Changing minds with logic?

[Cthulhu 2020]

When dealing with clients/customers in past/current work, the great majority of people are irrational, and I find logic does not work too well. I have to switch modes and appeal to their emotional side for them to "get it".

[Deleted]

I actually laughed at the PhD comment

In my experience people with PhDs are usually the ones most lacking common sense and refuse to consider others opinions only their own even if they're factually wrong

[Deleted]

I actually laughed at the PhD comment

In my experience people with PhDs are usually the ones most lacking common sense and refuse to consider others opinions only their own even if they're factually wrong

Not all PhDs require common sense or strict logic. Especially people who happen to be politically motivated tend to end up in fields of study - such as social sciences - that leave a little bit too much room for "interpretation" (or they can even be 100% made-up political bullshit from the scratch, such as women's studies and much of sociology) and thus allow the twisting of facts, reality and logic to the point where even a complete tool or an immoral liar can get a PhD. All you need to do is to be able to write bullshit that sounds good in the general context, flavored with special terminology.

Whereas natural sciences leave very little room for "opinions" or "interpretation" because the laws of nature and physics are what they are and don't give a damn about political correctness.

[Garnier Fructis]

I've pretty much given up on convincing people of even things which should be objective, like mathematics. I mean, every time we have that 1 = .9999.... thread, we get a bunch of people who will argue against all logic to declare that they aren't equal. I've seen fellow math majors, who were otherwise very good, refuse to acknowledge huge holes in their reasoning because they didn't want to acknowledge that they submitted work that was incorrect.

Not all PhDs require common sense or strict logic. Especially people who happen to be politically motivated tend to end up in fields of study - such as social sciences - that leave a little bit too much room for "interpretation" (or they can even be 100% made-up political bullshit from the scratch, such as women's studies and much of sociology) and thus allow the twisting of facts, reality and logic to the point where even a complete tool or an immoral liar can get a PhD. All you need to do is to be able to write bullshit that sounds good in the general context, flavored with special terminology.

Whereas natural sciences leave very little room for "opinions" or "interpretation" because the laws of nature and physics are what they are and don't give a damn about political correctness.

There is a lot of room for interpretation in natural sciences.

[Kokolums]

You can't turn illogical minds with logic.

Even if people can understand basic mechanical logic like 1+1=2, they come with varying degrees of ignorance, beliefs, stubborness, political opinions and just plain old stupidity (or low IQ) that all hinder applying objective logic in real life issues.

If a group of people believe that they can help the most people by claiming 1+1=3, they will actually take that position. People will adopt losing logical arguments if they believe their intentions are for the best. That's why logic doesn't work.

[Deleted]

If a group of people believe that they can help the most people by claiming 1+1=3, they will actually take that position. People will adopt losing logical arguments if they believe their intentions are for the best. That's why logic doesn't work.

...and usually these people call themselves "progressive", "open-minded" or "tolerant of different opinions (except ones that are different from their own)"?

- - - Updated - - -

I've pretty much given up on convincing people of even things which should be objective, like mathematics. I mean, every time we have that 1 = .9999.... thread, we get a bunch of people who will argue against all logic to declare that they aren't equal. I've seen fellow math majors, who were otherwise very good, refuse to acknowledge huge holes in their reasoning because they didn't want to acknowledge that they submitted work that was incorrect.

(...)

There is a lot of room for interpretation in natural sciences.

Purely mathematical theorizing is one thing, but the tensile strength of steel doesn't actually leave much room for interpretation when you are doing structural integrity calculations.

Even in more theoretical fields of research people need to be able to adapt their views when more facts are discovered. Theories are then re-evaluated and either updated or abandoned. "Interpretation" in natural sciences doesn't mean you can throw around just any kind of nonsense based on your own opinions.

[Theodarzna]

Now granted, for the PhD's out there this isn't much of a discussion. Let's ignore the right and left side of the Bell Curve and focus on the meat in the middle. Do you believe it's really possible to change the minds or beliefs of the average with Logic?

I believe it is highly unlikely. People too often seem swayed or convinced by emotion rather than Logic. In the USA our entire political process and governing body seems to run primarily on emotion placation. I'm not sure even with arbitrary anecdotal thoughts I could point to any decision being made though Logical and Critical thinking anymore (yes this is an exaggeration to stress a point.) So I'm left with the belief that it's arguably better to play dirty than to play smart.

Yes no maybe?

Logic is not some magic panacea that solves everything. The above Monty Python skit perfectly illustrates what logic ACTUALLY is. Logic isn't "is something right," but is everything consistent. Logic is merely all things being consistent within themselves, logic doesn't necessarily mean WISE, or REASONABLE, or SANE.

[spinner981]

All they must be is convinced of something to change their mind. So when people have a belief driven by emotion they often won't back down when confronted with logic. Similarly, when somebody has a belief driven by logic, they often won't back down when confronted with emotion. Neither logic nor emotion are perfect methods of determining truth though, as logic can be faulty and emotions can be misguided.

I find it strange though, that the modern world involves a majority that believe things based off of emotion and not logic, yet many of that majority claim that their belief is based off of logic and not emotion. When confronted with logic contrary to their worldviews, they resort to emotion, and when confronted with emotion they resort to logic. This way they are shutting themselves off to open mindedness and the possibility of being wrong or at least being convinced of being wrong. This makes it difficult to live in the world that we do, where people are not actually searching for answers to life's questions, but rather already chose the answers that they like and are instead searching for reasons for believing the answers that they already chose.

[Kokolums]

...and usually these people call themselves "progressive", "open-minded" or "tolerant of different opinions (except ones that are different from their own)"?

Well more to the point, when group A decides to claim 1+1 = 3 because they believe that will help the most people, and then group B believes it won't help anyone, then group B loses its mind because they think group A is crazy for no reason. And then insults get launched back and forth and no one listens.

[Hooked]

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” - ah

[Doctor Amadeus]

The Problem with the bell curve is that is was conducted by a couple of right wing white supremacist, who to this day in my opinion pretty much evidence of conformation bias, wrapped in authority and bolstered by title and privilege. So now when it comes to science or anything else, I never just take someones word for it, unless it's officially from a source I trust.

[spinner981]

The Problem with the bell curve is that is was conducted by a couple of right wing white supremacist, who to this day in my opinion pretty much evidence of conformation bias, wrapped in authority and bolstered by title and privilege. So now when it comes to science or anything else, I never just take someones word for it, unless it's officially from a source I trust.

How do you determine which sources you trust?

When dealing with clients/customers in past/current work, the great majority of people are irrational, and I find logic does not work too well. I have to switch modes and appeal to their emotional side for them to "get it".

"Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Not your fault if they can't comprehend what you are saying. If what you say is a logical claim, then it should be explained logically. If it is an emotional claim, then it should be explained emotionally. How can a point have both a logical premise and an emotional one? Of course, when people refuse to think logically and just refer to emotion to 'win' logical arguments, you can't really do much aside from walking away.

[primalmatter]

It is pretty ineffective most people do a pretty poor job at considering other angles and options and tend to just parrot talking points their political affiliation tells them.

[Garnier Fructis]

Purely mathematical theorizing is one thing, but the tensile strength of steel doesn't actually leave much room for interpretation when you are doing structural integrity calculations.

Even in more theoretical fields of research people need to be able to adapt their views when more facts are discovered. Theories are then re-evaluated and either updated or abandoned. "Interpretation" in natural sciences doesn't mean you can throw around just any kind of nonsense based on your own opinions.

That the valid interpretations are limited by evidence does not contradict the statement that there are interpretations for various things, such as what quantum mechanics means, how to make sense of various thermodynamics paradoxes, etc. And even when there's only one correct resolution of some issue, like the twin paradox, there are still loads of wrong explanations out there. Nobody's going to argue about the tensile strength of steel, but we shouldn't pretend that that's what all of natural science is.

[Deleted]

If the mind you're trying to change with reason and logic is either conservative or female you're wasting your time. Acquiescence is all that interests those two groups.

[Alefnir]

I've personally changed my mine about things plenty of times when given a good argument. Why not other people?

[primalmatter]

If the mind you're trying to change with reason and logic is either conservative or female you're wasting your time. Acquiescence is all that interests those two groups.

Anyone who believes deeply in any movement you usually are wasting your time with. You would not believe the response you get from progressives who will call you sexist for not believing stare rape is a thing.

[hrugner]

Generally speaking, it doesn't work. You can't just give someone enough information for them to adopt all of the implicit knowledge required to share your belief through logic or reason. In order to influence someone's beliefs, you need to give them the tools to come to a shared conclusion, and giving them the steps to hook it all together doesn't seem to work either.

So, millions of dollars and decades of research have confirmed that some lessons can't be taught, they need to be learned.

- - - Updated - - -

I've personally changed my mine about things plenty of times when given a good argument. Why not other people?

It's a skill, and a hard one to learn since most people think they've mastered it.

[artemishunter1]

Now granted, for the PhD's out there this isn't much of a discussion. Let's ignore the right and left side of the Bell Curve and focus on the meat in the middle. Do you believe it's really possible to change the minds or beliefs of the average with Logic?

I believe it is highly unlikely. People too often seem swayed or convinced by emotion rather than Logic. In the USA our entire political process and governing body seems to run primarily on emotion placation. I'm not sure even with arbitrary anecdotal thoughts I could point to any decision being made though Logical and Critical thinking anymore (yes this is an exaggeration to stress a point.) So I'm left with the belief that it's arguably better to play dirty than to play smart.

Yes no maybe?

question is what is logic?

Second, You are grossly simplifying the politics of the U.S.. Very rarely we use complete emotion to guide decisionmaking or supporting policies. You are thinking of short vs long term goals. We are quite often chose short term benefit over the long term. And these decisions are not right or wrong. Example, Global Warming, the strongest effect of global warming will not come till a long way from now, which is why we reluctant to even acknowledge it. This is a valid decision, since most of us do not want to sacrifice our comfort or simply survivility (quite a few people live paycheck to paycheck and quite a few are only capable of working in a coal mine) for a time when we won't even be alive to experience it. Even though going green, would be great for long term development, in the short term it only causes misery for a great number of people.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Because the meat in the middle as you put it react based on their feelings with no thought to the logic of a thing. Just look at how disgussions go on these forums.

Someone can say something totally logical debunking the statement of an original poster and just get slammed by all the slow thinking emotional answers that follow.

I have been in the forum a LONG time. No one ever said anything of logic EVER.

- - - Updated - - -

...and usually these people call themselves "progressive", "open-minded" or "tolerant of different opinions (except ones that are different from their own)"?

- - - Updated - - -



Purely mathematical theorizing is one thing, but the tensile strength of steel doesn't actually leave much room for interpretation when you are doing structural integrity calculations.

Even in more theoretical fields of research people need to be able to adapt their views when more facts are discovered. Theories are then re-evaluated and either updated or abandoned. "Interpretation" in natural sciences doesn't mean you can throw around just any kind of nonsense based on your own opinions.

Actually mathematical theorizing is THE thing. All our logics are based on mathematics. Since, its the only thing that is hopefully objective.

[Zantos]

Do you believe it's really possible to change the minds or beliefs of the average with Logic?

No. Arguing with enough idiots has taught me this long ago. If they are determined that they are right, they wont change. If they don't care about logic, they wont change.