Re^2: Perl 6 critique is a good thing

I agree. However:
Arguing now, unfortunately, also helps to create a class of people that have an emotional investment in — an ego-identification with, if you will — the perception that they did not make a mistake in their initial negative reaction to Perl 6. Often, when someone jumps to a conlusion, he or she with be extremely reluctant to let go of that opinion even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

The same is true in reverse, as well: many people, jumping to hasty positive conclusions, are just as likely to be reluctant to admit they were too optimistic in their initial assessments, later on.

That's not to say that I think any discussion of the matter should be discouraged, however. It's a mixed bag, this question of benefit vs. detriment in terms of public opinion, but discussion is more honest, more open, and more likely to lead to positive change.

- apotheon
CopyWrite Chad Perrin

Comment on Re^2: Perl 6 critique is a good thing

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Perl 6 critique is a good thing by ihb (Deacon) on Oct 19, 2004 at 19:46 UTC
Indeed. I did partly forgot about the confirmation bias that effects the human brain. When trying to make a decision we value arguments that agree with us more and in higher degree dismiss arguments that don't agree. So yeah, it's a mixed bag. I believe though, that if a sceptic reads a sceptic article that is well counter-argued he's more likely to change opinion than if he had read a positive article. If they go "yeah! exactly!" when reading the article which is well counter-argued, then it has not been positive or counter-arguing in general -- it has counter-argued directly with the reader. When that happens many feel forced to reevaluate their opinions since their opinions were counter-argued. As always, it's all about how it's done... `ihb` Read argumentation in its context!	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Perl 6 critique is a good thing by apotheon (Deacon) on Oct 19, 2004 at 20:01 UTC
It's true that reading the detracting article with argumentative responses that support what the article detracts is a more effective prompt for challenging assumptions, for some people and in some circumstances. At some times and with some people, however, it's less effective. I doubt it's as easy to call one more effective than the other as you appear to be saying. It's still true, though, that minds are more likely to be changed with the existence of the critique than without it. You're very much on the money, there, I believe. Part of the reason for that is that while one approach or the other to changing minds will work well on some people and not so well on others, the existence of both is likely to result in a net increase in the number of people influenced by it. Still, I'm not so much concerned with the persuasive power of articles and responses to them as I am with the informative power of them. If you throw enough (true) information at someone, he's likely to incorporate much of that information into his worldview and persuade himself of what is increasingly indisputable as he learns more. Data is unbiased. - apotheon CopyWrite Chad Perrin	[reply]