Is it actually possible to persuade people of anything online?

[dscross]

Is there any real point to online debates, or are people just looking for validation of their own points of view and won't listen to others if they read it in text form? It's very rare that I see a resolution to debates online. The most that ever happens is one person stops replying if they have no counter or they have grown tired of the argument.

 

[Kyrian007]

I think its the anonymous (or at least impersonal) nature of it. Its fairly hard to change someone's mind live, in person or on the phone or skyping or whatever. When you add a lack of real consequences plus the escape button of just bailing on the thread... No, online is just an echo chamber. No discussion of any real importance will happen... with an exception. Within specific professional circles, scheduled online meetings can be pretty meaningful. An example, my job made it possible for me to be a part of the online discussions of the reclassifications in the Enhanced Fujita Scale for measuring tornado strength by examining the damage it causes. That was fairly important for reconciling the classification with some measured data. However, the same changes would probably have been made without any of the online meetings I attended. So... no nothing of any real importance is generally solved in online discussion.

 

[Saelune]

My opinions have been changed, better informed, altered etc from arguments online. I just am rarely an active member of the argument. I have read pages of arguments in topics that I did not post even once in.

I argue often with specific people, people that we all know I am not going to convince to my side, but I need to disprove them to onlookers, so that they can make a hopefully better judgement than if the other side is left unargued.


Basically, online arguments are more like court cases with two lawyers opposing each other. They are not trying to convince the other lawyer, they are trying to convince the Judge and/or Jury.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

Yes, I would say it happens all the time. But for controversial topics, the angrier the conversation goes, the less likely someone will change their mind.

It's always those topics that get people to turn up anyways.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If there's an actual debate, yes. If some third party is reading an argument but not contributing, yes. Or if someone is asking about an issue they've no strong opinions about, yes.

 

[Marik2]

Yes and no

 

[Elijin]

It is possible to persuade people, and you'll never convince me otherwise.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Is there any real point to online debates, or are people just looking for validation of their own points of view and won't listen to others if they read it in text form? It's very rare that I see a resolution to debates online. The most that ever happens is one person stops replying if they have no counter or they have grown tired of the argument.

When I first read the thread title I was sure my answer would be "yes". But then I read your well-reasoned post and am now convinced the answer is "no".

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

Take Jordan Peterson as an example.
How do you think he got most of his following? Online or live?
How do you think he spreads his ideas? Online or live?
Dude was a nobody 2 years ago but now, thanks to quick viral videos, he became an online sensation with a best selling self help book and $60k per month on Patreon. If that's not persuading people online, I don't know what is.

 

[Catnip1024]

Citation needed.

People might not admit they're wrong, but they at least generally get exposed to other facts / views etc. Hopefully they come to a position where they acknowledge that at the very least it is possible to rationally hold the opposing view.

But yeah, not always.

Take Jordan Peterson as an example.
How do you think he got most of his following? Online or live?
How do you think he spreads his ideas? Online or live?
Dude was a nobody 2 years ago but now, thanks to quick viral videos, he became an online sensation with a best selling self help book and $60k per month on Patreon. If that's not persuading people online, I don't know what is.

Is that persuading people, or appealing to people already inclined to buy into your statements? I mean, the people inclined to disagree with him initially seem to have just become slightly more vocal about it, more than anything else.

 

[Saelune]

Take Jordan Peterson as an example.
How do you think he got most of his following? Online or live?
How do you think he spreads his ideas? Online or live?
Dude was a nobody 2 years ago but now, thanks to quick viral videos, he became an online sensation with a best selling self help book and $60k per month on Patreon. If that's not persuading people online, I don't know what is.

I think Peterson is not persuading people, but giving people who want excuses for their bigotry a 'reason' for why they are right for being bigots.

 

[Saelune]

Take Jordan Peterson as an example.
How do you think he got most of his following? Online or live?
How do you think he spreads his ideas? Online or live?
Dude was a nobody 2 years ago but now, thanks to quick viral videos, he became an online sensation with a best selling self help book and $60k per month on Patreon. If that's not persuading people online, I don't know what is.

Is that persuading people, or appealing to people already inclined to buy into your statements? I mean, the people inclined to disagree with him initially seem to have just become slightly more vocal about it, more than anything else.

Oh hey, I basically said the same thing.


Throw one on the pile of things we sorta agree on!

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Online, usually the people they are trying to persuade isn't the person they are debating against.

 

[Squilookle]

Sure they do. For years I thought it was pointless updating everyone from DVD to Blu-Ray and would always argue that case, until it was pointed out to me that Blu-Ray gets the image quality up past the point the human eye can distinguish, which DVD wasn't quite able to do.

Or something like that. It made sense at the time.

 

[Azraellod]

It is 100% possible to change someone's opinion in online debates, as long as it is not framed openly as a debate. Making someone feel like they're championing something against an aggressive opponent is not the way to go, it'll just make you come off as a hostile jerk from the other side. The instant a debate turns hostile, neither side will want to back down and the only result is a dumb internet fight of value only to onlookers.

The method of changing people's minds is calm persuasion, explanation, and an acknowledgement of the weaknesses of both sides of an argument at times. Use casual and familiar slang, be friendly. I have both changed minds and had my own mind changed, but have never done it while behaving in a hostile manner.

Oh, and cite your sources where you can, or whatever you say can easily be dismissed out of hand. Evidence helps.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Take Jordan Peterson as an example.
How do you think he got most of his following? Online or live?
How do you think he spreads his ideas? Online or live?
Dude was a nobody 2 years ago but now, thanks to quick viral videos, he became an online sensation with a best selling self help book and $60k per month on Patreon. If that's not persuading people online, I don't know what is.

It's not.

It's marketing yourself to people who are already going to agree with what you have to say.

Peterson knows his audience, and knows that preaching to the choir=$$$

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

I used to be a rather conservative religious man. But I got into online arguments I couldnt win and it lead to me changing my points of view. It changed my point of view, but it was a slow process and I cant really say if one single person ever personally changed my opinions. Except for in factual matters where I was objectively wrong and corrected of course.

So it worked on me.

 

[Just Ebola]

Take Jordan Peterson as an example.
How do you think he got most of his following? Online or live?
How do you think he spreads his ideas? Online or live?
Dude was a nobody 2 years ago but now, thanks to quick viral videos, he became an online sensation with a best selling self help book and $60k per month on Patreon. If that's not persuading people online, I don't know what is.

It's not.

It's marketing yourself to people who are already going to agree with what you have to say.

Peterson knows his audience, and knows that preaching to the choir=$$$

I'll concede that my boy JP isn't a good example of changing people's minds. But I don't think it has to do with how well he markets himself. He's just giving voice to a large portion of people who are frustrated with social vigilantism and militant left-wing thinking. He exploded the way he did because a lot of people agree with him. Brilliant man, I drink to his health.

OT: It depends? When I see people ask these types of questions I have to wonder whether they understand that people are different or not.

 

[dscross]

OT: It depends? When I see people ask these types of questions I have to wonder whether they understand that people are different or not.

And it's when I see people make that kind of statement I wonder whether they understand the point of generalised questions to provoke discussion or not.

 

[Just Ebola]

OT: It depends? When I see people ask these types of questions I have to wonder whether they understand that people are different or not.

And it's when I see people make that kind of statement I wonder whether they understand the point of generalised questions to provoke discussion or not.

Well the general consensus of the discussion seems to be what I said: Depends. But you're right, that was nit-picky of me.