Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm asking because I'm finding the most common response to explaining to someone on the internet that some claim of their's was wrong is outright denial.

The most recent example was in the banning toy guns in Hawaii thread, where a guy didn't realise that having a gun in the home was strongly connected to the likelihood of suicide. I provided multiple studies arguing just that and suggested he go and read a bit on the subject (the absolute consensus is that the two tie very closely together). It wasn't even a major part of his point, he could easily have stepped back from that one point and maintained most of his argument (most of which I suspect I would agree with).

But he couldn't concede that surveys on the subject show a strong relation between the two. Just couldn't type the words 'oh, I see there is a strong connection between guns in the home and suicide'. The conversation wasn't particularly acrimonious or really very interesting at all, and I'd probably just shrug after that thread was closed down for being off topic, but he's hardly the first person who couldn't admit they might be wrong on some trivial thing. I can think of three discussions in the last couple of weeks where a person could have just said 'okay' to some simple thing so we could move the conversation on, but they just couldn't do it.

So I'm wondering have any of you ever admitted you were wrong in a debate on the internet? Do you even stop to consider that you might be wrong, or consider that the other person might have a good point, or do you just reflexively disagree with whatever they've said? And for that matter, do you enter threads looking to discuss things and maybe hoping to learn something, or do you look at it as a challenge, a way to take on people with differing views, where conceding a point is not a mark of reasonableness, but one of weakness?

And is this the same way you approach conversation in real life?

It depends on the behavior of the person I'm debating with, really.

If someone is genuinely trying to have a conversation and is giving thoughtful answers and isn't being a douchebag I am quite reasonable.

When things get silly, though... well, things might start to go awry. I think this is pretty true to how I do things irl, and I think people that know me in both places would agree.

sebster wrote:I'm asking because I'm finding the most common response to explaining to someone on the internet that some claim of their's was wrong is outright denial.

The most recent example was in the banning toy guns in Hawaii thread, where a guy didn't realise that having a gun in the home was strongly connected to the likelihood of suicide. I provided multiple studies arguing just that and suggested he go and read a bit on the subject (the absolute consensus is that the two tie very closely together). It wasn't even a major part of his point, he could easily have stepped back from that one point and maintained most of his argument (most of which I suspect I would agree with).

But he couldn't concede that surveys on the subject show a strong relation between the two. Just couldn't type the words 'oh, I see there is a strong connection between guns in the home and suicide'. The conversation wasn't particularly acrimonious or really very interesting at all, and I'd probably just shrug after that thread was closed down for being off topic, but he's hardly the first person who couldn't admit they might be wrong on some trivial thing. I can think of three discussions in the last couple of weeks where a person could have just said 'okay' to some simple thing so we could move the conversation on, but they just couldn't do it.

So I'm wondering have any of you ever admitted you were wrong in a debate on the internet? Do you even stop to consider that you might be wrong, or consider that the other person might have a good point, or do you just reflexively disagree with whatever they've said? And for that matter, do you enter threads looking to discuss things and maybe hoping to learn something, or do you look at it as a challenge, a way to take on people with differing views, where conceding a point is not a mark of reasonableness, but one of weakness?

And is this the same way you approach conversation in real life?

Eh, I've got several guns and I've never felt the urge to use them on myself, and never will. I just make squirrel stew and plink around with 'em. Not sure if I believe the whole thing either. Although someone who already had suicidal thoughts; I could definitely see it making a difference because they have access to da gunz.

In real life I'm a huge troll by point of intention.

Whether or not that mirrors my net persona is a matter left up to the reader.

Do you blame the victim irl as much as you do here?

I used to take WGS courses just so I could blame the victim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12441834

^More fuel for your fire^

I figure if someone wants to end their life then I will certainly not begrudge them that, as long as they do it in a way that puts no one else’s life in danger.

As for other debates, it depends on how much I want to be right...

I think your missing the point of the thread

I have admitted I'm wrong when faced with evidence that undermines my point, but when it comes to trivia I'm much more likely to just let it drop. However, I will refuse to give ground in situations when the person is obviously wrong on an objective fact.

e.g. There is currently a debate in 40k discussions that somehow turned to knives being used against bullet proof vests. Someone posted that there was no way a knife could go through a vest, and cited CoD (yes, the game) as evidence why. Despite being told and explained to multiple times that he was mistaken, he's still saying that if something can stop a buillet it will automatically stop a knife.

That kind of problem, where someone is wrong about an objective fact is something I will not back down from. Of course, if someone shows me something that shows I'm wrong....well then I use the blush orkmoticon, and slink away and hope no one remembers my latest fail.

GalacticDefender wrote:Eh, I've got several guns and I've never felt the urge to use them on myself, and never will. I just make squirrel stew and plink around with 'em. Not sure if I believe the whole thing either. Although someone who already had suicidal thoughts; I could definitely see it making a difference because they have access to da gunz.

It doesn't mean that anyone who owns a gun is suicidal or anything like that. In fact, it really doesn't mean anything more than 'households with a gun in them are 2 or more times as likely to experience a suicide, after accounting for other factors'. It doesn't mean anything about gun ownership other than what you conclude from it.

Not that this is about that thread that particular fact, if it was I would have bothered to restate the evidence for it. This thread is about the idea that when presented with a new piece of information, how likely are you, in all honesty, to accept it and try to reconcile your views with it? Because from what I've noticed, most people on the internet really aren't that interested in finding out anything new. They certainly aren't looking to question their preconcieved notions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12441834

^More fuel for your fire^

There's not really any more fuel needed. The studies are pretty conclusive, in communities, where other factors like urban/rural, male/female, climate, and all the rest are controlled for, there's a significantly greater chance that a person will kill themselves if you have a gun in the house.

I figure if someone wants to end their life then I will certainly not begrudge them that, as long as they do it in a way that puts no one else’s life in danger.

That's reasonable. There's all sorts of reasonable pro-gun positions that can be drawn after accepting the fact. The only thing that's not reasonable is pretending it isn't true.

As for other debates, it depends on how much I want to be right...

Really? So you'll happily ignore someone's good point or misread it or simply pretend it isn't true, just because you want to win? Is it something you'll do in the heat of the moment, but maybe later on you might reflect on your position, and reconsider what the other person was saying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:e.g. There is currently a debate in 40k discussions that somehow turned to knives being used against bullet proof vests. Someone posted that there was no way a knife could go through a vest, and cited CoD (yes, the game) as evidence why. Despite being told and explained to multiple times that he was mistaken, he's still saying that if something can stop a buillet it will automatically stop a knife.

Yeah, I haven't read the thread but that sounds exactly like what I'm talking about. People who just don't seem to care that reality doesn't work like they thought it did, and when they're presented with a fact that might challenge some small belief of their's, they'll just deny it over and over again.

I just don't get it. Don't people want to be right? To be well informed, and have their ideas about the world grounded in some kind of reality?

That kind of problem, where someone is wrong about an objective fact is something I will not back down from. Of course, if someone shows me something that shows I'm wrong....well then I use the blush orkmoticon, and slink away and hope no one remembers my latest fail.

Thing is, if someone admits they were wrong and adjusts their opinion to sensibly account for the new information, I'm likely to think more of them, not less. I think most people would be the same way.

sebster wrote:
I just don't get it. Don't people want to be right? To be well informed, and have their ideas about the world grounded in some kind of reality?

Of course people want to be right, in fact that's what causes the behavior you're lamenting.

But, to be obtuse about it, if I live in a world of racists I will be treated as wrong if I mention that race is meaningless regardless of whether or not what I say is true.

dogma wrote:Of course people want to be right, in fact that's what causes the behavior you're lamenting.

Heh, yeah good point. Perhaps they want to believe they're right, a lot more than they want to actually do the hard work to be right. Or something.

But, to be obtuse about it, if I live in a world of racists I will be treated as wrong if I mention that race is meaningless regardless of whether or not what I say is true.

"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

Of course, that doesn't hold for anything as subjective as racism, but a whole lot of things really are objective, even if people pretend otherwise.

sebster wrote:
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

Of course, that doesn't hold for anything as subjective as racism, but a whole lot of things really are objective, even if people pretend otherwise.

Of course, but the sweet ego massage that comes with being right only comes from the mutual recognition of the truth; that's why the academy exists.

dogma wrote:Of course, but the sweet ego massage that comes with being right only comes from the mutual recognition of the truth;

There's the rub.

....even if you didn't.




You're in cahoots with the squirrel, aren't you?

dogma wrote:....even if you didn't.

You wound me, sir.

dogma wrote:You're in cahoots with the squirrel, aren't you?

I smell varmint poontang.

dogma wrote:Of course, but the sweet ego massage that comes with being right only comes from the mutual recognition of the truth; that's why the academy exists.

Ah, now I see your point fully, and it's a really good one.


EDIT - Now I've gotten to thinking, do you think people don't see the difference between the sweet ego massage of mutually agreed truth, and actual truth. Or do you think they probably know the difference, but really don't care.

I wonder how this links to the idea that people are so much more sensible and pragmatic about things that impact their own lives, simply because there's a direct feedback mechanism. But when it comes to big issues where we don't really have any direct control, like government policy like gun rights, why bother spending the time looking at the real facts of the issue, which would lead you to question and think hard about the issue and maybe even come up with some original thought, when ultimately your opinion doesn't really affect policy.

So why not just group up with some ideologues and take part in a mutually recognised 'truth'? It's pathetic, but I think I'm starting to get it.

There are some interesting studies which show that when given evidence that their political views are based on incorrect information, people not only ignore the new information, they hew more tightly to the view they already held.

Are you referring to Plato's Cave?

No, I am referring to social science studies involving structured research with volunteers.

Yeah, yeah, I just meant that in the Cave the person trying to bring enlightenment would likely be killed by the people he was trying to teach.

It's a concept that's been around for a while, is all.

The volunteer subjects in these studies didn't show violence, they simply disregarded facts that contradicted their already held opinion.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are some interesting studies which show that when given evidence that their political views are based on incorrect information, people not only ignore the new information, they hew more tightly to the view they already held.

Yeah, I remember the studies, and it's an interesting phenomenon. I wonder if a similar study could be set up to see if people who found out their opinions were based on incorrect information and who clung more tightly to their opinions were then incapable of properly repeating the new, correct information, or if they could repeat it correctly but just chose to dismiss it, or if they could repeat it and accept it but simply didn't care that it directly conflicted with their opinion on the subject.

Right... but The Cave is an allegory.

Forget I brought it up.

sebster wrote: Now I've gotten to thinking, do you think people don't see the difference between the sweet ego massage of mutually agreed truth, and actual truth. Or do you think they probably know the difference, but really don't care.

My guess is that they don't know. Its really hard to discern. I'm a logician, I've even been published a couple of time, and while I know the difference I find that acting upon it is pretty damn hard; particularly given doing so is often against the interests of making friends (which we almost all enjoy).

sebster wrote:
I wonder how this links to the idea that people are so much more sensible and pragmatic about things that impact their own lives, simply because there's a direct feedback mechanism.

Really? I've found the opposite to be true. I'm not a great example, because I'm aware of exactly how irrelevant I am, but many of my friends will defend their union (as an example) to the death (literally, I've had fights over this noise) regardless of how useless it might be.

Then again, we're entering into subjective territory here. What is sensible? No one likes farm subsidies, but it would be stupid for farmers to advocate the removal of free money.

sebster wrote:
But when it comes to big issues where we don't really have any direct control, like government policy like gun rights, why bother spending the time looking at the real facts of the issue, which would lead you to question and think hard about the issue and maybe even come up with some original thought, when ultimately your opinion doesn't really affect policy.

So why not just group up with some ideologues and take part in a mutually recognised 'truth'? It's pathetic, but I think I'm starting to get it.

In a different direction: what incentive do those public speakers (most of whom are very bright) have to change a status quo that allows them to marionette the masses?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:There are some interesting studies which show that when given evidence that their political views are based on incorrect information, people not only ignore the new information, they hew more tightly to the view they already held.

Funny thing is that their kids generally show the opposite trend...

Go Go Marcuse!

That said, it amuses me that people who value freedom (almost all psych studies take place in the West) apparently take umbrage to the fact that someone other than themselves might have an impact on the development of their children.

Oh Noes! I can't make a little autonomic me?



Sadly, while we are all James Van Der Beek, we cannot all enjoy bikinis made of whipped cream.

The "homeschooling" movement is much stronger in the USA than in Europe.

It is probably to do with the high rate of individualism in the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There are some interesting studies which show that when given evidence that their political views are based on incorrect information, people not only ignore the new information, they hew more tightly to the view they already held.

Yeah, I remember the studies, and it's an interesting phenomenon. I wonder if a similar study could be set up to see if people who found out their opinions were based on incorrect information and who clung more tightly to their opinions were then incapable of properly repeating the new, correct information, or if they could repeat it correctly but just chose to dismiss it, or if they could repeat it and accept it but simply didn't care that it directly conflicted with their opinion on the subject.

It would be an interesting piece of research to do. I expect a lot of people dismiss conflicting information on ideological grounds. We saw in the gun thread that people dismissed statistics from government agencies because those agencies were well-known to be left-wing leaning.

It also correlates strongly with evangelism.

Interesting question. How to approach a debate.

I hate taking sides. Every situation had a facet that must be explored before a consensus is made. There are few things I stand for with such fervor as to ignore rationale for the opposite side; something diametrically opposed to what I believe based on factual evidence.

For instance, the multitude of homeless sex offenders ostracized by law, martyred by their own actions, and condemned to death with a label is a societal injustice. In context, you have to step back and see that many of these sex offenders are guilty of crimes that deserve punishment. Even if rehabilitated and time was served in a correctional facility, they become persectuted the moment they leave that jail. Worse, the recividism rates for perpetrating another crime increases as government wraps them tightly in laws that make it difficult to live and be left alone.

Taking a step back, I have found that gross generalizations are a necessity when talking in a setting where the academic standard is low (i.e.- this is a gaming website, and the educational level of those participating in active conversations may vary wildly). Insofar, when someone of higher training approaches a debate and points out flaws (even very valid ones) of an argument, there can be a breakdown in the debate as suddenly one must defend point for point their original statements. It can be handled with civility, though there have been instances where the debate drags to a crawl as now we must defend and notate one aspect of the debate rather than concede the point (nice way of saying nerdrage/fight/hissy fit).

One rule of thumb I follow on Dakka above all else is not to engage sebster/dogma into an intellectual debate. I've tried, failed, and cannot achieve their level of researching acumen and analytical insight. Trying to move a mountain may be easier.

dogma wrote:It also correlates strongly with evangelism.

It ties even more strongly to fundamentalism. The idea is to give a child enough education to have some skills but not enough to question their betters.

How do I approach debate on the internet? Specifically here?

In general I don't bother these days. It just seems like a pointless waste of time - nothing is solved, nothing changes. The world turns. I really feel no need to bend over backwards to demonstrate my intelligence to the denizens of a wargaming site. I get my ego boosts in other areas. Plus, most of the time I'd rather just shoot the breeze.

Still, I do enjoy the occasional argument, both IRL and on here. I guess I'm just naturally intransigent to some degree. However, if I'm factually incorrect about something, I'll admit it. I really don't see what's to be gained from denying the objective truth. A 'victory' based on that is just hollow.