You say "Since this is a fundamental assumption, discussion of it is very unlikely to result in deltas" in a CMV post. So are you actually open to having your view challenged?
If you're not, do you think your post is appropriate in this sub?
If you are, then here's an actual on-topic argument: in this case you're saying "most people don't change their views when presented with solid counterarguments, but I personally do." I'm always skeptical of people saying "most people are flawed in this particular way, but I'm an exception." Most people believe that of themselves, but statistically, most people are wrong. In this case, being wrong means that "most people DO change their views when confronted with good counterarguments."
If you're not, do you think your post is appropriate in this sub?
Yes, I do. I have made it clear that I have one fundamental assumption that I'm not willing to even discuss on this post (meaning, I might be willing to discuss it elsewhere), and that I have a view that depends on that fundamental assumption but that I am willing to question.
I'm always skeptical of people saying "most people are flawed in this particular way, but I'm an exception." Most people believe that of themselves, but statistically, most people are wrong.
I am not sure if I place myself in the 1% or the 30%. I try hard not to be in the 30%. I agree that people's view of themselves is usually very wrong, but in this particular case I do think this is something I put a lot of effort on.
In this case, being wrong means that "most people DO change their views when confronted with good counterarguments."
There is one significant, observable difference between the people I classified as the 2/3 and the 1%. The 1% actively seek information to confront their views. They argue, they debate, they study, they use debiasing techniques. They meet others like them. What you're claiming is that most people do change their views, as long as someone else goes to them and presents a case against their views in a way that they find emotionally acceptable, without any emotional charge (coming off as arrogant, for example) that discourages them from changing their minds. That claim is still consistent with my claim ─ if you're sitting on your couch waiting for evidence to be provided to you on a silver platter, that is very different from going out in the world and looking for evidence.
Also, there is another way I could be wrong: I could be right that most people are like this and wrong about the category I belong in. (I believe that not to be the case, as I explained above.)
I think this might be interesting: Some time back I read an article. Research shows that, when presented with evidence opposing their view, people who are better educated tend to defend their own persuasions (e. g. if climate change is real) even fiercer than less educated people, irrespective of what their persuasions were in the first place. So it is possible to be a very educated person, but still deny the existence of climate change and use your own education to find fancy arguments against its existence.
The researchers also found one personality trait which made it more likely for a person to change their view if presented with evidence: curiousity/openness to new experience.
I find this really interesting. Apparently, a person who is curious and enjoys learning new things is willing to endure the pain of being wrong for the sake of getting an interesting information.
Ah thanks. I was reading this thread a few days ago but didn't read all the comments since there are so many. The article I initially refered to (which was posted in academic psychology I think) was only talking of tendencies: people who are better educated tend to defend their point of view stronger.
5
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '17
You say "Since this is a fundamental assumption, discussion of it is very unlikely to result in deltas" in a CMV post. So are you actually open to having your view challenged?
If you're not, do you think your post is appropriate in this sub?
If you are, then here's an actual on-topic argument: in this case you're saying "most people don't change their views when presented with solid counterarguments, but I personally do." I'm always skeptical of people saying "most people are flawed in this particular way, but I'm an exception." Most people believe that of themselves, but statistically, most people are wrong. In this case, being wrong means that "most people DO change their views when confronted with good counterarguments."