but that doesn’t make them more rational in their arguments.

If there is subjectivity in a ‘logical inference’, I’ll err on the side of being open to it.

It absolutely is.

However, people are often not entirely rational creatures.

Advocacy, for a very effective example, is a combination of reason, emotion and character.

How people feel matters. Who they are interacting with and or referencing matters.

Roll all that up, and we are likely to encounter people who are not self consistent.

That is OK, human. I just noted that being a predetermination, that's all.

Secondly, there is no requirement they be more rational in their arguments. They may not even see something as one, depending on what it is.

They may, for example, seek better mutual understanding.

I readily affirm that feelings are most important, but it's pretty common to refuse to abandon one's feelings or one's facts and logic in the name of consistency.

It's not that someone can expect you to feel differently because they've presented a logical argument. That's not likely or expected.

Does any of that matter?

The OP said they did not predetermine, and I just pointed out that they do. (And I do not care)

No worries, just information.

Understanding others helps considerably when having conversations IMHO. My comments here speak to that.

Just know others may, or may not make the value judgements presented in this thread, that's all.

It is far more likely than you think. Consider a politically charged issue, some matter where religion is involved...

This all just is not the set piece implied.

> and when that individual is not open to those factual shortcomings.

That's when you should play the part of being stubborn and close-minded yourself, if this is what it takes to ensure that your points are heard. Intellectual humility is the best case, but sometimes it is best to cut one's losses.

>> and when that individual is not open to those factual shortcomings.

> That's when you should play the part of being stubborn and close-minded yourself, if this is what it takes to ensure that your points are heard.

Do you honestly believe that this is an effective technique in spreading your ideas?

While I cannot 100% agree with 0815test's statements (mainly because I don't see discussion as a win/lose battle, counting points, cutting losses...), there is in fact a certain motivation to take the stubborn position. When you look at the real world examples of people who successfully spread their ideas, unfortunately quite often there will be a certain degree of stubborness. It might be called different names - determination, believing in one's goals, but the effect is the same - at a certain point they will refuse to accept an alternative idea, even without any hard data. And by doing that, they might earn a social position that allows them to spread the ideas among many. Sometimes they even turn out to be right, sometimes not, but it was the aura of close-minded belief in themselves that brought them followers. Honestly, I'm a little disappointed that it works like this, because I would really prefer if deliberate polite factual discussion was always the norm.

I didn’t downvote you, but I also don’t agree with the methodology- it doesn’t seem conducive to progress.

I always think it is pretty neat when somebody responds, “I’ve never thought about it like that.”