Has Anyone Here on PF Ever Changed Their Mind?

After perusing the various threads on a wide variety of topics, I came to the startling realization that not a single person has conceded a position on a single issue--not even once. Obviously, we all know that people don't easily change their minds and that it requires a lot of things to fall in place before it can happen, but I find it fascinating, and a little scary, that no one has been presented with information contrary to their initial position and then changed it. Clearly, I've only seen a tiny fraction of the conversations on PF, but I still find it incredible that I haven't seen a single example of someone changing their position.

I would like members here on PF to show me examples of people changing their minds on significant issues--it would be even better if someone could give me an example of their own conversion to a new position. In order to constitute a changed position, it must be a significant ideological reversal and not simply a superficial alteration. It should also consist of a change prompted by an argument here on PF, not something that occurred 20 years ago while you were in college. Links would be nice but simple descriptions are also fine. Here are some examples, though they are by no means exhaustive:

From dyed in the wool conservative to liberal and vice versa
From religious to agnostic/atheist and vice versa
From pro-choice to pro-life and vice versa
From anti-gun to pro-gun and vice versa
From healthcare deregulation to single-payer and vice versa
From pro gay rights to the criminalization of homosexuality and vice versa
From anti-marijuana to pro-legalization and vice versa
From pro-immigration to anti-immigration

Feel free to give other examples, but try to avoid presenting examples of people making mild alterations to their position.

I'm not suggesting that no one has ever done it, but I'm more than a little shocked that I've never seen it happen; in defense of PF, I also haven't seen it anywhere else.

 

the problem is im always right

Im not sure about changing minds but there are some issues where im uninformed like the nitty gritty of the debt thing where posts on pf help me pick one side or the other.

 

Shame on you. This is a forum where we "debate" which consists of yelling, lying, obfuscating, leaving out important details that might contradict our preconceived notions and we never...........EVER change our minds no matter how much data and information might contradict our opinions.

 

Agreed, I've found particular points made on PF to be useful in terms of filling in gaps or supporting a position I already had, but I've never actually changed my mind. That being said, I haven't been on here long enough

- - - Updated - - -

This is hilarious and sad. I'll be overjoyed if people can give me just a few examples.

 

I think most of us are older so we are pretty solidified in our issues and the majority of us have above average knowledge of political issues so there really won't be much mind changing. There are certain issues I am not strong in, like economics, but I never commit to a position in those areas. I just participate until the debate gets above my knowledge level then I try to learn as much as I can from more experienced people.

 

But what are the odds that one is dead-wrong on at least one issue? I think it is pretty high, and one would think it's possible to, at least eventually, discover what that issue is. I just know that I'm wrong about something, and I'd like to think I would change my mind if I was ever presented with enough information to the contrary.

I hear you on economics. I've read about a dozen books on the subject, hundreds of articles, taken college courses, and I'm still not sure what my position on inflation is--then again, modest economists will acknowledge that THEY don't even understand some of the more arcane issues. The problems of economics are very complex and largely unsolved. Unfortunately, this allows people to use economic theories to suit their political agenda, whatever it may be.

 

How can a person be wrong on a political issue? If you post facts about something and are corrected that is just a research mistake but a persons views on abortion, gun control, or Christianity are simply opinions, there is no right or wrong.

 

Pretty much this. Then the higher level of knowledge you have(or to be fair, the pre-conceived level of knowledge), the less you can learn from others and thereby the more entrenched your position is. Since after all, you solidified it. I, for my part have been willing to change my positions on occasion. Most famously, Akiphi convinced me that the Federal Government has an important part to play in stimulating the economy, and an even more important part in combating inflation.

But other than that, I can't say that I've agreed too much with other people. I feel like a true leader should think on his own feet, and his ideas should mostly be his own.

 

I thought I was wrong once but it turns out I was mistaken.

 

Like my ole man used to say "I may not always be right but by god I'm NEVER wrong."

Generally, over the years, my views on social issues have shifted. It's not so much that I've moved left or right as much as it is a matter of acceptance of others, and an understanding that some things are simply none of my business. I can't say that it's due to anything specifically that I've read on these boards.

 

It's very tricky, as a good friend of mine likes to say. If what you mean is that some political positions are, in philosophical terms, incorrigible propositions, then I agree. "Cogito ergo sum" is a pretty good example, and it doesn't rely on any further reasoning to justify itself (basically). It is considered self-evident and fundamental. Some things are less fundamental but still basic desires and, therefore, not open to negotiation. For instance, I like guns, like having the ability to defend myself with deadly force, and no appeals to public safety or any other argument will convince me otherwise. I simply have an emotional attachment to the issue and will not budge on it (I'm not saying this is the only reason one could support gun rights, only that this is what it boils down to for me). I don't expect people to budge on those types of issues as long as they really understand the foundation of their beliefs; in other words, have they really taken a position because it is a fundamental preference, or because there is some external fact upon which it is justified that may or may not be true, thus threatening the integrity of the position?

I'll give you an example of a political position that is not fundamental and subject to variation based on factual discrepancies: military intervention. Virtually no one argues against a country having the capacity to defend itself. For instance, if we knew Iran had, let's say, 20 ICBM's that were being fueled and we knew that a nuclear attack was imminent, liberals and conservatives would be united in their willingness to attack first--assuming we knew with absolute certainty that they were going to attack. In this case, military intervention is predicated on another, more fundamental position, which is a right to exist, defend oneself, etc. In a more realistic scenario, liberals and conservatives are not opposed to military intervention simply because it is wrong, but because they differ in their perception of what is and isn't a threat. Neocons think we need to maintain an empire to prevent power vacuums and to project our values globally--anything less is perceived as opening us up to the threat of attack, in some form. People who are more isolationist do not want to maintain the empire, not because they are fine with being attacked, but because they believe we are contributing to the problem of global instability and increasing the odds of us being attacked. In this case, both are based on the same, basic desire, but because of factual discrepancies and imperfect information they are unable to agree on whether we need to support military intervention in any given scenario. Obviously, there are tons of political positions like this, and some people don't even realize that their difference of opinion is contingent, as opposed to fundamental.

Government intervention in the economy is another. The vast majority of people would not fall on either side of the issue without an appeal to economic prosperity. In both cases, either for or against, most people are not really taking the position as self-evident. Both sides believe that their position will lead to greater economic prosperity for all than the other. Factual discrepancies and imperfect information, which are disprovable, can lead one to fall on one side or the other. I don't know a single person who would be fine with total, permanent economic collapse if they knew that one of those positions would directly and inevitably cause it. Again, we have a difference of political opinion based on information that, theoretically, could sway someone from one side to the other. I argue that many political positions are of this structure and not, in reality, incorrigible propositions.

I am saying that I haven't seen people even change on those kinds of issues, of which there are obviously many examples here on PF.

 

`
`
I've been online since the late 1990's. I cut my teeth, so to speak, getting into political discussions on "USENET", IRC and finally, the web. The only time a person's argument changed my mind, was on the MySpace N&P forums, years ago. He used a combination of facts and pure logic, in changing my beliefs on immigration.

 

I changed on that issue as well. I used to be very pro-immigration and believed that it was ultimately a good thing, but I have completely changed my position on this issue over the last two years. I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but I think they are right on this issue. This is another example of a position that is either right or wrong based on a number of other things, which are subject to change based on other information.

 

I tend to be contrarian, so I sometimes change my mind depending on who I debate.

I also can change my mind on issues I don't care much about, or on which I have a hard time forming an opinion. Abortion, for example, is an issue that I could take either side. I wold never condone abortion in my private life, since I can understand the stance the pro-lifers take on the immorality of killing the unborn. However, I can also see the issue of a woman's right to her own body.

Another such issue is Israel. I really like the country, have visited there many times. Ont he other hand, I also understand the Palestinian plight, so I could take either side of the issue, depending of whom I debate.

I think that this is something that science teaches you. To understand an issue, you have to look at limiting cases, from all possible points of view. You also have to have an open mind for results that don't fit into preconceived notions. I wish for myself that I would always adhere to those principles, but I confess that the polarizing partisanship of the PF debate often gets the better of me.

 

Well said, I've let anger and tribalism get the best of me on many occasions. I've really tried to train myself to recognize the difference between truly fundamental issues and contingent positions. From there, I do research and try to determine what would logically follow from those premises. Obviously, it is much easier said than done. I'm with you on abortion. I'm flexible on it, for now, but I do not like it and am more than willing to vote for someone who is against it. I'll eventually get around to looking at the arguments, but appeals to religion will not cut it for me. If there are secular/cultural/nationalistic arguments against it, I'll consider them.

 

I went from being a liberal to being a marxist.

 

I have to say though, you're very well written. If this is the kind of discussion you're going to bring to PF, I more than welcome it. As you've pointed out, incomplete information tends to create noise and static, creating illusionary points of agreement and disagreement where they otherwise wouldn't be found. Let's take foreign policy as an example.

It's not necessarily that conservatives see building an Empire as necessary for protecting the country(Indeed, short of Trump's rhetoric, the conservative right has stayed in its quasi-religious orothodoxy for the last 50 years or so.) The same with its economic and otherwise principles. Mostly based off of a rhetorical point of existence rather than a solid philosophical foundation.

Rather, conservative foreign policy can be summed up in one sentence: Better you, than us.(This is especially so, in it's paux religious crusades.). Manifest Destiny has always been US Foreign Policy, as much as Obama might dislike that fact. We believed that spreading our ideology would lead to a more peaceful and just world.

The problem of course, in lies with the switching of the guard. It was only with US Corporatism that it looked "stable"(insofar as you knew what to expect from the US Oligarchy class.). But if the parties are fundamentally different, thereby their philosophy being different then what was once acceptable, would be deemed unacceptable by the next administration. Leaving our relations with 'X Country' in a bit of a crossroads.

Then of course, if that country goes off the rails of our philosophy, that also changes things fundamentally. In essence, the problem with relations of a country is they are never stable because countries, inherently aren't stable. I think our neighbors around the world got a little too comfortable with the US Oligarchy's desire to maintain a perpetual market and thought to themselves "As long as we play along the market rules, the US will leave us alone."

They never imagined that the US Citizens would have enough of a corporate-world and a corporate-US policy that left them as puppets for a global system that enriched the top-1% not only in the US, but around the world. If the last world war was caused by religious hatred, the next one is going to be caused by corporate warfare on proportions of untold scale.

What, then of my foreign policy? How do I see the outside world and our relations to it? I see everything in perpetual balance.(IE: Everything should be rationally balanced. Imbalance itself is the cause of foreign turbulence.) If the US foreign policy is essentially to reward non-aggressors, and to punish aggressors then we need to be consistent with that principle in mind.

We cannot back Israeli aggression under the guise of their whining of their "existence"(They can take care of themselves). Nor can we ally with Saudi Arabia who tolerates and enhances dictatorships like Bahrain. Nor can we ally with Turkey, but instead we should be supporting a new Kurdish State. We send a message to every Autocratic dictatorship in the Middle East by outright refusing them. If you're a dictatorship, you're outside of the big boys club and aren't even welcomed.

Of course, it's not on the basis of what it "calls" itself but on the basis of a human rights scale. Those countries high on the human rights scale, we'll of course be strong allies of those countries. Those on the middle end of the scale, we'll assist. Those on the low end, we "encourage" them and hopefully they improve. If they take antagonistic actions(see: North Korea) then we take them out. Point blank.

It's not so much that the US is the policeman of the world, but that rather the world has standards just like nature has its standards. The US enforcing those standards is no different from the other great countries of the past. It simply cannot be allowed that some mad man dictator gets to plunge his own people and the world into a war. Before that happens, we take em out.

Outside of this, I'm a fan of balanced trade, not free trade. I believe in mutual agreements that enhance the economies and the qualities of both countries. There's really no reason for one country to try to get ahead of another country. Game Theory suggests that we do this because of incomplete information. But generally speaking, I find that it's better to find the most amenable deals. If certain deals leave us on the shortstick, we negotiate elsewhere for better deals or complimentary deals that make that "other deal" a lot better.

My positions on immigration are pretty fundamental as well. I believe firmly in legal immigration, and the people who came here legally. We need to speed up the process for legal immigrants, and positively encourage legal immigration. As for those here illegally, there'll be a coded system. Those who've committed the most violations, will be barred from the country, never to return.

Those in the middle/low end get the same treatment: Pay a fine, learn English and get back in the line of legal immigrants.(Sort of a Green card-type of status.) Depending on the offense of middle violators, some of them may be on thin ice and have to skate it since they can always be demoted to low-end status at any time.

Something like this would allow us to more realistically admit anywhere from 2-6 million of the 12 million illegals. That's as high as I'll go. And even them, only in systematic steps of a few years at a time to absorb the blow and grow the economy.

 

Yep. Changed my mind about Trump.

 

I thought about it, but then changed my mind and didn't do it.

 

This long post is totally irrelevant.i it does not matter if people's ultimate goals are the same because the problem is that there are many ways to get there and none of those are inherently wrong, they are a matter of opinion. There is not a single issue on the planet that has a right answer and a wrong answer.

Take the issue of murder for an extreme example. Most of us believe it is wrong but many do not so who is right? There is no cosmic law saying it is wrong, it was not written down by the universe somewhere, it is a matter of opinion. Now the majority can make laws to punish those who do this sick action but you cannot tell those who do it that they are wrong.

 

Well said. I've been on this forum for six years, and I've pretty much adopted the same "live, and let live" attitude towards others, and if you don't you're just going to be angry all the time.

 

"I have to say though, you're very well written. If this is the kind of discussion you're going to bring to PF, I more than welcome it."

Thanks, and same to you! I like hurling insults occasionally, just like everyone else, but it gets boring pretty quickly.

"Outside of this, I'm a fan of balanced trade, not free trade. I believe in mutual agreements that enhance the economies and the qualities of both countries."

Completely agree. I used to be fully on board the libertarian train until I realized it was a pure abstraction and had little resemblance to reality.

"My positions on immigration are pretty fundamental as well. I believe firmly in legal immigration, and the people who came here legally. We need to speed up the process for legal immigrants, and positively encourage legal immigration. As for those here illegally, there'll be a coded system. Those who've committed the most violations, will be barred from the country, never to return."

My problem with immigration, either legal or illegal, is that it is used as an economic weapon by the wealthy to depress wages and increase profits. I don't see any real economic benefits to the people who are already here, on net balance. Bring in the Einsteins of the world if you must, but we are not responsible for people in other countries, generally speaking. I consider national self-interest to be fundamental. Some will argue about how I make arbitrary borders and distinctions between people, but for the sake of simplicity I draw the line at the border. Perhaps someday we will be so technologically advanced that we can take care of everyone, but that day has yet to arrive.

 

My positions are shaped by relevant facts, and other posters here and other places have brought forth facts that have either prompted me to seek additional information or temper my knee-jerk reaction position. For instance, I really believed the cop was wrong in the Ferguson shooting, but the influx of facts over time made me switch. I used to believe AGW existed, and now I believe that man has nothing to do with the changing climate at all. I used to support wind turbine power but then I came to be aware of the environmental nightmare being caused in China in the mining of the rare earth minerals need for those things.

Shocking, I know, but I usually do follow links to stories if they are new, and follow the links within the linked story to try to get back to the original stories, and google issues and positions people state, often before I take a position on something new. I have no problem setting a bag of burning poo on other posters' doorsteps and ringing the bell mind you, but the more persistent or novel an issue is, the more likely that others directly or indirectly shape my opinion.

 

I went from being unsure about gay marriage to supporting it.

I went from thinking government jobs were a good thing to thinking they are an economically dangerous thing if too numerous. (but I don't think our current economy is in that danger zone)

And maybe a few more issues I can't think of right now. The problem is that the ability to change ones mind is seen as weakness, or at least an admission of being wrong. Most are not willing to go there.

The other thing is that people who post here mostly want to argue and win; considering the other sides points hampers this. Only a small minority come to discuss things for clarity.

 

I am still unsure about AGW and open to arguments, but I simply don't feel like I can trust many of the people who are shaping public opinion, in either direction, on this issue. If you have a really good source or sources I'd love to see them.

Those are some pretty big ones. Yeah, the tendency to avoid changing one's mind publicly is very hard-wired. Actually, I don't blame people for refusing to budge because it is often the case that budging ends up hurting you socially. The minute you concede a point, many people subconsciously lose respect for you, and this causes even bigger problems. Sadly, sometimes it is better to just tell someone to go @#$ themselves.