anyone ever changed your opinion on something mid-argument?

Well this guy once laid a .38 on the table mid discussion...

He did make a persuasive argument...

@Noflaps said ^

Please let me know when somebody who believes capitalism is just, like, icky (you know?) suddenly changes his (or her) mind.

You can't imagine how I'm waiting when someone who believes in capitalism will changes his/her opinion and will make a huge financial donation to a communist organization!

Then, I'll believe In 6 leaf clover!

Communism, you say? (Shudder).

Monolithic, one-party set-ups lead to a quasi-royal class, with an "in group" that controls and lives well. Stalin didn't have to share an apartment with other families. And it was best not to irritate him.

P.S. @Dukedog -- a 0.38 you say?

Years ago, I had a similar experience, although the piece in question that got laid on the table (barrel toward me) was a revolver with a smaller slug. But there were six of those slugs, ready to go.

Which made it fun to look the gentleman in the eye and not blink. After all, five of those slugs were just a waste of lead. It was a bit like Tal once said when leaving several pieces en prise: the dude could only use one at a time.

"Scammers are particularly happy with people swayed by mere words."

Indeed -- and that's a reason to be prepared and not just automatically go along with what we hear. Even if we hear it from celebrity amateurs or attractive but inexpert politicians, rather than from those who can make an unemotional argument that demonstrates logic and pertinent knowledge.

Merely "believing" what we hear risks being fooled unless we have found sound reason to believe. And that takes SOME effort beyond mere nodding.

@Noflaps said ^

Indeed -- and that's a reason to be prepared

Not exactly. You just need to know how to recognize suspicious info. There is no need to convince scammers or random people online. Unless you are paid for it, or maybe it's a hobby.

Its abaut if you care abaut others.If you live in America and doing allright money.Capitalism feels so sweet to you.

I wish we could all recognize that hearing what we prefer is not proof against scammers. Nor is hearing what we do not prefer necessarily an indication that it is being fostered by the paid or by the witless.

It is best to use logic and try to find fact. And that is not done by simply assuming that we or our comforting sources are necessarily correct and that attempts to change our minds are necessarily corrupt, cynical or foolish.

For example, I believe we should pay attention to the latest investigations into waste and abuse of government funds -- and try to notice how those investigations turn out. They might prove to be eye-opening -- in either direction!

And perhaps we should try to notice who in politics or media ISN'T eager to pay attention to those.

And if (gasp!) it's our trusted, favorite sources who don't seem to be paying much attention, maybe we should begin to wonder, perhaps just a bit, if their coverage and understanding are sufficiently comprehensive.

Standalone "facts" are often easy to misinterpret. Climate deniers, for example, are quite notorious with bringing facts into discussion. Flat Earth adepts are less successful, but they can be quite crafty too. And if you don't know the catch, you may just fall for it, blindly using logic. Again, it takes a lot to properly disprove something.

Knowledge must by a system. Every statement has its own place in the system. It has connection to many other statements as well. If a new fact doesn't seem right, doesn't fit the system, there is a good chance something is wrong with that fact. And it has nothing to do with how pleasant it looks. Scammers are well known for "too good to be true" feeling.

In other words, we must believe what we choose to believe, and disregard any sneaky attempt to introduce facts that don't "feel" right?

Oh. So it's our preconceptions that we must trust, ultimately? I wonder how we got those preconceptions that "feel" so certain....

For centuries, the notion of Earth as an oblate spheroid might have "felt" wrong to most people, too. And there would have been plenty of trusted others -- maybe even some fashionable celebrities! -- around to agree with us if we doubted Earth's flatness.

And I suppose relying upon what "feels" good to us is a great way to remain forever comfortable, too!

But I'll stubbornly continue to consider and research, rather than accept or deny on the basis of habit. Even though, admittedly, that sometimes might cause cognitive dissonance and take more effort.

I believe that most contentions don't really fall into the category of "too good to be true." Those aren't the sort of contentions that we most encounter. Indeed, we will often encounter things that we wish were NOT true. Like the possibility that some will talk a good game but accomplish little that isn't self-interested.

Of course, what they say might "feel" right to some of their supporters. How else to explain how some people just keep getting supported or even reelected, despite the concrete results of their policies?

I could give numerous concrete examples, but I've found that it doesn't seem to lead to much reconsideration by folks that goes contrary to their habitual beliefs. Such examples just don't "feel" right to them, I guess.

You clearly noted a word "feeling" I used. Briefly, it's not about feeling.