No one can win any arguments, ever.

[OldTrees]

The backfire effect is caused by a perceived attack. If you do not argue in an attacking manner, you can accomplish fruitful discussion and avoid the backfire effect. This is one of the many reasons I prefer to seek truth rather than win debates. My motive leads me towards methods that avoid the backfire effect.

[Bloodshadow]

And (s)he was also expressing that (s)he could not care less about your opinion.

Notice how I did not make a claim of not caring about his opinion until provoked. Again, the provocation was uncalled for, if we're to keep basic civility in this place and not go around insulting everything and everyone we don't like.

I think it was a response that demonstrates very well the problems of philosophical sophism, although the response may not have been made with that purpose in mind.

Essentially: if your claim is true, then, according to yourself, you are wasting your time trying to convince people it is true. If it is not true, people are wasting their time looking at an un-truth.

Edit:
(I am not insulting/berating/otherwise direspecting you, by the way. I am only arguing, on philosophical grounds, that the act of making this particular claim is meaningless, similar to claiming the truthfulness of the statement 'there exists no truth')

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am merely giving them an opportunity to gain what I believe to be knowledge. If they accept it, good. If they don't, sucks for them. Whether they keep wasting time in arguments or not is of no benefit or detriment to me.

The backfire effect is caused by a perceived attack. If you do not argue in an attacking manner, you can accomplish fruitful discussion and avoid the backfire effect. This is one of the many reasons I prefer to seek truth rather than win debates. My motive leads me towards methods that avoid the backfire effect.

Any statement can be perceived as an attack, especially if you're someone like me.

[OldTrees]

The backfire effect is caused by a perceived attack. If you do not argue in an attacking manner, you can accomplish fruitful discussion and avoid the backfire effect. This is one of the many reasons I prefer to seek truth rather than win debates. My motive leads me towards methods that avoid the backfire effect.

Any statement can be perceived as an attack, especially if you're someone like me.

True, this solution was never advertised as easy. Sometimes it takes an extreme amount of empathy to effectively enact this technique. Sometimes this technique takes humility and the assumption that you are wrong. However sometimes it merely takes being warm, friendly and understanding.

[Bloodshadow]

Unfortunately, people who are warm, friendly, understanding, and capable of grasping that they can be wrong are few and far between. Especially on the internet.

Also, being able to grasp that you can be wrong won't necessarily protect you from the backfire effect. For example, I'm capable of grasping that I can be wrong, but I don't want to be wrong. I really, really, really hate losing. So if you throw more contradictory evidence my way, it'll only increase my desperation of trying to prove that I'm not wrong. That's the backfire effect right there.

The only people who aren't as susceptible to the backfire effect are the ones who don't care as much about losing. And those are even rarer.

[whatifidogetcaught?]

"You can't argue with ignorance." This article more than proves a quote I have always lived by.

[OldTrees]

Unfortunately, people who are warm, friendly, understanding, and capable of grasping that they can be wrong are few and far between. Especially on the internet.

Also, being able to grasp that you can be wrong won't necessarily protect you from the backfire effect. For example, I'm capable of grasping that I can be wrong, but I don't want to be wrong. I really, really, really hate losing. So if you throw more contradictory evidence my way, it'll only increase my desperation of trying to prove that I'm not wrong. That's the backfire effect right there.

The only people who aren't as susceptible to the backfire effect are the ones who don't care as much about losing. And those are even rarer.

I was describing characteristics of the one convincing not the one being convinced. An honest show of humility can easily dispel any illusion of aggression. Dispelling this illusion is the first step to preventing them from suffering the backfire effect.

[Bloodshadow]

"You can't argue with ignorance." This article more than proves a quote I have always lived by.

Many people seem to think that their opponent's ignorance will go away if they give him or her the necessary knowledge. However, this article provides evidence that it isn't the case; the ignorant person will resist your attempt to give him or her knowledge. Then it's not really ignorance anymore, but obstinacy. You can argue with ignorance, but you can't argue with obstinacy. Some people are only ignorant, but many ignorant people are also obstinate.

I was describing characteristics of the one convincing not the one being convinced. An honest show of humility can easily dispel any illusion of aggression. Dispelling this illusion is the first step to preventing them from suffering the backfire effect.

Oops. I slightly misunderstood you there.

But even if you try to show humility, the other person might perceive you as patronizing or something. An aggressive person is almost always going to be aggressive no matter how you approach him or her.

[OldTrees]

I was describing characteristics of the one convincing not the one being convinced. An honest show of humility can easily dispel any illusion of aggression. Dispelling this illusion is the first step to preventing them from suffering the backfire effect.

But even if you try to show humility, the other person might perceive you as patronizing or something. An aggressive person is almost always going to be aggressive no matter how you approach him or her.

The point is if you try you can sometimes* bypass the backfire effect via this technique.
*Frequency dependent on your skill with this technique.

[furballdn]

It's been said that brevity is the soul of wit. While I appreciate a long article backed up with lots of evidence and other interesting tidbits, I'm more interested in the theme on what it's trying to say.

Am I correct in assuming that what it's trying to say is that when people's beliefs are attacked, instead of modifying them with new information, people hold on to them even more steadfastly?

[Bloodshadow]

The point is if you try you can sometimes* bypass the backfire effect via this technique.
*Frequency dependent on your skill with this technique.

I, being cynical, am inclined to believe that this technique will fail more often than not. I mean, try it on 4chan.

It's been said that brevity is the soul of wit. While I appreciate a long article backed up with lots of evidence and other interesting tidbits, I'm more interested in the theme on what it's trying to say.

Am I correct in assuming that what it's trying to say is that when people's beliefs are attacked, instead of modifying them with new information, people hold on to them even more steadfastly?

Yes. I did kind of summarize the article in the first post of this thread, and it's pretty much what you just said.

[OldTrees]

The point is if you try you can sometimes* bypass the backfire effect via this technique.
*Frequency dependent on your skill with this technique.

I, being cynical, am inclined to believe that this technique will fail more often than not. I mean, try it on 4chan.

Prior results on people from 4chan: 1 convinced and 1 bypassed backfire* out of 2 tries. (More trials needed)
*Turns out I was wrong in that case.

[Bloodshadow]

...did you seriously try to convince people of stuff on 4chan?

It might've been one of those relatively good parts of 4chan. Try /b/.