Philosophical Productive Discussion

[Uncle]

And I think being strongarmed is more effective, since studies show persuading people is far harder than we once thought, as people tend to double down when faced with just being flat out wrong and having to admit so instead of adjusting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7462781/

One of the most concerning notions for science communicators, fact-checkers, and advocates of truth is the backfire effect. A backfire effect occurs when an evidence-based correction is presented to an individual and they report believing even more in the very misconception the correction is aiming to rectify (Lewandowsky, Ecker, Seifert, Schwarz, & Cook, 2012). This phenomenon has extremely important practical applications for fact-checking, social media, and all corrective communication efforts. However, there is currently a debate in the literature as to whether backfire effects exist at all, as recent studies have failed to find them, even under theoretically favorable conditions (e.g., Swire, Ecker, & Lewandowsky, 2017; Wood & Porter, 2019).

https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/03/the-backfire-effect-is-mostly-a-myth-a-broad-look-at-the-research-suggests/

Full Fact research manager Amy Sippett reviewed seven studies that have explored the backfire effect and found that “cases where backfire effects were found tended to be particularly contentious topics, or where the factual claim being asked about was ambiguous.” The studies where a backfire effect was not found also tended to be larger than the studies where it was found. Full Fact cautions that most of the research on the backfire effect has been done in the U.S., and “we still need more evidence to understand how fact-checking content can be most effective.”

of course, the best way to prove the backfire effect is to reject this new information that it may not exist, and to believe even harder that most people double down on entrenched positions