Has anyone ever changed your opinion on these forums?

[Barbas]

Frequently, behind the scenes, with their consideration as much as the content of their posts. They taught me a lot of what I know.

 

[drummond13]

Has someone changed my mind on a subject? Yes. Many times.

Has someone on this forum done so? Nope. Never. At least, not so far.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

No, allowing strangers with no clear accredidation to influence you is weak minded.

That just simply isn't true. Accreditation and influence has nothing to do with the validity of arguments. That's the true beauty of the internet.

The Internet is a false place, I can't verify anybody here in any reliable way and I can't determine their motivations when dispensing opinions.

This doesn't matter in the slightest. A logical, well founded argument is a logical, well founded argument. Whether it's a Nobel prize winner or a mentally handicapped white supremacist means nothing. Arguments stand on their own as arguments.

If you're referring to factual arguments, knowing the status of the individual giving the argument can actually hurt interaction. People will often accept information from reputable sources without any factual evidence whatsoever.
Evidence is its own argument and ignoring arguments based on evidence just because you don't know who is providing the evidence is just putting your hands over your ears to escape from facts.
[quote/]
Basically if some Internet stranger says something that I don't agree with it just washes by me because I can't even be sure it's what they really believe.
[/quote]
Again, it doesn't matter. Personal belief in an argument has no impact on the validity of the argument.

 

[zerragonoss]

The Internet is a false place, I can't verify anybody here in any reliable way and I can't determine their motivations when dispensing opinions. The people who do have that kind of influence over me are rare and special, proven verifiably to be worth listening to. Even then my willingness to adjust a view is determined by the subject they are advising me on as much as by who they are. For example, I am more likely to follow my dad's financial advice then my grandmothers but when it comes to the raising of my daughter I am more likely to listen to my grandmother (assuming the two offer conflicting advice).

You seem to be disregarding the idea of pure augmentation, or logic. Yes you don't know who any of these people are, so in turn you are no longer arguing with them your are simply interacting with the words on the page. If they use facts yes you should start to doubt and verify, but for the most part they don't use facts the just argue. If words on a page can sway you, with out any knowledge of who made, but simply with their own power than that is not a reason to distrust them, its one to trust them all the more.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

No, allowing strangers with no clear accredidation to influence you is weak minded.

That just simply isn't true. Accreditation and influence has nothing to do with the validity of arguments. That's the true beauty of the internet.

The Internet is a false place, I can't verify anybody here in any reliable way and I can't determine their motivations when dispensing opinions.

This doesn't matter in the slightest. A logical, well founded argument is a logical, well founded argument. Whether it's a Nobel prize winner or a mentally handicapped white supremacist means nothing. Arguments stand on their own as arguments.

If you're referring to factual arguments, knowing the status of the individual giving the argument can actually hurt interaction. People will often accept information from reputable sources without any factual evidence whatsoever.
Evidence is its own argument and ignoring arguments based on evidence just because you don't know who is providing the evidence is just putting your hands over your ears to escape from facts.
[quote/]
Basically if some Internet stranger says something that I don't agree with it just washes by me because I can't even be sure it's what they really believe.

Again, it doesn't matter. Personal belief in an argument has no impact on the validity of the argument.[/quote]

I was discussing subjective opinions, if it's an argument of facts I would review reputable sources and adjust beliefs if the facts were different from what I believed. That adjustment would e based on facts from the source, not the anonymous poster I don't know or care about.

In the matter of subjective opinions, sorry but no. Argue as eloquently as you want, I still despise Valve games and love Gears of War. I still wouldn't listen if you have me investment advice because I was a broker for ten years before quitting to run my own business, and the Game of Thrones TV show sucks compared to the books. I have no reason to change any of those views because I simply don't care about an anonymous persons preferences. None of the words displayed on any forum have the weight or ability to change my view. Of course this also comes from me being smarter than most people and never factually wrong about anything, ever.

For subjective matters someone I don't know impacts me about as much as a feather in a light breeze.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

The Internet is a false place, I can't verify anybody here in any reliable way and I can't determine their motivations when dispensing opinions. The people who do have that kind of influence over me are rare and special, proven verifiably to be worth listening to. Even then my willingness to adjust a view is determined by the subject they are advising me on as much as by who they are. For example, I am more likely to follow my dad's financial advice then my grandmothers but when it comes to the raising of my daughter I am more likely to listen to my grandmother (assuming the two offer conflicting advice).

You seem to be disregarding the idea of pure augmentation, or logic. Yes you don't know who any of these people are, so in turn you are no longer arguing with them your are simply interacting with the words on the page. If they use facts yes you should start to doubt and verify, but for the most part they don't use facts the just argue. If words on a page can sway you, with out any knowledge of who made, but simply with their own power than that is not a reason to distrust them, its one to trust them all the more.

No. I accept facts, only solid verifiable facts. And as I stated every subjective opinion is countered by someone with the opposite view. Since I know for a fact I am smart, successful and happy why would I care that someone feels differently about a subjective matter? I hold an anonymous persons opinion with zero regard, the greatest determiner of my opinions is myself, followed closely by the people closest to me who have earned the right to exercise influence over me.

 

[FPLOON]

I have no idea... Ask me again in a couple more years...

But seriously, I think the only thing I can say has changed is how I plan to comment on a particular thread... Although, I think the only thing that will never change is my fear of getting quoted by another user...

Stupid irrational fear...

 

[Erttheking]

Sorta. I used to be a lot more conservative, and while it didn't all come from one direction, there was a lot of pushing that made me go into a more liberal way of thinking. This website was a big factor, but not the sole factor.

 

[viscomica]

Nope. I mean, not on the escapist but recently discussing vegemite (yes, vegemite) with an aussie (while on youtube of all places) I was willing to admit I might have been wrong. It's fun and entertaining and constructive to discuss one's ideas with other people who might not think like you but the key is learning from that. You can't always be right, and the minute you allow yourself to reconsider and either confirm your initial ideas or see things in a different way you are gaining something from the discussion. That is a great thing to achieve.