Changing minds with logic?

[hakujinbakasama]

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?

[Spectral]

Now granted, for the PhD's out there this isn't much of a discussion.

Why is that not much of a discussion? As someone with a PhD that has lots of friends that also either have doctorates or are in graduate school, I can say that we're a stubborn bunch that are just better at rationalizing our bad ideas than the average person.

That aside, I don't think much of anyone can be convinced to change their mind about things they've already considered in a single sitting. Instead, people's ideas change slowly as they engage those with other ideas that are capable of presenting those ideas in a fashion that doesn't make them retreat into a bubble. At least, that's how it's been for me when I've changed my mind or changed other people's minds.

So I'm left with the belief that it's arguably better to play dirty than to play smart.

In politics? Of course this is the case. There are tons of policies that are objectively good ideas that are impossible to convince people of in the short soundbites that exist in campaigns. You're never going to sell the average person on optimal policies, which is why I'm so generally unenthusiastic about democracy.

[I Push Buttons]

No because faith, self interest, the importance of the present, etc.

[d0e1ow]

In my experience, both as the user of logic and the "receiver" of logic... no. People generally take awhile to change and evolve in a way that seems organic to them. "Logic" isn't a magic wand in that regard.

Most Americans at least do not even know logic because at most schools they do not teach it outside of college philosophy courses. I know people who learned proofing in high school math, but didn't learn how to apply it to formal and symbolic logic. In this country telling someone you studied philosophy in college gets you laughed at.

So, there is the state of "logic". We all have illogical things about us. It's part of being normal to be honest. You get to a point in life where you stop trying to "convince" people and understand that they have to find their own way and be their own person, whether you like it or not.

[poser765]

Lets also keep in mind that the incidents of people CLAIMING to be logical, is far higher then number of incidents where people actually ARE thinking logically. Especially in political discussions.

[Fencers]

All my professional work points to, "no". The majority of humans are irrational, perception we are free agents of our choices is largely a kind of illusion created by desire, not reality.

In the lab I have given subjects 100% objectively true information. This very rarely dissuades one from their irrational beliefs.

Largely, we are irrational animals enslaved by cause & effect.

[Independent voter]

One's mans logic is often his emotional response. Many issues aren't black and white, they are a graduated scale of gray, you pick close to white and another guy picks the middle of the scale or even towards black, who's to say who is wrong?

[RareShine]

Highly unlikely, because of ego.

[Moralgy]

Logic is so subjective so no not really. I have been told like 20 different versions of "logic" in regards to like every hot issue out there.

[Kokolums]

Logic doesn't work because logic doesn't set the order of importance.

EX:

Person A sets their order of importance so that individual freedom to promote their own family's welfare is the top priority, and they allow for corruption elsewhere to achieve that.

Person B sets their order of importance so that making the global community work is the top priority, and they allow for corruption elsewhere to achieve that.

Logic will point them in different directions. One will allow for corruption or lies in certain areas that the other will not.

You can make the perfect argument for something but if it conflicts with someone's goals, it probably won't work.

[Nadiru]

You don't change minds with logic. You change minds with reason, and with rhetoric.

[fengosa]

If you look at acceptance of gay marriage it has changed a fair bit in the last 10 years. So its certainly possible but it takes time and the message has to be worth listening to.

[Kokolums]

Lets also keep in mind that the incidents of people CLAIMING to be logical, is far higher then number of incidents where people actually ARE thinking logically. Especially in political discussions.

The problem with politics is that we don't really have laboratory conditions. The logical approach to health care is:

1. start with a hypothesis: government health care works better than private health care or insurance health care.
2. You make three copies of the planet earth.
3. In one copy, society implements government health care.
4. In the second copy, society implements insurance-style health care.
5. In the third copy, we take the free market solution, where society makes it really easy to become a doctor and floods the marketplace with doctors, under the theory that with the supply of doctors outstripping demand, costs drop significantly while quality of care increases.

Then let the experiment runs for 100 years and you see which system turned out the best.

But that is beyond our ability, so we are left to yell at each other and make decisions based on our priorities. We say things like "health care is too important to let the free market handle it." or "Government will ruin health care." without really being able to test that ever.

[Dsonsion]

I've changed my mind plenty of times when presented evidence or good enough reasoning. I'm not infallible, so why is being wrong such a big deal?

[Fencers]

Logic and reason are not the same thing.

Logical thought does not necessarily assign value. That last bit is why humans typically can not be dissuaded via logic alone. The process of using rational thought and evidence to change the mind of a subject is a matter of reframing value assignment of the subject.

[d0e1ow]

Logic and reason are not the same thing.

Logical thought does not necessarily assign value. That last bit is why humans typically can not be dissuaded via logic alone. The process of using rational thought and evidence to change the mind of a subject is a matter of reframing value assignment of the subject.

That's a really important distinction that I think most people fail to make. I think people expect value judgements to be self evident, usually motivated by their own personal belief/bias.

[Deleted]

hard to apply logic in real life to many variables so many don t understand it they can understand 1+1=2 but as the variables multiply by millions is just to hard for some

[Deleted]

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.

[Gheld]

The only winning move is not to play.

[judgementofantonidas]

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?

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.