479
Learning about investing
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
479 points (98.0% liked)
People Twitter
10132 readers
826 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Some of us actually change our minds when presented with evidence to do so. Hence, if some people will believe whatever they want regardless of evidence, and perhaps still others are mercurial and believe whatever they feel like in the moment, these are "uninteresting" and can be ignored, leaving only those of us in the middle who are amenable to changing our minds.
And like politics, the entire outcome of life depends upon those of us in the middle, swaying back and forth.
It's certainly possible, but have you ever considered an underlying belief has shifted before you accept the evidence? The emotional determinants of reason are overwhelming.
True, but part of it lies in wanting to be correct. Imagine if you ask someone how to get to XYZ place - you go down the street but do you take a right or a left? It makes no difference to you then, except that one leads to your destination while the other takes you in the exact opposite direction.
And if you had no idea before asking someone, then you were sitting at only a 50:50 chance of arriving correctly, whereas after asking someone, presumably you now have much better odds.
Yes, if you really are seeking the truth, that is to say, if the truth is a core value of yours.
Most people would rather manage their anxiety, belong to a group, have a structured worldview with meaning, etc.
If "knowing the truth" was really what people cared about, then the first exposure to it would convince people. If someone's seen the truth presented to them a million times and time million + 1 they believe it, obviously something else has shifted for them..
Take for instance this liberal media apparatchik.... I forget his name at the moment, but he was a big time commentator and everyone respected his opinion. He released a video this year reporting that he had changed his mind on Israel--from support to oppose. He presented all his evidence.
The thing is, as one youtube commenter pointed out, they were all reasons for ANYONE to be against Israel at ANY time since its creation. What he didn't answer was why he specificially changed his mind, because the facts had always been there, all while he was a highly educated, highly intelligent, highly verbal, highly sought-after commentator. The information had not changed, HE had changed.
My cynical opinion is that Israel was leading us into a disastrous war in Iran and that public opinion had shifted radically away from Israel to the point where he would be damaging his career to get ahead of it, but the relevance to this conversation is that facts alone rarely change anyone's minds about anything that is personally meaningful to them.
There is a lot to unpack there - first and foremost how in any kind of for-profit media there is a difference between what is said vs. truly believed. It is difficult indeed to convince someone that a fact is true when their salary depends upon them not believing it. Which is why in my earlier statement I clarified that these are the "uninteresting" ones who are not likely to be convinced.
Therefore we should not depend upon that happening. Which reveals a foundational weakness in straight democracy itself (e.g. FPTP), although that is not to say that other forms of decision-making are more viable, especially compared with more nuanced (e.g. ranked-choice) and supported (e.g. with heavy funding into education) forms of democracy.