I was chatting with a friend some time ago about politics and rhetoric, and he said something I've heard many times: the idea that you really can't ever change someone's mind with a persuasive argument, that people see things through their own lens and assimilate all facts in a prejudicial manner that re-enforce their worldview. I am sure this is true of some people.
However, it's patently false overall. I myself have been convinced by arguments and facts to change many of my views. I always "believed" in "freedom" as I understood the notion at the time, but as a boy, I was what one might call a "default liberal." My parents were liberal, almost everyone I knew was a liberal, so I absorbed the liberalism around me.
Also, somewhere in there I became an agnostic/weak atheist.
Today I am a Christian with Universalist leanings and a pretty hardcore libertarian. Those shifts came almost purely from people who proved me wrong, showed me up, and convinced me to change my views.
Some came from just reading, like when Atlas Shrugged punched me in the gut showing me where modern "progressive" thought takes us. Most however, came from simply discussions with intelligent, thoughtful people who felt my brain was worth the time to change -- and then me checking out the facts on my own.
I have seen this happen with many others. I myself have watched people go from liberal or conservative to libertarian through the force of simple persuasion (as well as time and facts of course). I've had a hand in it -- I know for a fact it happens.
History shows this is also the case. As far as I have been able to see in history, MANY folks change through arguments and learning.
Pretty much every Christian I know who came to faith late did so through a process of simple persuasion, and almost every libertarian I know changed from either liberal or conservative in exactly the same manner -- I know of no libertarians who were "born into it."
I'm not going to go into a detailed account of the famous people in history who have changed their opinions and worldview, since I am not actually trying to convince anyone on this point -- I am merely making it to make another psychological point -- but one could simple play with wikipedia biographies and see what I am talking about. The idea that you really can't change someone's mind with a persuasive argument is incorrect.
Now, assuming that it IS incorrect and quite easy to see that it is, why would someone either lie, delude themselves, or simply decide that one can not convince people with the power of argument?
Could it be, possibly, that they want to make sure that they emotionally removed their intellectual liability to convince and are about to advocate force to achieve their ends?
I don't know, but the more I observe modern liberals and social conservatives who use this falsehood, the more I see it used in the context of them advocating using force against their fellow human beings while I am arguing against that concept.
They obviously believe that I can't be convinced (I can be, any time -- just make the case and prove me wrong and I will change on a dime. I always have) and that I must be forced to do their will. Meanwhile, I always hold out hope that one argument, one fact, or hopefully, time will change them.
I have faith in them and in reason. They seem to have faith neither in other people nor in the power of reason. Thus they advocate force.
I am highly uncertain of this idea, but I've been personally seeing more and more evidence for it -- the ones who say people can't be convinced are the same people who want to use violence or the threat of violence to attain their ends.
4 comments:
"They obviously believe that I can't be convinced (I can be, any time -- just make the case and prove me wrong and I will change on a dime. I always have) and that I must be forced to do their will. Meanwhile, I always hold out hope that one argument, one fact, or hopefully, time will change them."
The research in the area shows that people can be convinced by political arguments, but:
1. Con arguments are more convincing than Pro arguments (Cobb 1997).
2. Emotional arguments are more convincing than rational arguments (Arceneaux 2009).
3. Public identification with a position (or a political party) mediates the effectiveness of argument (Haselton and Buss 2000, 2003).
3.5) This effect seems to be more pronounced when the identified position is conservative (i.e. representative of the current status quo).
4. Populations have weak policy preferences, but individuals have strong policy preferences (Popkin 1991, Nelson 2004, Nelson 1997). For dummies version: If I make an argument that is 5% effective, 19 times out of 20 it fails on an individual, but a 5% swing in voter preferences is massive in a close policy vote.
This may explain the natural progression of populations towards conservatism as we look at older population groups compared to younger groups. The ideological positions that are imaginary (that imagine a better structure or system) are gradually shed. As an ideal is removed, a process often accurately referred to as disillusion, it has to be replaced. It is in that moment that one is most vulnerable to another argument. Statistically, that results most often in the status quo position being adopted, but at times can lead to religious conversion or theogenesis (recalling Muhammad's existensial crisis leading up to the first of his revelations), or the adoption of some newer position (the effect of science advancing "one funeral at a time").
People probably usually (disclaimed enough?) get into the mindset that people "can't be convinced" usually because they primarily use rational constructive arguments on people who embrace the status quo as a default.
Interesting stuff. However, the people who have said this to me are mostly (yeah we do have to qualify a lot in this discussion) young people arguing FOR the status quo, with me being the old guy arguing for change.
Plus I don't consider conservatism to be the status quo, at least insofar as it is defined colloquially. The status quo is economic liberalism and social conservatism.
Again it is those two groups who have said this to me more than people actually arguing against the status quo.
The people arguing against the status quo are the ones holding out hope and believe that people can be convinced with reason.
Again this is just from personal experience, not from any studies or anything.
"Plus I don't consider conservatism to be the status quo, at least insofar as it is defined colloquially. The status quo is economic liberalism and social conservatism."
I was using a non-standard definition of conservatism, mostly because I cannot think of another term for it (which is why I clarified that in my post).
As far as what is status quo, there are many status quos, and to look at the U.S. as an aggregate leads to all sorts of inconsistencies. My hometown was right-wing economically and socially; DC is marginally center-left economically and socially.
I'd hesitate to call our current national economic policy "liberal." From the perspective of the poor to working class, we are about as close to libertarian as the developed economies get, with minimal welfare for the indigent, no national health service (even after the recent law starts to kick in), and no public post-secondary education.
(Of course, it isn't really libertarian, either: At the same time, our government provides protection for profit-seeking (local) monopolies or national oligopolies in the health care, education, energy, and communications industries among others).
There is also significant regression in the current tax code (due to a nonsensical federal tax preference to passive income over labor income, low caps on social insurance taxes, predominantly flat state taxes, and the regressive nature of most consumption taxes in practice), which is only moderately countered by a superficially progressive income tax assessment.
In reality, the left/right paradigm just doesn't work very well at all in describing economic policy in U.S. What was my point originally?
It almost doesn't matter what your point was originally -- just nice to read your thoughts. Thoughtful and cogent they are (/hat tip to Master Yoda for my construction).
I think we are dancing around an issue that modern political semantics has made almost impossible to discuss intelligibly.
Basically we have to sit here, define our terms for a few pages, and THEN observe.
I would agree that none of this is TRUE liberalism -- we are talking some quasi-corporatist semi fascist thing -- sort of a socialism for the rich while the poor rot (not completely but I am sure you get what I mean here), in many ways a VERY non-progressive (by any definition of the word) system.
As far as the left/right paradigm, that construction fails to capture modern political thought.
I tend to prefer the quadrant view as seen in the "world's smallest political quiz" and such, where we have libertarianism as the opposite of authoritarianism and liberalism and conservatism are the middle paths.
That is also imperfect, but better.
Post a Comment