The trouble is, if people don’t experience the feeling of defeat, they don’t tend to undergo proper relinquishment, and will revert back to the indefensible stronger position in time.
This is only an argument for pressing for defeat where it might actually work.
I’ve found that they will revert a bit—but not as far as back to the original position, unless there are social attractors pulling them there (political parties or religion). Over time, their position does shift, if similar themes are argued several times. And once or twice, I’ve seen people ernestly arguing to me the exact position I was trying to convince them of two months before...
The trouble is, if people don’t experience the feeling of defeat, they don’t tend to undergo proper relinquishment, and will revert back to the indefensible stronger position in time.
This seems to be a lack of capacity to ‘update’ in general.
Even without an argument taking place, I’ve often seen this happen: I explain something to someone, he/she seems to agree and think it makes sense, and then they turn around and do or say something that contradicts their supposedly new belief, reverting back to their old position without even realizing it.
That’s very possible, and we’d have to look at it in a case by case basis to see if they got it but somehow kept that new knowledge/belief compartmentalized, or just pretended to get it when they actually didn’t.
But depending how you define ‘clicking’, it probably includes ‘updating’, so we might be describing something similar using different terminology.
The trouble is, if people don’t experience the feeling of defeat, they don’t tend to undergo proper relinquishment, and will revert back to the indefensible stronger position in time.
It sounds me like that is in direct contradiction to Stuart’s statement. (I think he’s right and you’re wrong.) Do you agree that you were simply contradicting him, or were you making some kind of subtle middle ground that I’m not seeing?
I think that both behaviours are sometimes observed, and which is most likely depends on the kind of belief. Some beliefs you can drift away from as he observes, others you have to make a break with.
The trouble is, if people don’t experience the feeling of defeat, they don’t tend to undergo proper relinquishment, and will revert back to the indefensible stronger position in time.
I don’t consider it my responsibility to update their beliefs, even if that person is wrecking havoc with their actions. If they are acting irrationally, their power should be stripped from them and the environment updated to account for their stupidity. But I don’t think making them feel defeat is going to make an irrational person suddenly rational.
As Stuart said,
You might ‘break’ some of them into a completely new way of thinking, but most likely you will simply undo all your hard work up till then.
Making them feel it is ridicule and embarrassment. Most of the people I know will act more irrationally in this situation, not less.
I don’t consider it my responsibility to update their beliefs,
I don’t think responsibility is a good way to think about it. There are several reasons to wish those you have opportunity to argue with have more accurate beliefs: one is that it’s likely to serve whatever it is that you believe in and are arguing about, and a second is that they’re more likely to help you reach accurate beliefs in future.
The trouble is, if people don’t experience the feeling of defeat, they don’t tend to undergo proper relinquishment, and will revert back to the indefensible stronger position in time.
This is only an argument for pressing for defeat where it might actually work.
I’ve found that they will revert a bit—but not as far as back to the original position, unless there are social attractors pulling them there (political parties or religion). Over time, their position does shift, if similar themes are argued several times. And once or twice, I’ve seen people ernestly arguing to me the exact position I was trying to convince them of two months before...
This seems to be a lack of capacity to ‘update’ in general.
Even without an argument taking place, I’ve often seen this happen: I explain something to someone, he/she seems to agree and think it makes sense, and then they turn around and do or say something that contradicts their supposedly new belief, reverting back to their old position without even realizing it.
Isn’t that just evidence that they never really got it in the first place? It didn’t look like they ‘clicked’ before, did it?
That’s very possible, and we’d have to look at it in a case by case basis to see if they got it but somehow kept that new knowledge/belief compartmentalized, or just pretended to get it when they actually didn’t.
But depending how you define ‘clicking’, it probably includes ‘updating’, so we might be describing something similar using different terminology.
It sounds me like that is in direct contradiction to Stuart’s statement. (I think he’s right and you’re wrong.) Do you agree that you were simply contradicting him, or were you making some kind of subtle middle ground that I’m not seeing?
I think that both behaviours are sometimes observed, and which is most likely depends on the kind of belief. Some beliefs you can drift away from as he observes, others you have to make a break with.
Thanks for your observation!
I don’t consider it my responsibility to update their beliefs, even if that person is wrecking havoc with their actions. If they are acting irrationally, their power should be stripped from them and the environment updated to account for their stupidity. But I don’t think making them feel defeat is going to make an irrational person suddenly rational.
As Stuart said,
Making them feel it is ridicule and embarrassment. Most of the people I know will act more irrationally in this situation, not less.
I don’t think responsibility is a good way to think about it. There are several reasons to wish those you have opportunity to argue with have more accurate beliefs: one is that it’s likely to serve whatever it is that you believe in and are arguing about, and a second is that they’re more likely to help you reach accurate beliefs in future.
I agree. I am not sure that making them feel defeat is the best way to get to those ends, however. I suppose it will vary from person to person.
Of note, I am very much focusing on the word “feel” throughout this discussion.