One study I found is where they let people (their control group) check some data about effectiveness of a certain shampoo. They all found the correct answer. Then they let people do the exercise with the exact same data but said it was about gun control. Suddenly a part of the participants failed at basic math and had a lot of rationalizations.

Some folks will not just accept any fact or data that goes against a belief held by their peer group. Giving facts will even be seen as a personal attack.

it matters a lot how the information is presented

well he was in a bit of a bind. If this had changed his mind, what would that say?

Without seeing the studies, it's hard to know if they were good studies that support her position or not.

Things are more complicated than that. You have the guy you argue with who won't admit they're wrong but maybe in the aftermath will shift their opinion a little and after many discussions like that agree with you. Than there are many passive bystanders, undecided and won't comment but maybe find your point more persuasive

I onde read a pluralistic article about this where he linked apaper that the backfiring effect was supposedly a fluke.

Yeah it matters a lot how the conversation is set up.

Is it "you and I versus the facts"?

Or "you vs me"?

Competent people can disagree and also identify where the facts are missing and the assumptions begin that lead to this. It doesn't have to be a fight if they look at the data as something to discover together.

Sometimes people will make a broad statement then link a study that supports it and act like boom that makes it a fact. No it doesnt. A study supporting your statement helps support your argument but it doesnt make it a fact. The real world is extremely complex and there are so many factors that can make something true in one place,space or moment in time and worng in another.

Theres only one good way to change someones mind over something that they have become entrenched about - for example politics, but anything where the reaction is a no rather than a what.

And thats to listen to everything they say, and ask the right question at the right time, a gentle interjection, something that nudges them to question something themselves. At somepoint they might even ask you about you perspective, and you need to give the right kind of answer.

Its slow and painful, and for big things it takes years and years of work to get someone to change. But its the only way ive found to truly work.

however, if he did change his mind, you would need wrong

I mean, they’re both right. Without seeing the studies, we can’t know exactly what was being investigated, but obviously people have the capacity to change their minds. It just depends on what timeframe, how much evidence, potential removal from propaganda system, etc.

I'm sure everyone here has seen people change their minds when confronted with information that runs counter to their narrative.

There is also a thing that people sometimes change their mind under the weight of evidence, but not immediately. It often requires you to think about it, collect your thoughts and all, and it takes some alone time

I don't post the links to change their mind, I post the links to show the rest of the world why they're wrong.

Maybe but there's this shitlib take that the problem with the Democrats isn't their shitty candidates or their shitty policies or their shitty consultants or their shitty campaigns.

The problem is the voters are just too deplorable to vote the right and honorable way.

This whole "you can't change minds with reason" is a shibboleth for these types of people.

These people would rather lose and be self-righteous about being "one of the few good ones" than put any pressure on the dems to stop this country's increasingly fast slide into fascism.

Theres a technique called deep canvassing where you don't question the second parties beliefs or tell them things but instead build empathy, make the conversation about them, ask them about themselves, and then tell them things they probably didn't know as a way to let them decide for themselves that they were wrong before.

If a person thinks a car is purple but it's actually beige an expert could ask about their car and their own car and how they have similar costs or routine maintenance to form a connection, then talk about the sources of pigments and introduce indexes or catalogues of colors, and the person would see on their own how purple relates to blue and red and how beige relates to yellow and come to the correct conclusion on their own.

Changing someone's mind in a public debate isn't necessary to show everyone they're a fool. That's usually enough.

Whether they ever get sick of being a fool is entirely up to them. If they're wise & mature, they will & maybe even admit it. Some people never do & it's mostly their problem at that point. Humans gonna human.