Why do you have links to random advertisements BloodShadow?
Because an excerpt from a book isn't the point, it's the argument contained -within- that excerpt that you're supposd to focus on.
What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online.
But if you lose, doesn't that mean the
other person has won? If the other person was won, from their point of view a "you" has technically won the argument and proved their facts "correct" (no matter how fallacious, and regardless of whether they are disproved later on)
...The bias for the National Guard or the protesters was stronger the more knowledgeable the subject. The people who only had a basic understanding experienced a weak backfire effect when considering the evidence. The backfire effect pushed those who had put more thought into the matter farther from the gray areas....
Doesn't this and the corresponding argument in the article imply that there was a group that knew enough about the Kent State Incident to make a rational judgement, but were willing enough to concede to an opposing belief?
There should be someone in the world with enough skepticism or weak enough beliefs to be able to realize they cannot be right all the time in argument - in fact, the very existence of the 'judge' and 'jury' in a court system with a prosecutor and a defending attorney prove the awareness of the fact that there must be someone who is able to arbitrate without falling to any bias (including the backfire effect)?
From their respective Wikipedia articles :
A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict (a finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty, not guilty, or (in Scotland) not proven. Juries are composed of jurors (also sometimes known as jurymen), who are by definition illiterates in the law and finders of fact, not professionals.
A judge is an official who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and in an open court. The judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the parties of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, and then issues a ruling on the matter at hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury. In inquisitorial systems of criminal investigation, a judge might also be an examining magistrate.
As an example case : The
Boston Massacre of 1770 was conducted at the time under popular opinion that the Britsh soldiers involved were murderser - from eyewitness reports, the colonists involved could've been anything from people throwing insults to be people that provoked the soldiers by hurling rocks. Despite the colonists believing the Massacre was a one-sided murder
and potentially intimidating Loyalist/pro-British lawyers to decline defending the soldiers at the trial, John Adams instead took up the opposing standpoint despite the very likely possibility that majority opinion was against the British soldiers in the interest of a "fair trial".
The jury agreed with Adams and acquitted six of the soldiers after two and one-half hours deliberation. Two of the soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter because there was overwhelming evidence that they fired directly into the crowd. The jury's decisions suggest that they believed the soldiers had felt threatened by the crowd, but should have delayed firing.[63] Patrick Carr, the fifth victim, corroborated this with a deathbed testimony delivered to his doctor.[64] The convicted soldiers were granted reduced sentences by invoking Benefit of clergy, which reduced their punishment from a death sentence to branding of the thumb in open court.[65]
What stands out the most to me is the highlighted statement - despite the backfire effect implying that a dying victim of the massacre should condemn his 'murders' ("I'm dying because of these guys, they were shooting at me! That's evidence enough!"), he chose instead to support the idea that the crowd had wrongly provoked the soldiers, even if the soldiers had responded too soon.
Another thing to note is that the majority of soldiers were acquitted despite popular opinion that they had committed murder. John Adams, as a result, won 'his' argument based on the 'legal right to fight back', but was willing to
concede the point that firing back did imply manslaughter - a 'middle ground', as Rootranger mentioned above that would accept a compromise of the two stories. ('Innocent' self defense vs. Murder)
There's a flaw in my argument, though : I'm using a rather outdated court case to argue a against a point that may have strongly changed due to the advent of the Internet. With the emphasis on speed, it is much easier for people to misbelieve things.
While I could potentially argue that one must 'scale' the environment (Boston Massacre to Boston, Internet to Earth) of the cases involved, I am unwilling to argue this point without finding further proof that the Internet does not alter either the backfire effect or the 'want to concede'. As a result I've stopped myself from arguing a point that may strengthen a 'backfire' on me despite the presence of a contradicting factor/('a correction') that may completely prove my argument invalid, at least until I find proof or another factor that lets me consider the argument of 'want to concede' further. The fact that I am willing to accept a damaging variable into my argument proves that it is possible to be 'self-skeptic' ; if it turns out that the presence of the Internet or other outside factors is wrong, then the most practical course would be to accept it until another contradiction to the 'fact' is exposed, in which then the process would repeat as I try to discern which side of the argument is accurate, or a combination of both of the arguments is accurate.
Another thing to consider : A competitive card game PvP match can simplified to two players trying to prove that their deck is superior, with each individual deck representing an 'argument' made out of cards that they feel are better.
If people really hate to lose on the Internet, then what is the point of 'good sportsmanship' on this forum or card games in general? Why, if a player supposedly stubbornly 'believes' only his combination of cards will result in victory, do other players go back to reconfigure decks and change strategies, or even scrap decks altogether? (If you scrap a deck, you admit the deck's strategy was wrong to use since it cannot prove superior to other decks.)
Regardless of right or wrong, this was definitely an article that made me think for a bit. Thanks for sharing the link, Bloodshadow.
