Tonight I was listening to two people I know well, respect, and care about have an in-depth discussion on the economics of ecological sustainability. Both of these men are intelligent and informed, but disagreed vehemently on a particular point. They went in circles for 30 minutes while I cleaned the kitchen around them. Eventually the discussion was ended, but it was never concluded. Neither one could see the other's point of view, and neither one's position had shifted one iota.
This got me thinking: how come no one is ever wrong any more? I can't remember the last time I heard someone say "Gee, that's a good point; I hadn't thought of it that way," or "You know, you're right. I'm going to have to reconsider my position on that." Have we completely lost the ability to change our minds (assuming it's an ability we ever had)? Or do we always approach every topic with out minds made up, no matter how little information we actually have?
So here's today's question: When was the last time someone changed your mind about something by presenting you with information you previously lacked or through the pursuasiveness of their logic?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Most people don't change their opinions in the midst of an argument. Minds need time to assimilate new information. The majority of occasions on which someone has convinced me of something I've only later on really realised it.
The new facts and arguments forment in my mind over the next few days and I don't tend to use the new arguments in debate until I've figured out a good deal of their consequences. Sometimes I realise quickly enough to inform the person who precipitated the change in my thinking. More often I don't.
In the past I've changed my mind on press censorship, government control of industry, the minimal wage and the nature of beauty amongst other things (as a direct result of discussions). The most recent was the nature of beauty (discussion was 2 weeks ago and I realised about a week ago!) when I discussed it with my girlfriend.
I don't think I will change my mind on the rationals in favour of carbon taxation just yet! But I will rethink my arguments.
An argument between two persons with differing worldviews is a study in futility. The logic of one's worldview competely escapes the reason of the other due to the mismatch in their fundamental assumptions.
For example, if a man is convinced that he is doing a great service to his God and 72 virgins are awaiting him at the end of his material life by blowing up the infidels, his logic will be totally different from yours and mine who love life. Any amount of rational argument about sanctity of life will not move the man from his impending course.
This is not necessarily true for several reasons:
a) If I can identify someones base assumptions I may be able to identify areas where they haven't deduced results from those assumptions logically.
b) If the person doesn't argue logically then I may be able to make headway arguing with them using non logical forms of persuasion.
c) Differing worldviews do not necessarily imply different axioms of thought. Many people believe statements that are not supported by their own axioms of thought. Rational argument can root these statements out.
d) Even if someone does say they take X to be true without question and X is some silly statement its still not necessarily the case that no argument whatsoever will get them to doubt X.
My mind often changes during a debate, but not usually in the direction my fellow debatee wishes it.
P.s. Glad you know your place in life (cleaning the kitchen).
Heh, was just having the conversation yesterday with S, about how difficult it is have a detailed discussion with folks who are dogmatic about their beliefs. Even when you've had the "ah-ha" moment about something, you can never bring anyone else around to your point of view. People will come to their conclusions on their own and in their own time.
I think discussions are better tools when you're still coming to your own conclusions and are gathering information. Then talking to people, reading, etc. helps you to be more informed and well rounded in your beliefs. But even that's your own choice- people who don't want to know more, won't - end of story.
I guess that falls in a little with what Anon was saying about how ideas tend to marinate and assimilate over time. But I think that that only happens if you are still open to thining about a particular idea. If you're completely sure that you're right, you're not open to any other viewpoints (and I think everyone's got a few things that they believe that are non-negociable).
Ah see...it is hard to get around time as an important agent.
My husband convinced me that we should hold off on buying a larger book case until we put in a new floor because then we would avoid having to box up all the books twice.
He appealed to some pretty basic points of logic -- but as in many good discussions (vs. agruements) he gave me the room to reconsider and accept the change gracefully.
This is a deceptively simple dimension of trying to change someone's mind: not presenting oneself as superior.
Post a Comment