WMN: t3_2rkjr3_t1_cngqwb0

[TITLE]

CMV: Irony aside, most people that post in CMV are uneducated, and changing their view on one point won't solve this overall problem

[1millionbucks]

There are some instances, yes where controversial topics are discussed here and people are actually interested in hearing the opposite side. I consider myself one of those people, and was initially driven to this subreddit in the hope that I would meet other people like myself that were posting here to educate themselves. The type of man that reads a book that argues against a position he already holds, in the hopes that he can understand the entire issue in a great light. But far and away, this is not the case. Some of the posts on here include logical fallacies even in the titles: yesterday's [atheism post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rfea1/) used a strawman fallacy in the title to misrepresent their own position to make it easier to defend in a religion vs. athiesm debate. The OP, if you read that post, was by and large not interested in changing his opinion, and this is true of the *vast majority* of posts that come through here. And the problem is this: it is a tremendous waste of time for every knowledgable person that posts answers in here. A lot of times, the posts are not controversial: they are simply the product of stupidity. There are a thousand places, a million internet hits, which one can browse to discover facts on the athiesm/religion debate and even the specific subtopic that was discussed yesterday. An educated person, or rather, a person seeking to educate himself, would have simply utilized this vast body of resources rather than take time to create a new resource. Additionally, the people that tend to post in this subreddit post on this subreddit have a certain mindset already, even before submitting. Go ahead, think of something you believe that is controversial and click "Submit CMV." Your mind will already be working to inhibit opposing opinions and you will be clinging harder than ever to the bulwarks of your argument. The fact of the matter is this: it takes considerable effort to open one's mind, even on things that are not of great consequence. And most people are simply unable to accomplish this. Thanks for your replies. I intend to reply to each response to my original post, albeit maybe not today, and I hope to award many deltas for your efforts. Quick edit: I realized I didn't address the second part of my title claim. Albert Einstein said that 2 things are limitless: the universe and human stupidity. For every stupid person that posts on this sub to address one point of their lack of knowledge, there are foreseeably dozens more points of misunderstanding that remain. What is the overall aim of this subreddit? To educate one at a time, indeed. But on issues that can be solved via Google search or the opening of a book, how can one fill the infinite pit of human stupidity? Only controversial issues, where both opinions are agreed to be at least understandable and held widely by educated people, should be allowed. This is a real debate: anything else is just convincing a stupid person of something that they fail to understand. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[bubi09]

First off, as per rule E of submission rules, you need to reply within 3 hours of posting the thread. I immediately disagree with the statement in your title. Where are your sources for the claim that most people that post are uneducated? I've seen some fascinating discussions here and some posts that couldn't have been written by an uneducated person. Also, what is your definition of uneducated? I agree that most people here don't want their opinion changed. I posted once and went into it fully determined there was no way my opinion would be changed. Lo and behold, not half an hour later I gave away a delta. And I think that happens a lot, even if some people aren't familiar with the delta system so they admit you changed their view, but don't actually award a delta. [STA-CITE]> it is a tremendous waste of time for every knowledgable person that posts answers in here. [END-CITE]I disagree. I am knowledgeable in some areas, but I'm definitely a very opinionated person. I can honestly say that this sub is godsend for me. It is, without a doubt, my favorite sub here. Why? Because I love discussing things, especially controversial ones. I love debating and I do really like the challenge of changing one's opinion. I am currently involved in a CMV that has been going on for a week now. A whole week the OP and I have been going back and forth on a topic of their choosing, neither of us budging, but both (if I may say so myself) presenting their cases in an eloquent and smart way. I haven't been successful in changing their view or getting a delta, but I think this sub goes beyond that. My eyes have been opened to the way the OP lives his life and sees certain things, even if he's on the complete opposite side of me when it comes to it. And that's an enriching experience. [STA-CITE]> For every stupid person that posts on this sub to address one point of their lack of knowledge, there are foreseeably dozens more points of misunderstanding that remain. What is the overall aim of this subreddit? To educate one at a time, indeed. [END-CITE]I can honestly say that educating people here is secondary to me; it's an afterthought. Yes, it's nice to know I've opened someone's eyes to something and that I've given them a piece of knowledge, but this sub mainly serves as a form of mental exercise to me. I'm practicing in expressing my views in a well thought-out manner, I'm learning how to support my claims with arguments, I'm learning about diversity and respecting other-people's opinions. Everything else is a bonus. I see this sub as a vessel through which *I do something for myself* while you see it as something where *you do something for others* (mainly trying to educate stupid people in vain, if I'm getting it correctly). Lastly (I have to run now, hopefully we can continue later), why isn't this enough for you? Why is getting a delta more important than bettering yourself in a smart and challenging way? Also, yes, you may say that the original idea of the sub was to have people come in with an open mind and even a wish to have their opinion changed, but...the original idea behind upvotes and downvotes was much different than what it is today as well. Doesn't mean the whole experience is lessened by it. It can still be worth a lot.

[1millionbucks]

[STA-CITE]> what is your definition of uneducated? [END-CITE]Uneducated, in this post, refers to a person that is either unwilling or not intelligent enough to find the answer to their question, when the answer to that question is simple to find. [STA-CITE]> I love debating and I do really like the challenge of changing one's opinion. [END-CITE]Fair enough, to each their own. I often find myself telling a person the correct answer to a question based on truth that I know, and that person argues against me. My field of expertise tends to be psychology and the theories of what powers the mind. This is a difficult subject for everyone, but it is frustrating to inform a person of the correct, factual answer as accepted by the scientific community to their question, and be rejected because they cannot understand it. That person is uneducated, and additionally, has failed to seek out answers to their question before posting here. [STA-CITE]> I do something for myself while you see it as something where you do something for others [END-CITE]Again, very fair point. [STA-CITE]> Why is getting a delta more important than bettering yourself in a smart and challenging way? [END-CITE]I often comment when I have a direct, factual answer to the question. When these answers are rejected, it is not that I am wrong, or the issue is controversial and has multiple facets that are each correct. It is that the other person either cannot accept, is unwilling to accept or is not intelligent enough to accept the true statements and answers that I have provided. It is not about the deltas, per se: I should be awarded a delta because I provided the correct answer, but it is more about the frustration of *not* getting the delta because the person cannot understand or comprehend the answer.

[bubi09]

[STA-CITE]> a person that is either unwilling or not intelligent enough to find the answer to their question, when the answer to that question is simple to find. [END-CITE]But what's the point then? 95% of all questions posted on some of the most popular subs out there like ELI5, askscience or askhistorians is stuff you can find yourself with a bit of googling. But the point of Reddit and these subs is to get engage the community, let the knowledgeable ones share their knowledge (and show off a bit, let's be real) and let others learn (especially those who wouldn't have ever thought to be curious about this certain thing in the first place). See, I generally go into the more opinion-based threads, both for the challenge and to make up for the fact that there aren't that many topics out there where I can claim to be an expert. And yes, I've posted hard facts and got dismissed. I've also had OPs tell me point blank that I changed part of their opinion or that they see my point and still not get a delta. Some of them don't get the rules of the sub, others just forget or are assholes. Even in your reply to me, in two different places you acknowledged my point and it's clear you see where I'm coming from. Did you give me a delta? I'm not fishing for one, I'm just making a point. You yourself did the very thing you complain about others doing. And on the whole topic of deltas and stuff, I think objectively we should all agree that they don't matter that much. That what truly matters is we put ourselves out there, shared something we wanted to and moved on. But we're human and we like deltas, upvotes and gold because we like feeling validated and we like it when people agree with us. No point in lying about it; I'll be the first to say that I get a bit giddy every time a post of mine gets a few upvotes and that it upsets me at least a little bit when I get downvoted. It's how it goes. And I know it's only worse when it happens when I'm right. But I also think there's more to it than this. That 160K people subbed for a reason and that people who post every day and engage others in some very smart discussion (most of the time) are most definitely not wasting their time.

[Kenny__Loggins]

People naturally have an aversion to being wrong about things. That's just the way it is. We have that to work with and we can't really change it. I think the issue isn't that people are uneducated, but that they are unwilling to hear alternative views, which is what you seem to be saying, but your title suggests otherwise. If that's all your getting at, there's not much debate other than *to what extent* this occurs. You stated *most*, so you're asserting more than 50%. Have you done any type of study to see how many OPs change their view?

[1millionbucks]

No, I have no studies to back up the "most" besides my personal analysis of the posts that arise. I agree also that unwilling might be a better word than uneducated.

[Namemedickles]

So now, an important part of your view has been changed. Those two terms convey radically different messages. Does this not also happen on CMV? People learn to phrase their views in a way that is more appropriate and learn when not to make broad assumptions when they lack certain data.

[Kenny__Loggins]

Yeah, this always happens. Gradual rewording of views throughout the thread with no deltas

[Kenny__Loggins]

Well this is part of the problem. People post things that can't be actual investigated with current knowledge. Your claim needs data to support it. The most damning thing about your claim is that someone not changing their mind doesn't necessarily mean they were unwilling to do so. It might just be that they are unconvinced.

[1millionbucks]

That is not necessarily true. As I've said elsewhere, many people post about things that are not controversial and can be answered with a simple Google post. Since these types of posts, in my experience, constitute the majority of traffic through the sub, the OPs of these posts are in some way opposed to the alternative view of their topic.

[Kenny__Loggins]

Example?

[1millionbucks]

In the example I used in the main body of the post, the atheism thread, there are several valid, scientifically accepted reasons as to why religion exists. I asked the OP: is it a coincidence that religions formed in each and every society across the globe, without any contact? This is evidence that the idea behind religion is embedded in human nature, which is an accepted statement that is validated by psychoanalysis. Someone posted the same thing as I did, essentially, and this is how the OP replied: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rfea1/cmv_religion_is_still_in_society_because_it_is/cnfd2xp

[Kenny__Loggins]

His initial point is that religion is *still* in society because of indoctrination. Not that out started that way. It's a valid hypothesis. Atheism is on the rise. I know for certain that many people in the bible belt use indoctrination to ensure their children believe what they do. I am one of them, but I am lucky enough to find my way out Edit: although, he would also need actual data to make this anything more than a hypothesis.

[1millionbucks]

You really have to read the whole thread to get a grasp of the issue, I'm not going to argue it here. The OP was quite militant in my opinion, and the issues were discussed deeply enough that he should have rolled around to the correct conclusion, that is, that God is embedded in human nature. Instead, he used his original post as a medium for a god/athiesm debate.

[Kenny__Loggins]

I don't think the idea that "God is embedded in human nature" is well founded. More so, humans are uncomfortable not knowing so they make up answers.

[1millionbucks]

Well you are free to think that, but you're going to be arguing against established psychoanalytic theory. Feel free to submit your research paper to the proper committee when you've established your reasoning. Not to be rude, but it's frustrating.

[hacksoncode]

We live in a world where [dialectics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic), e.g. the Socractic Method, have become both more difficult to use because mass education makes it very difficult to do that correctly, and where it's vastly easier to engage in it, because our communications mechanisms are so very much more powerful. It's one of our most powerful educational methods as a species, and we should encourage its use whenever possible. CMV is a place where the dialectical method is a fundamental part of what it's trying to achieve. We force all top-level comments to be antitheses of OPs thesis, and require conversation with the goal of achieving synthesis. You complain that people here are uneducated, but whether you're right or not "educated" is what you are coming *out* of an educational experience, not going into one. Looking stuff up on your own, or listening to lectures, is nowhere near as powerful a mechanism for learning as discussing a topic live with people that hold the opposite view. Your suggestion that people just google the "right answer" is precisely the opposite of the purpose of CMV.

[lulumeme]

You might not change the OP's view, but there are many lurkers, who appreciate your effort. Some of the CMV's I read really changed my view on some things :-) I just upvote them and move on.

[kingpatzer]

[STA-CITE]> Only controversial issues, where both opinions are agreed to be at least understandable and held widely by educated people, should be allowed. [END-CITE]I was with you up to this point. Every issue is dichotomous? Really? There are no issues with multiple reasonable positions? That aside, to your overall point: changing a person's view at the level of awarding deltas may not mean changing their stance on an issue in any major way but may mean giving them a more nuanced perspective of a view they already hold. That is still changing their view even though it doesn't move their position. It is possible to increase understanding and remain stalwart in a particular stance with respect to a particular question. Surely that is both educational and of value.

[1millionbucks]

[STA-CITE]> Every issue is dichotomous? [END-CITE]Never said that.

[kingpatzer]

[STA-CITE]> Only controversial issues, where **both** opinions are [END-CITE]Emphasis added.

[brendan_sfw]

You are correct in that changing one person's view on one point will not make them educated. However, I do not think that general education is the goal of the sub. You said that your goal is to meet like minded people who would read a book that argues against positions they already hold. I think that is why most of us are here. I do not think knowledgeable people are wasting their time by contributing their knowledge to a form that can be quickly scanned to understand the most upvoted (and hopefully best) arguments for and against a point. We are here because we don't have the time to read entire books for and against topics, but would at least like to familiarize ourselves with the top points.

[arewar]

[STA-CITE]>it is a tremendous waste of time for every knowledgable person that posts answers in here [END-CITE]I would strongly disagree that it's ever a waste of time to have a discussion and share knowledge. Regardless of whether or not the OP is even involved, everyone who clicks on the thread has the opportunity to learn. That's actually one of the main reasons I come here. Sure, my mind will probably not be changed on many things I feel strongly about. But there are many things I don't know, or don't have strong opinions about. Just on the front page currently itself - buying used isn't a money saver? philosophy isn't a good field of study? driving a car is the most risky thing you can do? These are all subjects that I don't have an immediate opinion one way or another, so going into these discussions and reading through them gives me a lot of insight into both viewpoints. [STA-CITE]>An educated person, or rather, a person seeking to educate himself, would have simply utilized this vast body of resources rather than take time to create a new resource. [END-CITE]Again, I strongly disagree with this. Which is better to learn? To read a book or to attend a small class? In a book, you have words. You may have sources, you may have examples, you may have diagrams. In a classroom, you have people. You have discussions. You can ask questions. It's an interactive experience that is customized to the people involved. The knowledge comes to you. Also, depending on the subject matter, it can be extremely difficult to get some education. There is a lot of misinformation out there (vaccines being a common one for example). On a board like this, misinformation tends to be corrected extremely quickly because people just like to be right.

[xHelpless]

most of the CMVs can be solved with a very basic understanding of logic and ethics.

[Kinnell999]

This is fundamentally a debating forum. Even if no views are changed, debating still has value, in that we learn to become better debaters.

[riggorous]

The very process of thinking about your view, writing it down, and explaining it to people who don't understand it is valuable, and is the most efficient way of confronting your biases and refining your logic. Has a teacher ever suggested that, in order to learn a concept, you should teach it to someone else? That's not for the benefit of the other person- that's for your own selfish edification. Personally, I mostly post here to test my own opinions, since I am the only beneficiary of myself holding a more accurate view. Secondly, this sub provides an excellent service - the opportunity for however few critical thinkers there are to test their views - 100% for free. The benefits of this sub greatly outweigh its minuscule costs. Lastly, what you say is extremely elitist. We are not born "educated" and many of us are not given good opportunities to attain that education. The Internet is the best tool we have to better ourselves. If I were you, I would be grateful to my genes and environment for making me such a learned person, and happy that the less fortunate may be able to attain my level of exaltation someday.

[perihelion9]

[STA-CITE]>There are a thousand places, a million internet hits, which one can browse to discover facts on the athiesm/religion debate and even the specific subtopic that was discussed yesterday. An educated person, or rather, a person seeking to educate himself, would have simply utilized this vast body of resources rather than take time to create a new resource. [END-CITE]Assuming the poster had the skill to Google what he was looking for in the first place (some don't), there's one problem - they need to make a huge effort to *continue* googling. It's all too easy to find one or two links which provide either neutral or positive points to your opinion. It's also too easy to cherrypick your searches *just* to include those points, or to do other mental gymnastics to avoid the fact that they may be wrong. If nobody is watching, it's surprisingly easy to say "no, I don't believe that." and dismiss it without formulating an argument against it. But a CMV is different, it's an arena. OP has no control over the data given to him, and it's very curated data with ELI5-style text around it. There's no search term fudging, not nearly so much ability to dismiss data that disagrees, and the points being made might be things that you hadn't thought to google at all. But best of all, it's made out directly to OP. These people are challenging an OP directly, not just passively throwing links around. It's a hugely different mindset than combing through search results. [STA-CITE]>it takes considerable effort to open one's mind, even on things that are not of great consequence. And most people are simply unable to accomplish this. [END-CITE]I disagree. I find that most people have completely changed their minds on most all issues over time. But the key is that it's not like a boxing match; nobody made a knock-out argument that forced their opponent to sit in stunned silence until they admit they're wrong. Instead, most opinions are changed by being seeded by doubt - doubt that grows and becomes very uncomfortable until the person finds themselves arguing in favor of that doubt ( and against their original view). There's no moment in which a person's mind is changed, it's a process. A journey. And the seeds of that doubt could very easily come from a CMV. I agree with you that being open-minded is difficult. It takes constant vigilance. But It's not binary, it's a continuum. It may take someone all their life to change their view, but it still happens.

[1millionbucks]

∆ Very good points.

[DeltaBot]

This delta is currently disallowed as your comment contains either no or little text ([comment rule 4](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4)). Please include an explanation for how /u/perihelion9 changed your view. If you edit this in, replying to my comment will make me rescan yours. ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[xjayroox]

Even though the OP's view may not be changed, another more competent person holding the same view may have theirs changed. That should count for something

[AzeTheGreat]

One of your points seemed to be that they shouldn't post because the counter arguments to their view are so easily available elsewhere. However, I think you should consider the fact that changing one's mind is incredibly difficult, and often being forced to argue will be more successful than simply reading opposing viewpoints. Thus, those people who *do* post here are the one's who want to put effort into their views, and maybe want them to change. Those who only have the most superficial desire to change their views are the ones who look online and then simply dismiss the opposition as "wrong" without actually considering it.

[1millionbucks]

[STA-CITE]> changing one's mind is incredibly difficult [END-CITE]Precisely why seeking out other sources first is a better idea. Super religious? Read a Dawkins book. Super atheist? I'm not sure where you would go but there are definitely books that support the idea of religion. The point is this: a book is far better at changing someone's mind than a commenter on the internet. It has been well thought out and edited and considered at length: the internet commenter is strength in numbers, and that is all. [STA-CITE]> who look online and then simply dismiss the opposition as "wrong" without actually considering it. [END-CITE]How is this different than reading the comments here and promptly dismissing them? Often, OPs will ignore and not quote any part of a replier's text, and simply comment the same logic they believed before; in effect, not acknowledge the replier. This is toxic to the subreddit, and it happens frequently in questions where the answer is readily accessible.

[AzeTheGreat]

[STA-CITE]>Precisely why seeking out other sources first is a better idea...The point is this: a book is far better at changing someone's mind than a commenter on the internet. It has been well thought out and edited and considered at length: the internet commenter is strength in numbers, and that is all. [END-CITE]I would fundamentally disagree here. First: plenty of books are not well thought out, and while standards are certainly higher than internet comments they can contain their fair share of issues. Secondly, as you briefly mentioned yourself, it can be extremely difficult for someone who has only been exposed to a single view to actually know how and where to look for opposing viewpoints, thus allowing other people to present these is beneficial. Finally, I disagree that reading a book is as effective at altering a viewpoint as an actual discussion. Why? When reading a book it is incredibly easy to simply look at the ideas and dismiss them as "wrong". I already addressed this, but look at it in contrast to a discussion. A book demands no response, the reader is free to simply skim over it. Thus, if someone wants their viewpoint changed through a book they must constantly remind themselves not to just dismiss it. In contrast, a discussion demands a response. While it is certainly possible that people ignore the arguments and simply restate their points (as you stated), the form of the information means that they have to give it *more* consideration because they have to respond/refute it in some way. In essence, I would argue that nothing is really great at changing viewpoints, but discussions are inherently better at reminding people that they *want* to change, and forcing thought processes that are more likely to cause a change in opinion. [STA-CITE]>An educated person, or rather, a person seeking to educate himself, would have simply utilized this vast body of resources rather than take time to create a new resource. [END-CITE]My argument is that it is entirely possible that these people *are* seeking to educate themselves, *do* know about other sources, but also mnow that just observing opposing viewpoints will never be enough to actually change their opinion. Thus, they come here, hoping for discussion to promote change.

[1millionbucks]

[STA-CITE]> plenty of books are not well thought out [END-CITE]Yes, avoid them! Book reviews are a thing! Just because there are bad books does not mean that there are not good ones. And the good ones are vastly, vastly better than internet comments. [STA-CITE]> it can be extremely difficult for someone who has only been exposed to a single view to actually know how and where to look for opposing viewpoints [END-CITE]Nonsense, this imaginary person is an idiot. If you can name one common issue that could foreseeably be seen on this subreddit, that you have no idea what an opposing viewpoint could even be, please name it. [STA-CITE]> When reading a book it is incredibly easy to simply look at the ideas and dismiss them as "wrong". [END-CITE]Never had this experience. Not that I haven't seen a book be wrong: just that I have never not even considered the idea. And if such a person exists that does this, that dismisses a book, which devotes pages to arguing a single idea, he will gain nothing from an internet comment. If you are reading the book to have your opinion changed, then you will not simply dismiss everything in it. If you do, you are just wasting your own time. [STA-CITE]> a discussion demands a response [END-CITE]Fair enough, but a discussion has its own weaknesses. If the opposing person argues a point badly, then the person is less likely to agree with it than if they had read the book and heard the argument in a well though out way. [STA-CITE]> discussions are inherently better [END-CITE]To each their own, but I cannot agree with this. Books go much further in depth than a discussion, or in Reddit's case, a series of discussions, ever can.

[AzeTheGreat]

[STA-CITE]>If the opposing person argues a point badly, then the person is less likely to agree with it than if they had read the book and heard the argument in a well though out way. [END-CITE]Yes, avoid them! Comment karma is a thing! Just because there are bad comments does not mean that there are not good ones. (I do not do this to mock you, just to point out that your counter argument applies equally to your argument.) [STA-CITE]>And the good ones are vastly, vastly better than internet comments. [END-CITE]Good books are absolutely superior to internet comments in terms of content and depth of exploration, there is no contention there. However, it is not the content I am worried about but the form in which the argument is presented. [STA-CITE]>Nonsense, this imaginary person is an idiot. [END-CITE]Is having your view changed, hopefully for the better, some priveledge reserved for those in the upper echelons of intelligence? Is there some issue with someone who isn't intelligent, who may even have trouble arguing, trying to see different viewpoints? [STA-CITE]> If you can name one common issue that could foreseeably be seen on this subreddit, that you have no idea what an opposing viewpoint could even be, please name it. [END-CITE]I'll concede here since I couldn't think of anything. I suppose I was approaching it more from the perspective of niche views where searching for the alternative isn't likely to return anything; in retrospect this doesn't fit the common aspect that you desired. However, I would like to offer an additional point: if someone has not been succesfully swayed by any of the sources they have read, if all of the common arguments have "failed", then it becomes increasingly difficult to find different and novel arguments that might sway their view. CMV offers a platform where, due to the many people involved, these novel arguments are more likely to emerge, sheerly through statistics. [STA-CITE]>If you are reading the book to have your opinion changed, then you will not simply dismiss everything in it. If you do, you are just wasting your own time. [END-CITE]I would argue that this is a subconscious process. Our schema causes us to inherently reject ideas contrary to what we believe. It is quite easy to slip back into this state of rejecting opposing ideas when all you're doing is reading and you're not forced to either formulate an opposition or accept the counterpoint. [STA-CITE]>And if such a person exists that does this, that dismisses a book, which devotes pages to arguing a single idea, he will gain nothing from an internet comment. [END-CITE]I will argue, again, that it is not about the content or depth of discussion, which is undeniably better in most books, but rather the form that it takes that allows an internet comment to change views differently, possibly more effectively. Our ultimate disagreement seems to boil down to the fact that you see books as having superior content and depth, with which I would agree, but you do not believe that the differences in form can allow discussions to be more effective at changing views. Could you please explain why you do not think demanding a response forces more thought and consideration, and is thus more likely to cause a shift in views?

[1millionbucks]

[STA-CITE]> Yes, avoid them! Comment karma is a thing! Just because there are bad comments does not mean that there are not good ones. (I do not do this to mock you, just to point out that your counter argument applies equally to your argument.) [END-CITE]No internet comment's argument will be as good as a book's. [STA-CITE]> **if** someone has not been succesfully swayed [END-CITE]A reasonable person that read the book carefully and at least considered all its points, and still walked away believing in himself, will not seek any other source to change his mind. But if the person has not considered the points, then perhaps you're right, a discussion might be a better medium for that person. I would personally argue that this person is just not open to change and a discussion is likely a waste of the other debater's time. [STA-CITE]>more likely to emerge, sheerly through statistics. [END-CITE]I actually read a book about how the hive mind is inferior to the singular thoughtful person or collaborative group: You are Not a Gadget. It was a mostly bad book, the author was incapable of proper organization of his thoughts to the point of rambling, but it did make a very good case in arguing this specific point. [STA-CITE]> I would argue that this is a subconscious process. Our schema causes us to inherently reject ideas contrary to what we believe. It is quite easy to slip back into this state of rejecting opposing ideas when all you're doing is reading and you're not forced to either formulate an opposition or accept the counterpoint. [END-CITE]When we read things that could potentially fundamentally shift our world-view, even in a discussion, this type of thing is easily disregarded. In a reddit discussion, a person would simply not reply again: in a human conversation, a person could shut down his ears. It is not preventable in any medium, and thus takes an intelligent person, that realizes that he could be wrong, to hold an open mind, because it does requires a decent amount of mental willpower. I think we agree on this. [STA-CITE]> the differences in form can allow discussions to be more effective at changing views. [END-CITE]People learn in different ways: perhaps a discussion would be better. But the hive mind is historically terrible at argumentation. A person is easily overwhelmed by arguing with 20 different people, and could withdraw because he feels that he is being attacked on all sides. [STA-CITE]> you do not think demanding a response forces more thought and consideration [END-CITE]Don't think about elephants. It is impossible to obey this command. In the same way, simply reading a book puts the ideas into one's head, and elicits a response there. A person that rejects this can easily reject an internet comment by simply not replying and attacking a different argument in which he feels more safe in his correctness.

[AzeTheGreat]

[STA-CITE]>No internet comment's argument will be as good as a book's. [END-CITE]I acknowledge that the depth will not be the same, but they can still present the same argument (simpler). But, like I've said repeatedly, I'm looking specifically at the form it takes. [STA-CITE]>A reasonable person that read the book carefully and at least considered all its points, and still walked away believing in himself, will not seek any other source to change his mind. [END-CITE]Why not? I would say that we should always be seeking information to either further support our ideas or to contrast them. It's the only way we can further approach the "Truth". [STA-CITE]>I actually read a book about how the hive mind is inferior to the singular thoughtful person or collaborative group: [END-CITE]This goes against what my gut would say, but if it seems to be a substantually supported position then I guess I would concede that looking at books would provide more unique arguments. [STA-CITE]>In a reddit discussion, a person would simply not reply again: in a human conversation, a person could shut down his ears. [END-CITE]Hmm. Perhaps you and I just function fundamentally differently then. When I'm reading a book I frequently find myself just absorbing ideas without critically analyzing it. Obviously this isn't inherent to books, it's just how I tend to interract with that medium. Conversely, in a discussion I'm always evaluating in my mind, deciding whether I agree or disagree and how to form my counterpoint. Frequently in the process of forming my counterpoint I'll think of multiple counterpoints to what I was about to say, in the process refining my view and progressing much further than just a book would make me. Statistically I would assume there are other people like me, and thus posts where arguments could be easily found online *can* be valuable, and *are* a geniune attempt from some people to change their minds. [STA-CITE]>A person is easily overwhelmed by arguing with 20 different people, and could withdraw because he feels that he is being attacked on all sides. [END-CITE]Well that sounds like a problem with CMV and not necessarily the people who want their views changed. Our disagreement seems to be based on the fact that we seem to process information from different sources differently. I'm completely willing to accept this, but I think it's necessary to note that it is quite possible a significant portion of the population feels the same way as me, and thus these posts are beneficial.

[1millionbucks]

[STA-CITE]> Our disagreement seems to be based on the fact that we seem to process information from different sources differently. I'm completely willing to accept this, but I think it's necessary to note that it is quite possible a significant portion of the population feels the same way as me, and thus these posts are beneficial. [END-CITE]I agree. We have discussed this to the point where nothing further can be gained. I hope you enjoyed our discussion and maybe learned something new :)

[AzeTheGreat]

It definitely showed me hiw differently some people process things. Good discussion :)

[occipixel_lobe]

"Most people who that post in CMV are uneducated..." Before you keep going with your evocative discussion below, you should probably decide if the premise of your argument is even true. A quick survey of the front page by *you* is not an accurate measure of whether or not that sentence is even true, which means that most of your argument is nonsense (and, funnily enough, suffers from some of the same pitfalls you complain about in others' posts ;)).

[Raintee97]

I find it funny that in your reaction to what you say is a strawman post, you call most people stupid or uneducated. Which is in its own sense a strawman most. Uneducated? By whose opinion? Yours? Are you the sole arbiter of who is educated and who isn't? And what makes you think that the answers to everything you see are in books. I mean if I ask the question what is the role of surveillance in a democratic state? I can go to those books you mention and find a variety of different opinions. Is the person who is "uneducated" the author that you disagree with? The fact of the mater is that to make this bold claim that most people are uneducated you kind of have to defend that claim. Am I uneducated? Are most of the people responding to you in the post uneducated? It is a thing on this sub to confuse disagreement for a lack of understanding on and issue. Are you doing that now as well?

[littleln]

Absolutely true. However it is still worth it because someone else who holds the same view who is willing to actually have a conversation or even have their view changed might happen across it and find something worthwhile even if op is really just trying to ruffle feathers...

[1millionbucks]

Thank you, I agree. This point has been made to me.

[Teh_doctor42]

Are you considering all the people that may have changed their minds reading through the comments?

[1millionbucks]

A previous comment made this point, so I have now considered that.

[Namemedickles]

Subjectively, when I read through comments on CMV threads I see a lot of comments (and even initial views) that appear to be poorly thought out. What bothers me most of all are the broad statements that don't take into consideration the need for objective data, larger sample sizes, and real statistics derived from the actual data as opposed to anecdotal experience. Unfortunately, your view contains a similar sweeping statement. [STA-CITE]>CMV: Irony aside, most people that post in CMV are uneducated.... [END-CITE]This is purely anecdotal speculation. You don't have any real numbers on the educational background of CMV redditors. You can't make the blanket statement "most people" anything without those kinds of data. How much is most? 51%? How did you figure that number out? The simple fact is we cannot do so due to the anonymity of this site.

[1millionbucks]

True, I have not statistics to back up this point, but I think that you would be hard-pressed to find a person that frequents this sub that also says that the vast majority of posts seek to discuss controversial topics rather than simply answer a question to which the answer already plainly exists.

[Namemedickles]

[STA-CITE]>True, I have not statistics to back up this point, but I think that you would be hard-pressed to find a person that frequents this sub that also says .... [END-CITE] Plenty of posts that have answers that plainly exist can still be controversial. Even though answers exist to questions about global warming, uneducated laymen may not know them. And let's suppose you are correct and these are mostly uneducated people posting things like "I don't believe in climate change" or what have you. Then how is it a bad thing that there is a discussion thread with people providing evidence to the contrary? Even if you don't change their view, people who know the facts will provide evidence. People who don't will read the thread. Again, you don't have numbers on how many of their views are changed. How many views have to change until its worth it?

[1millionbucks]

[STA-CITE]> Plenty of posts that have answers that plainly exist can still be controversial. [END-CITE]This is not the kind of thing I am talking about. I said in the main body that widely controversial issues should be allowed.

[Namemedickles]

Hmmm, I think we misunderstood each other here, I'm agreeing with you.

[1millionbucks]

I'm glad we agree, now gimme a delta :)

[Raintee97]

I don't quite get what you're talking about. In labeling multiple posters stupid, without giving a clear metric on what, exactly that means, you might be slipping into the straw man area as well. An educated person would simply look to existing resources.......and see what exactly? Society does disagree on how to do things. We don't all march in lockstep. Is educated or uneducated simply those who agree with me and those who don't?

[1millionbucks]

I agree, my wording was not very good. Elsewhere in the thread I commented this: [STA-CITE]> Uneducated, in this post, refers to a person that is either unwilling or not intelligent enough to find the answer to their question, when the answer to that question is simple to find. [END-CITE]I will not respond to your points just yet so that you can check them with this updated information.

[NightCrest]

[STA-CITE]> Only controversial issues, where both opinions are agreed to be at least understandable and held widely by educated people, should be allowed. [END-CITE]I actually read a comment about 4 months back that I liked so much I saved it and I think it's a really good counter for this point. [STA-CITE]> This sums up my entire experience with this sub. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> Either it's a topic I have a very strong opinion about and I just skim through the discussion and my view remains unchanged 90% of the time. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> Or it's something random like this, something I haven't even thought about. I read the OP and think how OP presents some very good arguments and I agree with him. Then my rollercoaster ride starts - every reply usually changes my opinion to the other side. I leave the thread confused and just a bit more enlightened on how stupid it is to be stubborn and deal in absolutes. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> These seemingly unimportant and simple CMVs are an incredibe gateway to healthy critical thinking. On a basic level, we all know nothing is black and white but having your opinion changed 10 times in 2 minutes makes you realize that what you consider to be the most fundamental truths could easily be challenged. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> Anyone who's ever studied philosophy should be aware of this, but it took me subscribing to CMV to realize that you shouldn't try to change people's strong beliefs (if you think they're wrong), you should make their mindset evolve. And the best way to do this is to show then just how easy it is to change a new/minor opinion of theirs with facts. [END-CITE]- /u/teokk [Source comment](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2f68nt/cmv_garfield_shouldnt_hate_mondays_because_he/ck6l6ix) (btw, if this changes your view, you should probably award them the delta and not me)

[1millionbucks]

/u/teokk is commenting on a different kind of post. He is talking about a post where he has no opinion already, and instead is immediately thrusted into a situation where people are trying to pull him one way or another. I am talking about questions where the answer is readily available online: the person has an established opinion that, usually, they know is in contrast with the majority, but either does not take the effort to find the majority answer or is unwilling to accept it. This is a scenario in which the majority answer, or at least the scientific answer, is held to be correct, while the OP's position is held to be incorrect, rather than a situation where both sides can be correct in some degree.

[NightCrest]

I realize you're focusing on a different type of post, but by saying [STA-CITE]>**Only** controversial issues, where both opinions are agreed to be at least understandable and held widely by educated people, **should be allowed** [END-CITE]you're saying all threads that don't meet those criteria should be removed (which would include the posts where some people have no opinion on), and I think that would be a great loss to the subreddit for the reasons /u/teokk presented.

[1millionbucks]

/u/teokk's comment was in response to an authentic debate: no one really had a set opinion going into it. That kind of discussion would still be okay, in my opinion. I agree that I worded it badly in the main post. Perhaps, questions which have a readily accessible and definite answer that is simple to find should not be allowed, would be a better way to phrase it.

[NightCrest]

OP clearly had an opinion going in or they wouldn't have posted the topic in the first place. Also, I think trying to properly define what questions do and don't have readily accessible and definite answers is quite the undertaking. It's a bit much to expect everyone to know everything about every single thing they may bring up. I know I've cited misinformation that I thought was accurate, got corrected on it, did more research and changed my view on it (not as an OP, but still), so disallowing that entirely I think would deprive many people of valuable information they otherwise might not have come across on their own. I think the moment you start to trying to declare stances as "invalid," really all stances can come into question. Also, you mentioned you felt they waste people's time, but personally, I come here mostly because I enjoy debating people. If I change some views or get views changed, all the better, but as long as the conversations are enjoyable for me, I don't feel *my* time has been wasted.

[1millionbucks]

[STA-CITE]> quite the undertaking [END-CITE]Very true. All your points are fair.

[noplzstop]

Say you're right, and most of the people who post here are incapable of actually changing their view on the subject they're bringing up (I don't believe this is the case most of the time, but just for the sake of argument). It would still be false to say that nobody ever changes their view, though. People have deltas awarded to them, and those signify that somewhere out there, somebodies mind was changed. Maybe it was insignificant, maybe it was only changed for a brief moment before some argument changed it back. Regardless, people do change their views here sometimes, and that's a result of them taking the time to examine their views in light of others'. I view that as intrinsically good, the search for knowledge and the refinement of your own belief system, these things make you a better, more educated and well-rounded person. You said it was a waste of time because most people's views aren't changed, or aren't changed enough, but I wouldn't say that makes it a waste of time. The mere act of getting someone to evaluate their own views and challenge them is a good thing to get in the habit of. You have to start somewhere, so to speak. Even if it's about the most insignificant of things, or even if they didn't change their mind at all, it's still a positive step for that person to try. Second, it sometimes goes the other way. Just because OP doesn't change his mind doesn't mean someone reading the comments hasn't. I've read several posts where I went in disagreeing with OP, but after reading the arguments in favor of their arguments, I've come out with a different point of view. I had no part in the discussion, no comments were made, no deltas awarded, but someone's view was changed. Maybe it feels like slogging through shit sometimes, but if you can get someone to think critically about their own beliefs even for a second, isn't that a good thing?

[WhenSnowDies]

Delta here. I changed a view, noplzstop also, and somebody else on this thread changed two.

[1millionbucks]

If your view was changed, you should award /u/noplzstop a delta.

[Namemedickles]

That's not what he was saying. He was pointing out that several people here have changed views and I think he was trying to imply that this was evidence against your view. I'm not saying I agree with this idea but that's what I believe that comment is getting at.

[1millionbucks]

I'll give you the ∆ on the waste of time point, which, frankly, was not so well worded on my part. It is fair to argue that even if OP does not change his mind, some people in the comments will. But I disagree with your first paragraph: just because deltas are awarded does not mean anything. As I said, controversial issues exist where both points are valid exist, and these posts are likely to dispense deltas liberally. The fact that deltas are awarded alone does not justify whether the time spent convincing a stupid person of a single point was time well spent.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/noplzstop. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/noplzstop)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[noplzstop]

[STA-CITE]> The fact that deltas are awarded alone does not justify whether the time spent convincing a stupid person of a single point was time well spent. [END-CITE]I suppose I'll just have to agree with you there, but then again I'd argue that if you're looking for time well spent, Reddit probably isn't the place. I think it's kind of fun trying to change someone's opinion on a matter, especially if they're really stubborn about it. I know it's futile most of the time (e.g. arguing with my grandma about politics), but there's always something you can take away from any argument, even if neither of you are convinced of the other person's side. You might be able to refine your own criticisms of an idea or acquaint yourself with some argument against your view you haven't heard before. At the very least, you get practice dealing with stubbornness and stupidity, and that's good practice because there's clearly no shortage of those two attributes among people. If you only think it's worth it if you convince OP of your view, you're right, it's sometimes just a waste of time. I just think there are other things you can gain from those kind of debates, even if you can't change their opinion.

[1millionbucks]

[STA-CITE]> always something you can take away [END-CITE]This is your mindset, but is highly antithetical to the mindset of most (ik, I'm using most again. Bear with me.). When most people lose an argument in the way that arguing with grandma can be considered a loss, they come away as frustrated, and even further attached to their opinions. Why? Because they feel as if they are talking to a wall, a stupid wall that cannot grasp the intelligence of the thought. This is why voters have a low turnout rate and every text post on /r/politics approaches maximum characters. People feel that it is harder to get into the minds of the others, and so, they respond by increasing the length, intensity of rhetoric, vocabulary, facts, etc., to the point that /r/politics text posts cannot even be considered to be true because they are so editorialized. The idea here is the same. Not all people take away positive things from an argument.