Has a GN discussion/thread ever swayed your opinion?

Oh yes, I came over from Mumsnet feeling rather old there but I would say the same applies. Strangely I would say that my opinions have often been swayed due to the characters portraying them. I found upon reflection and researching things for myself that I would tend to agree with those who were polite and respectful in a given discussion and those who were rather snide, manipulative or suffering from a superiority complex and less than agreeable characters I did not agree with after reflection and research. So yes my opinions often changed while reading others experiences. I suppose the same way we might read AIBU and think "Well you do sound like rather an unreasonable person" when they argue with others careful answers. Ha

I’ve always been a sponge for information, and I’ve learned a lot from some threads on Gransnet. I enjoy a discussion where people have good knowledge about whatever is being discussed, and post references for information, regardless of whether I agree with their political beliefs or not. I have changed my mind about some things as a result of discussions on here, yes. The green agenda and the need for prison and mental health reform are ones that stick in my mind.

No, my opnion has never been swayed. I have found some people's remarks on here quite inflammatory on the political threads, calling people names because they don't agree and making snide remarks. It is as if they are purposely wanting to anger people because their opinion is different and I find I just put over my view on what I know, in my way and then that's it as I don't want to engage with the put-downs, it can be quite upsetting. I really don't feel I have to put links to prove my findings. That's all.

The reason facts do not change most people's opinions, is because most people do not use facts to form their opinions. They use opinions to form their 'facts'.

Claremont

The reason facts do not change most people's opinions, is because most people do not use facts to form their opinions. They use opinions to form their 'facts'.

This is true, I think.

I dislike dishonesty, particularly when it is dressed up as 'balance', and rarely trust anyone who claims to 'see both sides' and be 'in the middle'. Sometimes people just don't have an opinion on something, or don't care either way, and that's ok, but it's not the same as being neutral or somehow more reasonable than those with stronger feelings about the subject. In fact, those who feel strongly have often (but not always) thought more about whatever it is than those with no feelings at all.

There are opinions and world views that I find objectionable, but that doesn't always mean that the people holding them are so. In a democracy we all have a right to an opinion, and I am often surprised when people can't quite believe that others have different views from theirs. Maybe that's because for most of my life there have been governments which have acted in ways that are diametrically opposed to my beliefs, so I've had to get used to it . Also, I think anyone with any sense can see both sides of an argument - they just agree more with one side than the other.

If someone can back up their opinion with logic or an explanation of why they hold it, I will definitely listen, and I like learning why those who disagree with my views do so. My views don't necessarily conform to a party line anyway, so sometimes feel muddled, and taking on another contradictory point of view doesn't bother me in the least.

I suppose some of us like "evidence" for things. I know I do - even if it contradicts my feelings about something.

I have often been proved wrong in "real life" and hold my hands up if I am. I suppose I try to do that here too. But maybe others don't see me like that here...
Maybe I'm just a bit of a "fact nerd"...

My hard and fast political opinions are exactly that 'hard and fast' so they won't change, but when I said earlier my opinions had changed I meant on matters such as getting upset over something that I had blown out of all proportion, in cases like this a few common sense but sympathetic replies made me change my opinion on whatever was troubling me and put it to bed. Gransnetters can be great levellers. If a bit too robust at times.

NotSpaghetti

I suppose some of us like "evidence" for things. I know I do - even if it contradicts my feelings about something.

I have often been proved wrong in "real life" and hold my hands up if I am. I suppose I try to do that here too. But maybe others don't see me like that here...
Maybe I'm just a bit of a "fact nerd"...

'Opinions are free but facts are sacred.'
On News & Politics especially I like to provide links rather than just saying something is a particular way. Though links provided are sometimes called into question at least I am providing meat in the sandwich.

I know what you mean, but I'm very suspicious of 'facts' . They are very fluid, although many people seem to assume that the opposite is true.

I like evidence of why people think something, eg a research project that has xyz results, but I want to see the actual results, not a report of how a journalist has interpreted them, as all too often that is very far from the purpose of the research and just an incidental finding.

Similarly, bald figures or statements may be 'true', but not tell the whole story, as they can't show why or how something has happened. As an example, I heard yesterday about how the daughter of a neighbour had refused to care for her when she was ill. People were tutting and complaining, but the truth was that the daughter works and knew that if she agreed to be the carer her mother would not get the help she needs during working hours. By refusing to be the named carer she has allowed her mum to get professional carers three times a day, and she looks after her overnight. Her refusal was a 'fact', but the way it was presented was not the truth.

Reading and being suspicious of links and facts and the way they are presented engenders healthy debate though Doodledog, which is much more productive than people closing down discussion by saying ‘I think xyz and I’m not interested in what anybody else says or any evidence that might imply that I’m incorrect’.

I agree, and I don't think I do that, do I? (say that I'm not interested in evidence that contradicts my initial view)

What I mean is that when people say you can't argue with facts it doesn't necessarily mean that they are any closer to the full picture than if they have been given opinions.

Much depends on where the opinions come from and how the 'facts' are interpreted. So yes, I like to see evidence, but I won't necessarily take it at face value, and as I say, I am immediately suspicious when people say they have the facts. Not so much individuals in discussions, but people with any sort of axe to grind.

Most individuals are well-intentioned, I think. I may not agree with much some of them say, but on the whole I think we all believe what we say to be the truth because of how it has been presented to us. Vested interests, on the other hand, will manipulate figures and present information very cleverly in order to persuade people, who then go on to push forward that point of view.

Too many people put up barriers and refuse to listen to other viewpoints. IMO an over-reliance on 'facts' is as bad as not bothering to verify anything, when it comes to getting at some sort of truth.

Sorry - I also meant to say that where facts are concerned what is left out is as important as what is presented as the truth. Everything that is said can be true and verifiable, but if it's only a partial picture the truth can still be massively misrepresented.

Doodledog

Sorry - I also meant to say that where facts are concerned what is left out is as important as what is presented as the truth. Everything that is said can be true and verifiable, but if it's only a partial picture the truth can still be massively misrepresented.

I agree, i think if we could have discussions where people all came from that perspective and challenged, it would be really worthwhile. I know some people really don’t want that though, and just like to throw grenades in to debates to derail serious discussion into a cul de sac. Impossible to please everybody I think.

Not immediately, like a light switch going on, but some threads have made me consider different viewpoints before dismissing them and sticking to my own

No

not a report of how a journalist has interpreted them, as all too often that is very far from the purpose of the research and just an incidental finding
I think Doodledog makes some interesting observations here, and in her follow-up post, on how material is presented to the reader.

As an example, I often read newspaper items or watch tv news on the same subject in a foreign language. The nuances are different, and quite often the findings of a report do not tally exactly with those of the UK media. That's because different countries, different political parties, different people, different GNetters all see and analyse things from their own peculiar perspective. A different slant is put on the way things are reported and that's why there is no merit in just copying out chunks to manipulate the readers.

It's necessary to listen to others' viewpoints because as stated, an over-reliance and dogged insistence on 'facts' is as bad as not bothering to verify anything, when it comes to getting at some sort of truth.

I am personally grateful for threads or pov that make me rethink and look at other ways of thinking about an issue. Mainly through research. I often spend quite a bit of time on independent research to better understand facts- and it can be really eye-opening.

Recently I have spent some time studying the history of the Israeli-Palestine conflict since the end of WW2- and also the history of Netanyahu, especially through the story of his father and grand-father, who was Polish, and had a very different name. Netanyahu means chosen by God (sounds familiar? Both Hitler and Trump have said they were God chosen).

Always good to have one's views challenged- and often confirmed- but not as just 'opinions', but based on facts and extensive research from different angles.

Nathan Mileikowsky and his son were extreme Zionists and had a very powerful influence on their son and grandson.