The Backfire Effect. (or, why you'll never win an internet argument)

[Amused]

I see this all the time. The more evidence you provide, the stronger the denials and more entrenched the beliefs of the person you're trying to help realize is just factually incorrect on a subject.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

It's long, but very well sourced and informative. An outtake:

"Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper."

 

[sandorski]

It is still worth the effort, because some people eventually see their error and correct their beliefs.

 

[Amused]

It is still worth the effort, because some people eventually see their error and correct their beliefs.

Or, at the very least, someone else who is on the fence sees the debate and the person caught in their backfire loop can serve as a bad example to learn from.

 

[crashtech]

It's more effective to find some scrap of agreement anywhere possible, and build from there. Headstrong confrontations always, always, fail.

 

[raildogg]

Please define the term "winning"? Is it to fully dispose of your opponent in the arena of public forums? Is it to simply prove your point?

Or, is it possibly to have a dialogue where people can have a civil sharing of comments?

This last point seems to be the rarest. It is unfortunate. But the reality is that most people are not interested in listening to anything but their preconceived biases that will never change. They are the heavily conditioned people walking among us - or around 99.5% of the population.

No wonder the world is what it is.

 

[TheELF]

I see this all the time. The more evidence you provide, the stronger the denials and more entrenched the beliefs of the person you're trying to help realize is just factually incorrect on a subject.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

Just no!
Never did happen,you are lying.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Or, at the very least, someone else who is on the fence sees the debate and the person caught in their backfire loop can serve as a bad example to learn from.

Yup. This is the only reason I ever engaged the incorruptibles of AT. Can't let their bullshit go unchallenged lest it become the new reality. Or at least the perception of reality.

 

[ivwshane]

Does the article talk about how to overcome such irrationalities?

 

[Amused]

Does the article talk about how to overcome such irrationalities?

In yourself, yes. But as anyone should know, you can't fix other people. Only yourself.

 

[Atreus21]

In my opinion, there's only one way to win an internet argument, and that is to befriend or come close to befriending your opponent beforehand. Ironically, if your true motive in this is defeat them in an argument, you can't befriend them.

Someone who hates you will argue against 2+2=4 before they let you think they've surrendured.

This is true of non-internet argumemts as well but to a lesser extent since the internet tends to aggravate a man's impulse for "hey I'm anonymous so I can be a complete douchebiscuit."

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Case in point would be global warming. Despite overwhelming evidence and research that its happening, convince yourself its a political conspiracy or a way for scientists to become rich (lots of those!).

I highly recommend Skeptic magazines numerous articles and books on this topic.

The good news is that over time the correct theory does in fact win.

The bad news is well...tax cuts for the rich :O

 

[ivwshane]

In yourself, yes. But as anyone should know, you can't fix other people. Only yourself.

Makes sense, you can't want to fix someone more than they want to fix themselves.

 

[Paratus]

Case in point would be global warming. Despite overwhelming evidence and research that its happening, convince yourself its a political conspiracy or a way for scientists to become rich (lots of those!).

I highly recommend Skeptic magazines numerous articles and books on this topic.

The good news is that over time the correct theory does in fact win.

The bad news is well...tax cuts for the rich :O

That's why my points are almost never for the person I'm arguing with. If they understood it they wouldn't be arguing with me.

If they were opened minded it would be a dialogue not an argument.

Nope I do it for the home audience. Others can decide based on the thread what is the fact and what's BS.

That being said, do you guys remember what the weather used to be like? I remember have cold but not super freezing winters, snow, nice falls and springs and it would only get super hot in August. Now it's like warm winters followed by cold snaps and excessively hot summers.

Wasn't weather better before?

 

[Zorba]

I still have leaves on my trees for the first day of winter, global warming is real. On the other hand, I have snow on the ground around that tree and it isn't even winter yet, WTF do scientist know.

What always shocks me is how even people that are supposed to be smart, like engineers, can be so irrational about so many things.

 

[agent00f]

It's more effective to find some scrap of agreement anywhere possible, and build from there. Headstrong confrontations always, always, fail.

There's not really any way to generalize all possible opposing game strategies. For example if you use centrist common-ground strategies, some will meet you halfway in the middle, and others will take advantage by continuing to backing up and move that midpoint to behind where they were. Just like IRL each needs to be dealt with separately.

As another example, a lot of folks who aren't thinkers only respond to strength, thus can only be dealt effectively with overwhelming force. To that sort anything less is just weakness to be taken advantage of.

 

[soulcougher73]

This article is fake and just reaffirming your conformation bias that conservatives are dummy heads....

 

[agent00f]

This article is fake and just reaffirming your conformation bias that conservatives are dummy heads....

If they were smart they wouldn't blame educators for doing poorly in school, aka american conservatism these days.

 

[dmcowen674]

I found the best way that people learn that they are wrong is to ignore them.
Then they figure it out on their own that they didn't have it right.

 

[PricklyPete]

I found the best way that people learn that they are wrong is to ignore them.
Then they figure it out on their own that they didn't have it right.

I'm fairly certain no one has come to that conclusion because they were ignored by you.

 

[TeeJay1952]

Please post if you have ever changed anyone's mind by debate.
I never have. It is an exercise in futility and clarification(in my mind).

 

[crashtech]

There's not really any way to generalize all possible opposing game strategies. For example if you use centrist common-ground strategies, some will meet you halfway in the middle, and others will take advantage by continuing to backing up and move that midpoint to behind where they were. Just like IRL each needs to be dealt with separately.

As another example, a lot of folks who aren't thinkers only respond to strength, thus can only be dealt effectively with overwhelming force. To that sort anything less is just weakness to be taken advantage of.

I'm possibly guilty of over-generalizing. I should have specified arguing over the Internet. I don't think I've ever seen the last technique you describe ever be effective on an online forum.

 

[agent00f]

I'm possibly guilty of over-generalizing. I should have specified arguing over the Internet. I don't think I've ever seen the last technique you describe ever be effective on an online forum.

Notice the relatively sparse backtalk even when I mock the mouthy ones.

 

[crashtech]

Notice the relatively sparse backtalk even when I mock the mouthy ones.

Speaking only for myself, I tend not to respond to those who engage in mockery, mostly because such behavior makes the futility of continuing more quickly evident. That in no way disproves your hypothesis; it's just an alternate explanation for your observations.

 

[agent00f]

Speaking only for myself, I tend not to respond to those who engage in mockery, mostly because such behavior makes the futility of continuing more quickly evident. That in no way disproves your hypothesis; it's just an alternate explanation for your observations.

This assumes the person being mocked has anything worthwhile to contribute outside the pointed objective of mockery. It's a problem that solves itself since those with some merit will make it be known, and the noise is filtered otherwise.

 

[crashtech]

This assumes the person being mocked has anything worthwhile to contribute outside the pointed objective of mockery. It's a problem that solves itself since those with some merit will make it be known, and the noise is filtered otherwise.

It appears you have no issue with making yourself the arbiter of worthiness. I wonder if such a stance could cause one to miss an occasional insight, instead becoming exactly what the article describes.