Good luck with expecting the arm-chair experts to acknowledge they don’t know as much as they think they do.
1 Like
You take your time fella. Can I suggest a year or 2?..
1 Like
He liked the Night Rod (fnarr)
1 Like
Not voting and not particularly interested in the results, subjective as they’ll be.
Very few people anywhere will admit they’re ‘wrong’ in an argument, although it does happen. Particularly when the person is debating something they’re rational about rather than emotional about.
A more achievable point of any debate is to cause some longer-term review on the matter by the other party, by introducing some doubt in their position on the topic. Once you get a crack in a solidified mindset, the other party might, eventually, become open to further expanding their awareness.
The other method is to frame the debate for the audience, where you aren’t even trying to change the other persons point of view, you’re merely using them as a foil to present your view and their view to an outside audience (many of whom aren’t even participating). This is why you notice so few replies to the usual forum trolls in my own posts, for instance. By the time the trolls start trolling, I’ve already made my point to the audience and can ignore them and move on.
And of course, there’s the trolls reason for arguing. They’re not looking to change any views. They just need the ego-sop of being able to say “Yer stupid, so there!” and/or they need the validation that getting a response from someone else gives them. Since that’s just drama-queening, they don’t even have a position you can actually change, they just want the recognition.
1 Like
You may consider me to have changed your mind, but I believe the change is due to explaining context and mechanics so that you had the opportunity to make a more informed decision about the scenario, rather than convincing you that your stance was a bad one to take in the first place (and to be clear - I don’t think it was a bad stance, simply misinformed). It’s a subtle difference, but an important one, and why I made my statement in this thread the way I did.
Thanks for crediting me with the change, but I genuinely believe you are responsible for your changed stance - all I did was make an effort to give you the missing context that made a difference.
2 Likes
“I know that I know nothing”
2 Likes
No. Ignoring the misinterpretation coming from your own issues with yourself …
… I definitely did not stop doing that just because there’s no good occasion for me to do so.
This is great! Why don’t you link it? 
I’ve noticed this being a thing. It didn’t occur to me before I’ve come across people (like @Eve_Griefer in a post below yours) who did something because of something else I did. When I was attempting causing this intentionally it was a completely different thing compared to doing it unintentionally and realizing the depth of the interconnectedness between everyone.
Nicolai is on reddit, in case that’s who you were referring to. He’s a forum-meme by now.
I hope he’s reading us occasionally.
I always wonder how these situations turned out, which ultimately made you introspect and change things. It doesn’t seem to be a common thing nowadays. I’m often wondering if it’s inner resistance preventing it, or if the outside input is just not of high enough quality to make a difference.
The world needs more of you. 
Thank you.
Well technically you wouldn’t get any, because you (just like no one else!!! 
) didn’t post any links to other places on the forums … lol … but that wouldn’t matter, because I recognize and respect your achievements and absolutely believe you, so I would have sent the money anyway. Glad you don’t want it, though.
You’re telling me you have changed their minds? Outrageous!
No one changed their minds ever! lol
I must insist on you providing evidence for your claims!
Nonsense.
Utter nonsense!
Man … what the ■■■■?!
I don’t know! Can you share a link so I can read up on it?
Btw, you’re the reason for the existence of this thread!
There was this guy, relatively recently, who changed his mind because of what you said!
… and now I see he posted a few posts below your own.
Thank you.
I’d love to know why or how or what made you do it!
Thank you! Sure!
Can you please link the conversation?
Yes! People don’t stick to actual definitions and meanings, dunning-krueger makes them believe they know everything about a topic already, ignorance turns discussions into a contest about arguments instead of reception and comparison of information. Pseudo-discussions we’ve gotten used to because the bar of entry got so low that even those, who aren’t qualified, can easily participate, ruining it for everyone else.
Thus the exclusion in my initial post. 
And now I’ve learned the difference between hence and thus …
… though I don’t know if I’m applying it correctly.
…
No one posted a single link to even one forum discussion he had.
It’s like I didn’t actually ask for it and totally didn’t put a bounty on it.
Fascinating.
2 Likes
I see from your multiple edits since I posted that you managed to qualify your OP to the point where you can weasel out of paying anyone the ISK you had no intention of paying in the first place. This thread is just another cry for attention.
Here’s some advice. Stop bumping your own threads for no reason but to keep them fake relevant. Let them live or die on their own merit.
If you actually manage to accept this advice and change your constant begging for positive affirmation into becoming a productive member of the community, I’ll link back to this post for my payment.
Mr Epeen 
2 Likes
Githany would need to do this, Ive no idea what instances he means lol
1 Like
j/k You’re probably right on that…it probably never happened ever.
I wish I actually had, I’d print it out, frame it, and put it on my wall.
Technically his admission is off-forum, so I cannot. 
Awww, that’s sweet - it’s very flattering to have someone start a thread because of something they liked about an interaction with me, direct or observed.
2 Likes
Back then I was able to persuade some miners to the dark side after I can flipped them, but it was a very small percentage.
Beyond that would be explaining things in rookie channel but generally those players don’t have fixed in stone persuasions just yet.
1 Like
So, one of the principles that the U.S. legal system is based off of is Stare Decisis -otherwise known as precedent. It means that unless there are factors that sufficiently distinguish a case from previous cases, it should be decided in the same way. Now, if our judges were truly objective and unbiased in rendering their decisions, it wouldn’t matter who got appointed to the Supreme Court. They’d all arrive at the same conclusions, no matter what their political beliefs were. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be the case. After all, political beliefs are an exceptionally good predictor of how most justices will decide court cases, and politicians fight tooth and nail to get their picks appointed. Turns out that even our most highly educated, experienced, and esteemed minds, whose job is to literally to be dispassionate arbiters, will stick pick and chose the facts that suits their needs.
Now, you might think that this is something that they do consciously, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Social psychologists have done a lot of research into how humans think, and have found that we are extremely resistant to changing our minds -and this resistance is increased under certain circumstances, such as when the belief in question ties into things like core beliefs and self identity. Turns out, were not only susceptible to brain failures (a catch all term that I use for things such as logically fallacies, biases, cognitive pitfalls, and heuristic failures) when it comes to forming beliefs, but when it comes to maintaining our existing beliefs (it’s all kind of a mindfuck as you learn more about it). And let me be clear, idiots aren’t the only people that are susceptible to brain failures. Even supreme court justices fall victim to them. So, it isn’t an isolated problem -it’s human nature. It’s the way our minds work.
My brother started arguing politics with one his best friends after Trump got elected, and he recently started asking me questions about brain failures (he essentially wanted ammunition for his arguments with his friend). I talked to him about it, but told him not to try to use this stuff to win arguments. It just doesn’t work. I’ve tried, and found that essentially telling people that they don’t know how to think just makes them get defensive (and probably makes me look like a pretentious douchbag). Moreover, we’re not always open to persuasion. Indeed, some of our beliefs are entirely divorced from logic and reason, and instead serve a psychological need.
You may have heard that belief in conspiracy theories serve psychological needs, but I like my personal example. So, I’m a recovering alcoholic who has done all sorts of ■■■■■■ up ■■■■ in my addiction. One day I was talking to my mom on the phone (and not really paying attention because I was playing Eve or something), and I eventually realized that she was discussing some of the ■■■■■■ up things that I had done in the past. The interesting thing about it, however, is that even though she remembered the broad strokes of what happened, she had changed all the little details in a way that painted me in a better light. And I don’t think this was a simple failure of memory. It just broke her heart to think of me as a monster, so she somehow rewrote her memories so that I was less of one.
I could go on about things such as the belief in a just world bias, but you should get the idea. I just don’t think this kind of information is useful for changing other people’s minds. People aren’t always available to be persuaded, and telling them that their brain is broken probably isn’t going to turn things around. This kind of knowledge does, however, help me to avoid “brain failures” and to keep an open mind. Obviously, I’m not perfect, but I’d like to think that I’ve gotten better.
Anyway, you might like this video by Dan Olsen of Folding Ideas. It’s an hour long, and starts off kind of slow, but I found it quite interesting (it’s certainly more interesting than this wall of text that I threw at you). It starts off talking about flat earthers, and then takes a twist.
7 Likes
@Shipwreck_Jones
But what changed your mind personally from headed-to-bittervetville? Did you happen to make a video about your thoughts on the matter? (are you even still doing that sort of thing>)
Providing a link for every single instance of players admitting that I was right is way more work than what I want to do, especially since most of those forum posts are in different sub-forums of the first original forums that was active over 10 years ago. Currently we’re in the 3rd version of the Eve Online Forums.
Anyway, I’m glad you believe me. I’m sure that most posters here, especially old Vet’s still active from 10 years ago, will agree that over the years I’ve changed a lot of players perspective / position about Faction standings.
EDIT:
Sooo, it just occurred to me that technically I won this little poll event … 
8 Likes
Me: “I wonder if people are talking behind my back in this thread?”
@Shipwreck_Jones and @MB_ThePhotographer I’m cool with… but @Mkikaden_Tiragen, you crossed the line.
BTW Mkika I forgot whether I’m supposed to think if SICO is a scam corp or not… please correct & coerce my line of thinking, k thx
2 Likes
An excellent post, thanks. I often point out that EVE is poorly designed, because it keeps expecting people to act in ways that people don’t naturally act (except for niche elements). This is the sort of research that plays directly into good game design (or any-activity design, really), because it addresses “why do people actually do the things they do, rather than why they think they do it or prefer to believe they do it”. Sometimes people aren’t overly aware what it is they’re actually even doing. It’s quite the mystery at times.
At any rate, I agree that you can’t use this sort of information to change people’s minds. What I do use it for is to judge what kind of debate I’m having. Is it a rational debate that people aren’t emotionally invested in? Then facts and charts etc. are fine. Is it a debate about something that the other person has based part of their self-worth and identity on? Then you won’t change anything now, but you might open a crack for the future. And if there’s an audience, you can use that person’s irrationality to demonstrate the problems with their position.
There’s also a lot of what I think of as “positions of convenience”, where a person is just arguing a certain angle simply to be seen to be arguing that angle. It’s kind of debate-posing, where you just want a certain group to include you in the pack because you spout the right slogans. There isn’t a lot of commitment either way. In that case you still won’t change their ‘position’ unless you also make them decide to change the target group they’re posturing for.
1 Like
Human nature is too contemptuous and most people do not have enough character to admit they were wrong about a subject.
Kinda off topic but what is more important in life? (or in game) Intelligence or common sense? Do the 2 even correlate somehow?
Something about driving enemies home
And llama women or something.
1 Like