Debating debates

[newdayrising]

I've read recently that our brains are hard-wired to "win" arguments. In evolutionary terms, we learned to argue in order to build social bonds and create leaderships and show our strength. Therefore we, for lack of a better word, instinctively (or even unconsciously) create fallacies and other argumentative tricks so we can have a good outcome. That is, despite what happens to be "true", or the most valid point.
When our interlocutor has a good argument, our natural reaction is to find a way to beat it, not think about the possibility of it being correct.

Now, my question: have you ever seen anyone really changing their minds in real time during a real political debate? I don't mean a random internet thing about unimportant matters. I mean, has anyone here actually seen someone, at a debate between people with different positions, actually going "ok, I suppose you're right about the main point of this debate, my mind is changed".

I don't think I have (except fraternally, inside the same organization and so on). If you have, please share your stories, I'm curious.

[Rafiq]

It is undeniable that minds can be changed when debates are lost, however usually it's from reading and learning.

But this does bring up an interesting subject:

That the best way to learn is to argue.

[newdayrising]

Exactly, people usually change their minds on their own, when they're not too worried about winning an argument or not bruising their egos. Losing the argument encourages people to study and that changes their minds.

[ColonelCossack]

That happened to me. But it was about something really mundane, like talking when people were concentrating slightly.

[Nox]

I've totally changed my mind and admitted I was wrong many times. It's really hard to do the first time round but eventually it's easy.

[PhoenixAsh]

I have admitted I was wrong sometimes. I also have admitted I was wrong sometimes because I simply ran out of arguments but still did not agree with the other party and wanted to get out of the debate. I also did the opposite.

I rarely changee my mind during or immediately after a debate. I need time to process the arguments and new information and construct a new concept.

So yes...arguments did change my mind on some big issues. But this only really came to pass a few days or weeks later.

[newdayrising]

Do you mean formal political debates or informal conversations?
I have seen people changing their minds in conversations among friends. I wish I'd seen someone in an informal debate actually admitting being convinced by the other side. This I've yet to see...
Which brings to the table the question of what it means to be "right", and subjectivity versus objective reality.

[ckaihatsu]

Which brings to the table the question of what it means to be "right", and subjectivity versus objective reality.


Are you actually asking this question?

If so, then the definition of being "right" is 'in accordance with objective reality'. As a historical example the Bushist neocons were eventually derided by the mainstream as being too "reality-challenged".

[newdayrising]

Ok, but it's not always that simple. If the debate is about one side claiming weapons of mass destruction that no one was ever able to find and the other stating the obvious, that the weapons were bullshit, then ok, one could say that.

But if the debate is about something just a little more complex the whole notion stops being so crystal clear. People can arrive at different conclusions out of the same "objective reality". If every debate had a "reality-challenged" side and a "right" side, life would be a lot easier.

Also, one side can be a better debater without necessarily having the best position.
Anyway, it's all quite complex.

"What it means to be right" wasn't my main question though. My main question was if you all have seen people publicly admitting changing their mind in a public debate after listening to the other side and thinking about what's been said.

[ckaihatsu]

Ok, but it's not always that simple. If the debate is about one side claiming weapons of mass destruction that no one was ever able to find and the other stating the obvious, that the weapons were bullshit, then ok, one could say that.

But if the debate is about something just a little more complex the whole notion stops being so crystal clear. People can arrive at different conclusions out of the same "objective reality". If every debate had a "reality-challenged" side and a "right" side, life would be a lot easier.


Well, objectively speaking, every debate *does* have a "right" side and a "reality-challenged" side, because not every political policy will be objectively progressive for society, in the direction of improving the human condition.

I do appreciate your point, though, that *social reality* doesn't always go by that standard, especially within any society of class rule.





Also, one side can be a better debater without necessarily having the best position.


If you're talking about *form* here, as in the sense of how good someone may be at the *techniques* of debate, then, sure, I can appreciate that, too. But good form doesn't automatically bring forth a sound politics.





Anyway, it's all quite complex.


No, not really -- I'll politely disagree here, and I'll be glad to explain.


[6] Worldview Diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1budmnp50/

[Desperado]

Ok, but it's not always that simple. If the debate is about one side claiming weapons of mass destruction that no one was ever able to find and the other stating the obvious, that the weapons were bullshit, then ok, one could say that.

That's not necessarily how humans think...
http://www.badscience.net/2010/05/evidence-based-smear-campaigns/

[o well this is ok I guess]

Perhaps their minds are not changed, but certainly the ideas present in both parties is in some way refined by some sort of one-sided dialectical progression.

[newdayrising]

Interesting! That's the kind of thing I was talking about.

Also, and more precisely, this:
(can't post links yet, but google "Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory" and "Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path To Truth" along with "Hugo Mercier")

The NY Times article on the subject says:
“Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,” said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. “It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.” Truth and accuracy were beside the point.

I'm no expert in evolutive psychology or whatever this field of knowledge is called, so I can't say if this hypothesis is 100% correct. But it's food for thought. Obviously, it does not imply that there's no such thing as true or correct ideas. But it explains a lot how debates and arguments work.
Also, ideology could be seen as a shortcut to win people's minds without having to go through explicitly convincing them rationally.


That's not necessarily how humans think...
link...

[The Young Pioneer]

If we're really going to go all Socratic method here, it should be noted that a true virtuous, lover of wisdom would think it okay to use "fallacies or argumentative tricks" to sway the interlocutor's way of thinking, so long as they arrive at an agreement with your overall "true" idea in the end.

[blake 3:17]

The NY Times article on the subject says:
“Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,” said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. “It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.” Truth and accuracy were beside the point.

I'm no expert in evolutive psychology or whatever this field of knowledge is called, so I can't say if this hypothesis is 100% correct. But it's food for thought.

The basic principle of evolutionary psychology is that our most basic drive is to produce as many offspring capable of reproducing as possible.

A winner takes all approach can make perfect sense for males -- you win, you humiliate, you get the best women, you make the healthiest babies with the least effort.

I've found the whole area pretty creepy -- most intelligent racists support it -- but that doesn't make it all untrue.

From what I know David Buss is best known and most legitimate scientist in the field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Buss

I read the whole of The Murderer Next Door which I found very interestingly provocative. He wrote or co-wrote a text book called Evolutionary Psychology: the new science of the mind which is interesting to read, skim, or flip through.

The person who recruited me to Marxism was the one who has exposed me to this stuff in the past couple of years. PM me if you want more references or discussion.

As a Marxist, I have come to reject Marxist denials of human nature. I think there is such a thing. Chris Hedges, who I think is pretty popular on here, has a good take on this in his book, I don't believe in Atheists.

[ckaihatsu]

The basic principle of evolutionary psychology is that our most basic drive is to produce as many offspring capable of reproducing as possible.

A winner takes all approach can make perfect sense for males -- you win, you humiliate, you get the best women, you make the healthiest babies with the least effort.

I've found the whole area pretty creepy -- most intelligent racists support it -- but that doesn't make it all untrue.


This entire line is rotten to the core -- and is a prime example of the bourgeois paradigm / propaganda -- since it over-simplifies people, encouraging individualistic alienation and political passivity.

It references and reinforces a mindset that is socially constructed -- *not* historical -- one that hinges on a willing acceptance of biological determinism. Once we subscribe to the worldview of biological determinism we have effectively forfeited our conscious agency as individual social beings in favor of a crude, witless "predestination by genetics" (my wording), while the actual world is far more *social* in quality, with far broader latitudes of living and lifestyles than a biological-determinism tenet would allow.

[newdayrising]

I've thanked both of you not necessarily because I agree with your points, but because you're creating an interesting discussion. That's what I wanted to read. The "mechanics" of debating, discussion and so on are fascinating.
Blake, I'll PM you for the the stuff, thanks.

[blake 3:17]

I was going to respond to ckaihatsu but it would take too long to decypher that last sentence.

I was very big on Gould and Lewontin for many years. I have read, from reliable sources, that elements of their science were faulty.

Gould is a wonderful essayist and I think a very rich thinker on a number of fronts. After reading some criticisms of Lewontin, I am more skeptical. Most of his work is trashing other people`s work. He`s a fine writer. I`m all for anti-positivism when the social and the natural sciences meet, but that doesn`t mean the critique is accurate.

When I was studying child development I found some of the post-structuralists and post-modernists (they get lumped together in the US especially) more helpful as a source of critique than the anti-essentialist Marxists.

This is drifting & drifiting...

[ckaihatsu]

I was going to respond to ckaihatsu but it would take too long to decypher that last sentence.





This entire line is rotten to the core -- and is a prime example of the bourgeois paradigm / propaganda -- since it over-simplifies people, encouraging individualistic alienation and political passivity.

It references and reinforces a mindset that is socially constructed -- *not* historical -- one that hinges on a willing acceptance of biological determinism. Once we subscribe to the worldview of biological determinism we have effectively forfeited our conscious agency as individual social beings in favor of a crude, witless "predestination by genetics" (my wording), while the actual world is far more *social* in quality, with far broader latitudes of living and lifestyles than a biological-determinism tenet would allow.


I'll take this opportunity to generalize my critique....

Much of the Western / bourgeois approach to science is *reductionistic*, meaning that smaller and smaller scales of research are sought out, in directions of exploring downward and inward. By itself there's nothing *inherently* wrong with this, especially since so much at the smallest of scales has been heretofore unexplored and unknown, and many benefits have been realized from this particular approach to scientific research.

This approach is *problematic*, though, when used inappropriately, as in contexts that are *social* -- macroscopic -- in nature. Marxists posit that individual identity is *socially* constructed, so it follows that a reductionistic approach is going to be necessarily flawed -- usually manifesting as some kind of idealism / dualism wherein a "core essence" of a person's identity (or 'human nature') is sought after, as through the ideology of biological determinism that you described.

Internalizing an inaccurate representation or approach to the question of 'self' or 'social humanity' is not good for anyone since it is the equivalent of using faulty tools.

[ckaihatsu]

(Adding a point about a dialectical dynamic between social reality and individual self-determination....)





Marxists posit that individual identity is *socially* constructed,





We, as the detached observer / analyzer of history have to *first* make the decision as to whether all of history is *eventful* or not. If history, or particular segments of history, are considered to be 'uneventful' then there's not really anything *to study*.

If, however, we consider history as being made up of some kind of series of events then we have to take a step back and ask where these events *come from* -- is there a driving force *common* to all of them, or are they just kind of *random*, like the weather affecting a body of water?

If there *is* some kind of *pattern*, or *commonality*, to these events then they're *not* random -- we can attempt to discern what *kind* of pattern drives them, exactly, and what the basis of the *pattern* may be.

The tricky part of all of this, as with *any* science, is that you can only see what you're aiming the microscope at. If you're looking at the events in one particular neighborhood of an urban area you *may* be able to discern a correlation between *world* events and that neighborhood, or you may not. I'll argue, on the basis of theory, that a correlation *does* exist between the world stage and the particulars of the events in our individual lives, but I won't attempt to convince you of it. (I would have to make a specific argument about specific world events to a specific urban area.)

And, just because I can say that we're *influenced* by world events doesn't mean that we're 100% *controlled* by them, either -- there's *some* kind of correlation but we have relative amounts of autonomy and self-determination at the *individual* scale, too.

[blake 3:17]

I'm with you, in part at least, in critiquing science as a continual specialization of specialization. Heidegger's essay on technology is probably the single strongest critique of this direction.

I came across a story not long ago about a man waiting outside the hospital room of wife who was dying of multiple illnesses and cancers. A hand-arm specialist had gone into the room to check on her injured wrist and came out full of happiness -- Her wrist was going to be fine! Nothing to worry about! Other than the fact she was going to be dead soon... I suppose it's a version of "Other than that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?"

I'm very familiar with Left, feminist and anti-racist critiques of bio-determinism. Some of them them are OK, others are stupidly anti-essentialist to the point of denying that people are animals. In discussing this thread with a friend, we got to joking about the possibility of tigers mating with spiders. He said in the future, I said in the precapitalist past.

Obviously we make choices. A key reason that human beings are the dominant species* on Earth is that we have very extended periods of childhood and adolescence compared to most every other creature. The field of neuroplasticity is extremely exciting in terms of developmental psychology and medical rehabilitation. People develop in much more fluid ways than other animals do.

Having said that, there is NO REASON to think that our brains have developed to put us at a disadvantage in the process of natural selection. Darwin's theory of natural selection is different from other theories of evolution, many of which are just naive.

*My favourite piece of Gould's is this essay on bacteria. I think it helps put us in our place: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_bacteria.html

[zoot_allures]

Maybe we're "wired" that way - though I tend to very skeptical of those kinds of claims - but that doesn't at all resemble how I think about things. I'm not remotely interested in "winning" arguments, in proving myself right, etc. I'm interested in exploring possibilities and learning about how other people's beliefs work. Still, unfortunately, I guess my kind of approach isn't so popular, especially on the internet.

Anyway, to answer your question, no, I don't recall ever seeing anybody change their fundamental position during a live debate.