Mine is the time I tried to convince an anti-abortion person on Facebook that when she claimed some ABSURD number of abortions were taking place that it was not possible. Whatever figure she gave, I took it and did some quick guesstimating math, showing my work, and it led to the conclusion that if her figure was right, around 50% of women on earth who were capable of pregnancy were not only getting pregnant every year, but also were having at least one abortion per year. She was completely undeterred by the fact that she probably was overestimating the number of abortions occurring by like 30 times or probably much more.
That’s when I realized that facts are not important to certain people. 30 times overestimated or not, didn’t matter. Even one was enough to give the exact same weight to the issue.
You’re telling me that the facebook picture that says that liberal blue haired lesbian women get an average of 300 abortion per minute is lying? Well I just don’t think I can believe you.
Your first mistake was trying to convince someone on Facebook of something at all
To be fair, ‘scientific studies’ are increasingly less reliable, so quoting them as ‘facts’ has less weight. It used to be that any average person could look at an abstract and have a good enough idea to accept what the study found as fact. In 2025 this is less so, because you can’t just read the abstract. You also need to read the methodology and ideally who financed the study, since half the studies published are manipulated.
Not that it makes a great difference, but still.
That’s why you must stick to studies that are peer reviewed. This isn’t new, but most people don’t know the difference. Studies that are a result of lobbyists paying off doctors generally lose credibility the moment you use that litmus test. It’s no guarantee but most of these sham studies are pretty low effort.
I guess he fit the data of those two sources pretty well then.
There is a nice paradox here. If he conceded, he would’ve proven himself correct but in the same breath admitted he was not correct, and if he refused to believe those two sources he would’ve claimed himself correct but proven the sources correct. 🔄
To pass through this door, you can ask us only one question. One of us always lies about changing our mind when presented with facts, and the other doesn’t.
Would be nice if this weren’t posted every single week.
To be fair to me, I haven’t seen any other posts on this on the fediverse.
I see it all the time. Not your fault, and apologies if that seemed accusatory. :)
No worries friend👍
Source?
It’s an older meme, but it checks out
complaining about this meme is my favorite thing on the internet
Complaining about complainers is my favourite thing on the internet
Can I see those studies?
I suspect people might not change their minds overtly but might internally, slowly, over time.
It’s way easier to admit you were wrong to yourself in your head than to another human being.
I don’t know the exact papers OOP cited, but here’s one that is strongly supported.
Essentially, the researcher proposes that motivation influences reasoning not just by adding bias, but by affecting which cognitive strategies (beliefs, rules, memories) people use. Motivated reasoning is constrained; people are better able to reach their desired conclusion when they can construct plausible justifications for it. They are not completely free to conclude anything they like. So even when motivated to be accurate, bias may persist if individuals don’t have or don’t use more appropriate reasoning strategies.
