The Backfire Effect...instead of Convincing We may be Guilty of just the Opposite

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online. When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs.

Quote

The Backfire Effect. The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking. The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

Evidentially this board is actually driving each of us to a firmer conviction of our closely held cherished beliefs instead of convincing each other that our beliefs are in error.  

While I enjoy this board to test my beliefs and have them challenged I must admit that my participation here has yet to alter my beliefs...and in some instances has made them even more firm...and I'm guessing that believers are experiencing the same thing.  Correct? Have your beliefs been challenged or made firmer through your MD&D board participation?

Edited February 19, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Meadowchik]

At this moment my beliefs are somewhat on the edge of a knife, in limbo. My emotional attachment to the Church has been betrayed and so my rational mind is more open to information that I heretofore boxed away. Yet even as emotionally I start to feel better, I cannot unsee what I've seen. I love the Church but that love may permanently shift to a love for major values, while a testimony of truth claims may continue to disintegrate.

So, I suppose I am in one of those rare vulnerable stages where reading things here might influence me either way. 

It's weird. I see extraordinary good but also bad. I'm trying to figure out a way to participate without accepting everything but while also being frank and open while also allowing my children to make their own belief choices.

Anyways, I think that often on the internet influence can be gradual, so much to not be seen in a single conversation, or it may affect a lurker. I'd like to think the sincere truth seekers are attracted to good, solid arguments and so if that's your goal you may be helping someone without knowing you are.

[waveslider]

There's been a few things that I have learned on this site and humbly had to cede my point of view, but I have to admit that it is rare. On occasion I have also seen over thinking of subject matter to the point where it only serves to blind people from the simple basic truths on both sides of a disputed opinion, kind of like ignoring a giant elephant in the room. 

Recently I have grown fairly bored on this site because so many people rely so heavily on, "science," facts as is taught secularly, while discounting spiritual sources for truth, when there are so many questionable, "science," facts that so many people take as being completely, "settled," here on this board. This is why I haven't really been around here lately. Science needs to be questioned just as much as spiritual enlightenment is questioned on this site. Unfortunately I just don't see that happening anytime soon, so for the most part there really aren't too many things people cite that change my point of view since I rely on prayerful study to come to a knowledge of truth. When it comes to things that I have been shown in personal revelation, there truly is nothing that anyone can cite that will change my mind. When it comes to things I don't have a distinct answer on, perhaps I can be persuaded by certain citations. 

That all said there are quite a few things I have learned from lurking on threads where I didn't feel like I had anything to say that could contribute anything worthwhile to a given conversation. Mostly though, it seems like most of the conversations are nothing more than a rehash of the same types of arguments that keep getting thrown around in circular reasoning. 

My personal opinion is that either people put credence solely in man made wisdoms and philosophies, or they rely upon divine answers to settle any misconceptions of what truth is. I personally am one of the latter. I tend to think this is why no one can convince people one way or another by logic alone. To me this is what is meant by the, "mysteries of God." A revelation doesn't come through logic so it remains a mystery to anyone who doesn't believe in revelatory experiences. I am open minded though and don't mind checking things out that someone tries to convince me opposite to what I already know.... at least it lets me know what others believe and allows me to perhaps think of better ways to try and bridge the gap between secularism and divine revelation.

[Glenn101]

The "backfire effect" is not original to the internet. It is a human trait. I alone am immune to that (in my best imitation of the Nehor).

Glenn

[Jeanne]

This is very interesting.  My beliefs haven't changed..but I respect conviction and try hard to be open, patient and likewise kind.   There are times when I kick my heels in when I feel I am totally misunderstood and it gives me fervor to my own convictions. 

[california boy]

I must admit I have rarely had my opinion on an issue that I feel strong about changed.  And there are a great many issues and doctrine discussed on this board that I personally think are in direct conflict to what I believe to be the clear message that Christ taught.  There are also a lot of issues discussed on this board that I think align with my beliefs on the message of Christ.  I often don't comment on those issues because my beliefs are in sync with what others are confirming.  Perhaps I should join more in those conversations.

That said, it doesn't really matter to me if a consensus is reached.  To a large extent, the reason I am on this site is to hear the opinions and beliefs of others that have a different point of view.  That is the exact point of reading others comments.  I tried another, let's say more liberal slanted Mormon board.  It just had no interest for me.  If I only wanted to hear from people that shared the same beliefs that I have, I would  not even bother posting here.  

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Evidentially this board is actually driving each of us to a firmer conviction of our closely held cherished beliefs instead of convincing each other that our beliefs are in error.  

While I enjoy this board to test my beliefs and have them challenged I must admit that my participation here has yet to alter my beliefs...and in some instances has made them even more firm...and I'm guessing that believers are experiencing the same thing.  Correct? Have your beliefs been challenged or made firmer through your MD&D board participation?

I have spent a great deal of time on various boards over a period spanning about 17 years now beginning with yahoo geocities. I have not personally seen anyone experience a major shift in beliefs because of my writings or posts. However, I believe I have learned a great deal about Christian history, and related topics during this course of time, which I know have influenced my beliefs and led me on to new inspiration - so I can only assume that others have done the same. While at TOL I met a Christian minister who called me the enemy of Christ. However, after over a year, he decided to leave that forum due to his aggravation with other posters, and while at another Christian forum he contacted me to "make friendly conversation." I believe my participation in those forums helped a least change the attitude of some towards "Mormonism." At this other forum when I began to get new Christians contacting me with questions, etc, however, the owners seemed to decide that LDS Christianity was not non-trinitarian Christianity, and banished the small community of LDS posters to their World Religion forum which affected my departure. So my guess is I was having an impact there they did not wish to allow. 

Over the years I have found that most posters who spend their time posting on forums are very fixed in their opinions, and if it appears they are losing a debate will simply dig in their heels rather than accept a realistic interpretation of scripture or historical facts. So my opinion is no these people are probably not going to change. However, there are people who do not regularly frequent forums, but come to forums to seek advice, ask honest questions etc. It is these people whose eyes we must hope to open with the help of the spirit. These days tho, these honest searchers seem few and far between. School teaching has hardened the minds of young people against the gospel, and they believe teachings of evolution and so forth dictate against belief in God and His scriptures, so it is difficult to make any inroads so that the spirit can work in their lives. 

Edited February 20, 2017 by RevTestament

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The "backfire effect" is not original to the internet. It is a human trait. I alone am immune to that (in my best imitation of the Nehor).

Glenn

Stop stealing my shtick!!!!!!!  

[Thinking]

When I found this board I already had serious doubts about the truth claims of the LDS Church. I don't know if I am more entrenched than when I came to the board, but I am still on the dark side.

[cdowis]

32 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I have spent a great deal of time on various boards over a period spanning about 17 years

I go back to the pre-internet days -- BBS.  Anyway, I have decided not to worry about "winning a point" with the antiMormons but to give an answer that the casual reader of the forum will respond to.  I am actually talking to the silent audience who may be influenced by my post.

[cdowis]

8 minutes ago, Thinking said:

When I found this board I already had serious doubts about the truth claims of the LDS Church. I don't know if I am more entrenched than when I came to the board, but I am still on the dark side. 

Apologetics is a hobby.  The purpose of this forum is not to convert anyone, but to show their flawed arguments, mistaken assumptions, educate them, etc.

Again, it is just a hobby, so I don't let it influence me regarding my attitude towards the church.  If you are looking for an attitude adjustment, I suggest Social Hall.

Edited February 20, 2017 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

At this moment my beliefs are somewhat on the edge of a knife, in limbo. My emotional attachment to the Church has been betrayed and so my rational mind is more open to information that I heretofore boxed away. Yet even as emotionally I start to feel better, I cannot unsee what I've seen. I love the Church but that love may permanently shift to a love for major values, while a testimony of truth claims may continue to disintegrate.

So, I suppose I am in one of those rare vulnerable stages where reading things here might influence me either way. 

It's weird. I see extraordinary good but also bad. I'm trying to figure out a way to participate without accepting everything but while also being frank and open while also allowing my children to make their own belief choices.

Anyways, I think that often on the internet influence can be gradual, so much to not be seen in a single conversation, or it may affect a lurker. I'd like to think the sincere truth seekers are attracted to good, solid arguments and so if that's your goal you may be helping someone without knowing you are.

In my life before I was a member I dialed back my belief in God and religion to zero.

It took that for me to realize that there was still some buzz in my heart that I could not eliminate even while trying to do so.

That little buzz eventually grew back into an orchestral crescendo when I joined the church because I was able to define the limits of ANY religion- what they are and what their full potential really is.   Sometimes that is what it takes.   A love for major values and understanding that humans can never get religion exactly "correct" is not necessarily a bad thing- I think it is realistic.

In my opinion the goal is to find the absolute best paradigm that works for us, while seeing all the warts and flaws.   It's kind of like getting married and more importantly STAYING married.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by mfbukowski

[bsjkki]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Evidentially this board is actually driving each of us to a firmer conviction of our closely held cherished beliefs instead of convincing each other that our beliefs are in error.  

While I enjoy this board to test my beliefs and have them challenged I must admit that my participation here has yet to alter my beliefs...and in some instances has made them even more firm...and I'm guessing that believers are experiencing the same thing.  Correct? Have your beliefs been challenged or made firmer through your MD&D board participation?

I came here with questions and concerns I didn't feel I could ask or research elsewhere. I would say this board, with its varied opinions, has helped me better formulate the state of my faith. I would say it has helped me back to a more faithful position. In some ways, seeing two opposing viewpoints, helped me see which side of the debate I most often fall. I still have concerns. I still disagree with certain policies of the church. I still don't understand much but that is okay and I can live with it. 

[JLHPROF]

The problem is that in order to change those deeply held beliefs, different information isn't enough.

It requires a change in how you view the world, and while this board can present different facts we fit them to our viewpoints.
There aren't many arguments strong enough to change an entire world perspective.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In my life before I was a member I dialed back my belief in God and religion to zero.

It took that for me to realize that there was still some buzz in my heart that I could not eliminate even while trying to do so.

That little buzz eventually grew back into an orchestral crescendo when I joined the church because I was able to define the limits of ANY religion- what they are and what their full potential really is.   Sometimes that is what it takes.   A love for major values and understanding that humans can never get religion exactly "correct" is not necessarily a bad thing- I think it is realistic.

In my opinion the goal is to find the absolute best paradigm that works for us, while seeing all the warts and flaws.   It's kind of like getting married and more importantly STAYING married.

 

 

Thanks.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The problem is that in order to change those deeply held beliefs, different information isn't enough.

It requires a change in how you view the world, and while this board can present different facts we fit them to our viewpoints.
There aren't many arguments strong enough to change an entire world perspective.

It often takes personal experience. 

[hagoth7]

13 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Have your beliefs been challenged or made firmer through your MD&D board participation?

Both.

Over the years here, some prior beliefs have given way to other understandings. While other beliefs have been turbocharged.

Overall, the experience has given me greater appreciation for those who believe *and* for those who don't...and for those in either (or neither) camp who struggle

Fair 'nuf?

Edited February 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Evidentially this board is actually driving each of us to a firmer conviction of our closely held cherished beliefs instead of convincing each other that our beliefs are in error.  

While I enjoy this board to test my beliefs and have them challenged I must admit that my participation here has yet to alter my beliefs...and in some instances has made them even more firm...and I'm guessing that believers are experiencing the same thing.  Correct? Have your beliefs been challenged or made firmer through your MD&D board participation?

That is not my perception, Johnnie.  Although non-scholars are often likely to dig in their heels when faced with "alternative facts," scholars tend to add them to their store of data, leading eventually to the process popularly known as thesis > antithesis > synthesis.  Scholars are not often precipitate in their decision-making, exercising due care in reevaluating everything.  Unlike some other boards, where it is all about name-calling, vitriol, and hate, this board seems far more restrained and deliberative.

Rather than focusing on change (for change' sake?), members of this board seem more interested in deepening their mature understanding of LDS controversies, to better inform themselves and enrich their lives.  I am comfortable here, and even the anti-Mormons seem to enjoy the gemütlichkeit.

[Kenngo1969]

My participation on this board has informed my perspective with respect to certain details related to the doctrine, the history, the organization, and other aspects of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  However, those details do not form the core of my testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, so my participation here has affected my testimony itself not one iota, and neither positively nor negatively.

Not.

One.

Iota.

(And again, neither positively nor negatively.)  I won't presume to speak for anyone else, but it would surprise me if there weren't a good number of posters here who are of essentially the same mind.  Generally, I don't think discussions of the sort that occur on the board are geared toward helping someone gain a testimony: that's the province of the Holy Spirit.  Rather, I see the discussions here (at least in some, hopefully many cases) as creating room for belief, and few people, if any, are going to be compelled, one way or the other, by the evidence. Belief still is a choice one must actively make (as is disbelief, for that matter).

Austin Farrer would seem to agree.  He wrote: 

Quote

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief.  What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned.  Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.  

Anyone who says that this or that bit of evidence for or against the Church of Jesus Christ compels him to stay or to leave fails to account for the fact that we see the evidence, not as it is, but, rather, as we are.  We're all our own triers of fact: We decide what the "rules of evidence" are and, accordingly, what evidence we will admit, what evidence we will exclude, how much weight we will give to any evidence we decide to admit, and so on.

All of this is not to say, however, that I do not have questions about some of the aspects of the Church or of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to which I allude above.  I don't know how someone can be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ who has a halfway functioning brain and not have questions about these things.  However, while questions may be inevitable, as I note above, doubt and faith are choices.

This all having been said, however, I remember vividly one particular case on a predecessor of this board, a particular poster who was of something of a questioning, skeptical bent.  In his last post before he departed (permanently, insofar as I am aware, never to return) he sketched the broad outlines of what must have been a remarkable experience, implied that his faith had been restored, and rode off into the cyber sunset from the world of LDS apologetics.  I'm unsure what role, if any, the board itself played in the episode, but, since the experience he described seemed transcendent, I'm guessing that it transcended even his experience here (as shocking as that may seem ).

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is not my perception, Johnnie.  Although non-scholars are often likely to dig in their heels when faced with "alternative facts," scholars tend to add them to their store of data, leading eventually to the process popularly known as thesis > antithesis > synthesis.  Scholars are not often precipitate in their decision-making, exercising due care in reevaluating everything.  Unlike some other boards, where it is all about name-calling, vitriol, and hate, this board seems far more restrained and deliberative.

Rather than focusing on change (for change' sake?), members of this board seem more interested in deepening their mature understanding of LDS controversies, to better inform themselves and enrich their lives.  I am comfortable here, and even the anti-Mormons seem to enjoy the gemütlichkeit.

I echo Robert's sentiments here.  Regarding several controversial issues/topics in the Church (as well as some non-Church-specific sociopolitical issues), I think my viewpoints have been substantially affected / enriched / refined / modified by my participation on this board.

I would also attribute some of these changes to my wife, my father, and my brother, all of whom have some perspectives, insights, and opinions that vary from mine in varying ways and degrees.  I respect and love them, and they reciprocate.  So when they have a viewpoint that differs markedly from my own, I am more willing to listen and to reconsider my position.

I would also attribute some of these changes to my ongoing experiences as an attorney, which have helped me understand that A) there are always at least two sides to every dispute, B) no side has a pristine, bias-free grasp of the facts, C) the compilation and assessment of evidence, and the accounting for evidence not available, matters - a lot, and D) patience, humility, and moderation in staking out a position is generally the best way to go.

I would also attribute some of these changes to the passage of time.  I have been on this board since, I think, 2004.  I occasionally come across some of my posts and regret the overly strident, sarcastic, combative, and even mean-spirited tones in some of them.  I'm mellowing a bit as I grow older.

In contrast, there has been, through my years on this board, a seemingly rotating litany of provocateurs, wolves-in-sheeps-clothing, and the-LDS-Church-is-damned-if-it-does,-damned-if-doesn't,-damned-no-matter-what-it-does faultfinders who in the main have, as the OP puts it, created a "Backfire Effect."  Their excessively negative, even vitriolic, characterizations of the LDS Church and its doctrines and leaders and members, are very off-putting.  They also have the effect of persuading me to re-visit my assumptions about and understanding of the Church's history and practices.  The net result has been a substantially improved and enriched understanding of the Church's history and practices, and also an increasingly firm conviction that the LDS Church is good and decent, that it is what it claims to be, and that it is on the right path.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hagoth7]

44 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

...Generally, I don't think discussions of the sort that occur on the board are geared toward helping someone gain a testimony: that's the province of the Holy Spirit. ...

 

44 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

...I'm unsure what role, if any, the board itself played in the episode, but, since the experience he described seemed transcendent, I'm guessing that it transcended even his experience here (as shocking as that may seem ).

Am I hearing you correctly? Are you saying the same thing twice?

[Freedom]

I find it rather sad that someone would come to a board such as this and not be open minded enough to consider changing their views on various topics as evidence is presented to them. Such a person is not open to inspiration or growth of any kind. I find it very unlikely that any person has from their youth a perfect understanding of truth and has never had need to reevaluate their paradigm. The vast majority of topics discussed here are not doctrinal which means they are all academic in nature and are subject to ongoing research. if your views have not changed, you are anti-science and anti-knowledge.  

[Daniel2]

I first started posting on the board around 2000-2001 (when this used to be called "F.A.I.R.) as a defender of the LDS Faith. While I never considered myself an "apologist," in retrospect I would say (to coin a phrase that's commonly employed in some LDS internet circles) I was a "chapel apologist," meaning, I had stridently and immersively studied, pondered, prayed, and become familiar with the scriptures and most of the non-cannoncial, but still mainstream LDS sources expounding on doctrine (Talmage, McConkie, Joseph F and Jospeh Fielding Smith, Lectures on Faith, Teachings of the Prophet Jospeh Smith, History of the Church, etc) as well as several of the slightly less-known and promoted, but still mainstream LDS sources (Pratt, Young, and at the time they were newly emerging, Rough Stone Rolling and similar works).  

I came to this board with a firm and sincere desire to defend the faith after having fallen in love with the immersive study and practice of and desire to share my cherished LDS theology which I had naturally and incrementally developed throughout my life, starting with being raised in the mission field (overseas as a child and youth) and culminating in my mission (I was that annoying overachiever on my mission who got up 30 min early for personal study, and was viewed by many in the mission as "the go-to-Elder" for questions on doctrine and how to scripturally respond to concerns by Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelicals, Baptists, and Catholics, for the most part), and my spiritually-grounded tenure at BYU. 

Religion was a shield and a protection to me against the parrallel emergence and growth of my awareness (since age 5) that I was attracted to members of my own gender... an attraction that began as an unidentifiable, non-sexual attraction (before puberty) and didn't develop to incorporate and include a sexual component until I began to mature into an adult myself.  I fiercely and desperately wanted to "feed the wolf" inside me that would lead to righteousness, and sought to "starve the wolf" that I believed was inspired by Satan.

I approached both aspects of my being--my religious devotion and my homosexual attractions--with the same approach: avoid any and all non-official sources ("non-official" as related to those espousing the authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders) for information because, as relating to religion, I had been taught to eschew "anti-Mormon" literature as misleading and inspired by the adversary, and as relating to my sexuality and sexual identity, to eschew anything that science, medicine, biology, psychology, or any other "pro-gay" literature or research because it was likewise inspired by the adversary.

Back in 2000-2001, I considered myself to be a well-informed member of a church who's leaders held impeccable and impeachable moral character and honesty; I firmly believed the church had never done anything wrong and stood behind ALL of our leaders' teachings and pronouncements. I considered myself "true blue, dyed in the wool, through and through" and would readily have given my life for the gospel (in fact, in many ways, in retrospect I already had willingly and gladly sacrificed many aspects of myself on an alter of my own making by doing what I was told was right, even if it contradicted any internal misgivings to the contrary, which I also believed to be he buffetings of the devil).  However, I shielded those misgivings behind the armor of righteousness to the best of my abilities because I firmly believed that my testimony and Faith would save me from my most undesirable and basest self.

I can honestly say that this board played a large and important part in my journey to a change of heart, might, mind, and strength. As I read through all the posts from both sides of issues, and as I firmly sought to defend positions, doctrines, and alleged historical events that I firmly believed in, I did so with an ernest belief that truth would prevail, because truth, if it be so, can and will withstand scrutiny and will emerge stronger on the other side. Although my heart carried the conviction at that time that the church was FULLY true and exactly what it claimed to be, at that time, I was so convinced that my cause was True that my mind and heart were totally open... an approach I valued and believed to be preferable.

Lessons in good communication taught me that to reach through to others, we must first seek to understand if we are going to be understood (with a nod to a 'Covey-ism' there)... That in order to be able to answer others' concerns or questions, I needed to attempt to fully hear and understand them so I could respond appropriately (incidentally, as a trainer in customer service and sales, that's STILL an approach I fully endorse and teach my trainees today).

Over the course of a couple years, I posted in threads here on a variety of theological and a few historical issues, as well as those related to "SSA" (from my then-pro-LDS viewpoint). Both my testimony and sexuality (and how the the two were connected) were topics I wanted to defend and promote in a sincere desire to help others.

The only reason I have explained the above in such detail is to help give context that, in my case, I didn't experience any "Blowback Effect." In fact, many who didn't know me back at the board's inception might be surprised to hear that when I began posting here, it was with a diametrically-opposite viewpoint on the key issues I select and continue to post about, today. 

Gradually, I became less and less convinced that my own testimony of Mormonism, as well as my stance on my sexual orientation, were built on a sure and solid foundation. I recognized that by completely avoiding alternate viewpoints, information, and data from any and all sides, I had created an "echo chamber," a self-fulfilling prophesy that led to what should have been an obvious result of only studying so called "faith-promoting sources."

The more I listened to those with differing viewpoints, the more I saw the merit in what they were sharing. Those who I saw as "anti-Mormon" didn't seem to have nefarious motives--many were driven by the same desire to find and promote truth and happiness that I shared. Their views were commpeling and seemed to me to warrant further investigation.

I began to see the effects of my own confirmation bias (an effect I still am wary of fighting within myself, today, as I believe we're all susceptible to it). I began to understand and identify the cognitive dissonance within myself that fractured my spiritual self from my sexual self, and began to understood more about the damages I had done to myself. [Incidentally, I realize that even my use of those terms will likely enflame the "blowback effect" of some... but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge my sense and experience with them as I learned, grew, and embraced truth as I see it from all sources, without fear of or censure in the face of change].

In sum, while I believe the "blowback effect" IS real and CAN be powerful, I also believe that not everyone is or must be subject to it.  It's NOT an automatic inevitability against which we are powerless.

That said.... my story is mine, alone. It isn't and doesn't have to be representative of the search of every other sincere seeker--others' mileage may and will vary.  I share it not to promote my experience as surperior, but in the hopes that everyone else might continue (or begin!) their own journey and discover and continually affirm their truths, while abandoning error.

Although many of my BELIEFS about both Mormonism and my sexual orientation have changed, I still retain many of the VALUES that my Faith and LDS parents I stilled in me, including these...

Quote

"But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast."-1 Thessalonians 5:21 (AMPC)

"If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed."-President J. Rueben Clark

Edited February 21, 2017 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

 

Am I hearing you correctly? Are you saying the same thing twice?

John 19:22.  

[rongo]

While most of us don't change our minds based on extensive discussion, discussion is fun, engaging, and exciting --- and that is its own reward, even if there is no "change" of mind in either direction. However, often all of us do change our minds to some extent, even if this change is one of nuance, or of respect for people and POVs different from our own. 

From an apologetic standpoint, even if there is no real "change" of mind, it can help all of us to hone our arguments and be aware of deficiencies in our own arguments (and strengths in opposite arguments that need to be met and dealt with). 

It isn't for everyone, and some people find such discussion pointless and a waste of time. Interesting people enjoy it, though . . .