I don't really understand what you mean whether it's an idea or a thought or words that you have spoken if you think you have done this and you're not sure you just say I'm not sure if you know for a fact that you've done this then you know for a fact
A very good friend of mine and I something had happened and we get started to dissect it over and over and I kept saying no that's not the way it happened it happened like this over and over and over for at least 45 minutes and I was telling her I saw one way she was telling me she heard it a different way and each time that I would go back and run it through my head again I was coming up for the same answer and then I set back for a few minutes thought about it and I said no this is what I said and word by word by word by word I said. And then I got to wear I said blah blah blah and I had to admit to her and look her straight in the eye and said you know what I am so sorry you are 100% right they took me 10 times 15 times to break it all the way down and be honest Engel word by word by word so honesty is all the way not 3/4 of the way and you forget something that's not being honest. Honest is telling the whole truth and being able to admit you're wrong and I was I had to apologize because I was being a dick because I could have swore up and down the way I first thought is mad force not until I kept rerun in it and I got to that point to where fart I forgot and it was so little but that little thing cause this to have an argument that I had to admit I was wrong which isn't that big of a deal when I'm wrong I'm wrong and I will tell people that
I had an argument when I was younger with a mate of mine. It was just for laughs, we would debate all kinds of things. Anyway, we were on one about nuclear fission and fusion and I remember during the argument realizing he was right, but I decided I would just keep debating in the spirit of debate, rhetoric, etc. I actually ended up winning the argument, he conceded I was right, and I kind of felt bad because I knew it wasn't a real victory. I told him what had happened and we laughed about it, but it came up years and years later, he remembered it differently, that I was right and I was really right, but I don't remember his "version". I have found this multiple times now, and with things that I KNOW are not true, and I can see how people's memories mess with them, they remember things that didn't happen, or in a way that isn't true (and in some cases I know because it was impossible). So now I don't even trust my own recollection of things often and I have to admit that just because "I remember" something, doesn't mean it is accurate. My memory could be false.
I have a psychology degree and I think the biggest take away I took from all of my classes, including neuroscience, biopsych, cognitive etc is that people are not logical by nature. It’s the biggest misconception people have to this day we respond with emotion on almost every issue l. If someone has a deeply held belief they get what’s called dissonance. Basically they will just form their beliefs around the evidence or seek out new evidence to disconfirm what they just read. Dissonance creates strong emotional discomfort and often times people will withdraw to deal with this and shut out new information.
When people read conflicting evidence it creates discomfort and often times people will not change their beliefs but instead double down. If you throw nothing but evidence at someone with a deeply held belief they will withdraw, become angry, and more closed off.
The most striking study to me was when they made people read something that provided evidence against their beliefs and the area that had to do with logical reasoning didn’t even light up instead the primary region that lit up was the one associated with emotional conflict. The evidence created an emotional conflict instead of a logical thinking process. People were reacting emotionally not logically.
They also found that virtually everyone is prone to this as well. Doctors, scientists, politicians, democrat, Republican, nobody is immune. Dissonance and emotion are very strong. It’s why evidence is almost useless when trying to convince someone in this day and age. It’s easy to deny, easy to find evidence that fits your world view, retreat to your echo chamber, to ignore it. Everyone is guilty of this.
The sad part is when I read conflicting evidence now I know this but I still feel that inner conflict happening in my head. We ignore what we disagree with.
And the worst part is everyone just always assume their instincts are correct, that they are somehow know more than everyone else, that their instincts aren’t just their emotions. Completely oblivious of their internal biases.
It's so true and so interesting that 90%+ of the poll takers are saying "of course I would go with the facts" or "I would check the facts, but then go with the truth." It's bloody hilarious bc I can see the evidence every day that this is totally BS.
Not usually. Most facts over time get disproven. So everything is truly just a opinion even if it's supposedly a fact that science proves. If I believe in something then it's cause I think that way and nobody is gonna change my way of thinking regardless of what "facts" they pull out of their asses.
Depends on the topic. I think the problem with google is there is evidence for almost every single thing. People have debates and come along with sources as if it’s hard to evidence for everything unless if something is absolutely false
Opinion
46Opinion
It's important to remain open-minded and unsure until all of the data and evidence are presented. Being too certain in black-and-white terms too soon also seems act of confidence-competence or BS rather than actual understanding.
Consider how the NTSB operates in gathering information about plane crashes. They make no conclusions or speculations until they have all the research and evidence together because it could create an outcome bias. They also consider all possibilities and contributing factors rather than attributing blame to a single factor.
I develop informed opinions based on available information. I constantly seek more information. I modify or change my opinions as more information becomes available.
That's the difference between opinions and beliefs. People don't change their beliefs no matter how much information contradicts them.
But what is fault was once right untill proved otherwise.
For years people had believed that sun and other constellations rotate around earth.
But then it was proved wrong new theory came they proved it or we believe it that they proved.
We agree cauae we just don't know any better than the possibility of things they had shown.
For example Stephan Hawking made a theory about the big bang or something , and every one agreed as the equationd showed it to be right then years later he proved his own theory wrong and again others agreed.
Do once very truth just became an invaluable , insignificant crap.
Evrything is bielief and faith and just perceptions we agree to settle upon I cannot change my mind but I can change the perception to beilieve in something else bc I myself couldn't figure it out anyways.
Your life has a certain value bc of the perception that you created for yourself.
My strongest opinions aren't really based on evidence. It's like I think Robocop is a great movie. Someone might say it sucks and they can show me evidence that it does like some scientific paper that concludes after some rigorous analysis that Robocop sucks. But it's still my favorite movie and I still think it's great.
For ideas that are evidence-based like whether the earth is flat or an oblate spheroid, I don't really care about what is right. I just care about whatever people flying airplanes should believe to most efficiently navigate the earth. I don't care about what is right.
It depends if the evidence was credible or if it was fabricated (false). I would check and see if that evidence was valid first before changing my mind. And if it was, then I would change my mind. So, option B.
And I wonder how related to the COVID vaccine this question is. (That is, it being unsafe and dangerous to take.)
Depends on many factors. Simply having "evidence" is not proof of anything. Else there would be no need for lawyers or courts, let alone a need to make cases.
You need to make a case for the evidence and allow it's examination. Simply accepting something at face value is American, and stupidly illogical.
Depends. I have been objectively wrong before, and after figuring that out I of course change my mind... but when it comes to opinion, there isn't really a point to.
Sure, but the evidence has to be from an objective source. Otherwise it's just an opinion someone is trying to pass off as evidence. And usually opinions are really just lies that someone is not willing to admit to.
It depends on the validity of the evidence. I wouldn't be swayed simply by seeing some herbert's view on a random website.
Scientific research though with genuine facts, that is a different matter!
B and I do think many people would honestly vote B as well. Because group think and the illusory truth effect has created many issue and ensures that many of those issues with never be solved if both maintain such a strong grip on people.
To call it proof, I also have to confirm its veracity. So yes, if I find the evidence credible, I will change it. In this life, one should not be fixed-minded. @BlacklightShade
If I saw evidence that I was wrong I would research that evidence before I changed my mind
Depending on the subject. I would look into it some more.
If I was emotionally invested I might need some time to digest it.
Evidence and definitely proof aren't the same thing. But I always try to keep an open mind, so if presented with evidence, I'd keep it in mind and be open to the possibilities. I've been wrong before and I'll inevitably be wrong again.
I would so some research but I can admit when I am wrong.
Research in incognito mode so your own bias won’t bleed through the googled search results
Of course. If you can't change your mind, you never learn anything.
I would need some time to process it, but then I would change my mind. I have done so in the past.
I am hardly ever wrong about things but if somebody had proof that I was wrong I would take the time to check it out and then maybe change my mind.
Yes I would and I know I would because I've done it many times.
Uh... Yeah. That's the whole point of science and education.
Evidence does not lie. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.
It depends on what it is but I'd need to corroborate it before I believed something major
If the evidence is from a reliable source I will change my mind. Nine times out of ten if the evidence looks strange it's probably misinformation or "alternative facts".
I prefer to have all the facts to make my best decision. I welcome a critical opinion
If I saw evidence that I was wrong I would research that evidence before I changed my mind, but if the evidence was reliable and correct, I would change my mind.
Yeah, because one small detail can change the meaning of the hole.
It depends on the idea and the evidence, but yeah..
It depends on the evidence and how strong my view was
If the evidence is valid, of course I change my opinion.
Yes that's called learning. If review the evidence and if it holds true, change my mind.
I would need to do research on my own to prove the evidence before I change my mind.
Kinda of no. My idea is an entire story, I can’t just throw that away
I have seen evidence I was wrong and changed my mind several times.
With covid, by the way.
Absolutely. I tend to be a more logical than emotional thinker.
If it was really true evidence then yes otherwise it would be totally ignorant not too lol
I choose B because there are many cases where the source of such info was unreliable
Funny you should ask that considering every post you make on here is a liberal one sided point of view lol.
depends on the evidence and my understanding on the presented evidence.
Yes. It's not that hard to do.
Voted b but more like c.
Yes, of course. It's called facts and logic. :)
Yeah, you can't learn otherwise
Yes if it was strong evidence
Yes. If it were a credible source.
It would depend on who's supplying the "evidence".
Probably research it then change my mind
Only a dumb person would not
B is what i usually do.
Yes most definitely and I have before.
There must be very strong evidence.
Only if the evidence could hold up to scrutiny.
Yes, I value truth.
Obviously
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
