03-08-2011, 09:35 PM
We know (social science principles) that arguing points is far more likely to elicit refutation and counter-argument, and to entrench opposing points of view, than it is to convince anyone they were wrong to start with.
A quick example: I don't give a (add chosen expressive noun) about football... but if someone starts arguing that Team X is way, way better than Team Y - a Team that I maybe once used to 'support' (in a very loose and lukewarm use of the that term) - then I just might be tempted to argue for Team Y... and the more I argue, the more I come to believe that Team Y really does have merits over Team X... which may or may not be true. The only effect of my arguing, though, will be to convince the supporter of Team X that they are right, because they've come to believe it more strongly the more they've heard themselves arguing the case.
Time to walk away from this one? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Ian
A quick example: I don't give a (add chosen expressive noun) about football... but if someone starts arguing that Team X is way, way better than Team Y - a Team that I maybe once used to 'support' (in a very loose and lukewarm use of the that term) - then I just might be tempted to argue for Team Y... and the more I argue, the more I come to believe that Team Y really does have merits over Team X... which may or may not be true. The only effect of my arguing, though, will be to convince the supporter of Team X that they are right, because they've come to believe it more strongly the more they've heard themselves arguing the case.
Time to walk away from this one? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Ian