🙃 I used to have this disease.
Now I have the disease where I try to present appropriate data and POVs, knowing full well that most people are in no emotional position to accept anything that threatens a pre-existing worldview--but also that there are other people despairing over how little facts seem to matter to most; and that they seem to despair a bit less when they know they're not alone.
So, I present arguments for them.
I call it "pragmatic futility", & I'm definitely in a late stage.
@MLClark The issue has been delved into in lengthy academic articles on the psychology involved. But the most concise description I have ever heard was by ICU doctor on IG.
The bridge too far is when ideology moves into identity. So they are no longer evaluating information. He said, "It is like arguing with someone about their own favorite color."
It is baffling to people like me who dramatically changed positions over time with new information.
@MLClark Related, it reminds me of a pet peeve on that stupid Churchill quote we hear so much.
Churchill was far from an all-knowing wise philosopher though he was the right guy for a specific time in history.
I changed from conservative (default settings from my upbringing and environment) over time precisely because I have brains. I am data driven and far from a wide-eyed idealist only using my heart.
Churchill was wrong, about this and other things. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767
@S_r_stone
I'm the same: new info can change my views as abruptly as necessary.
But I embrace constructive dissent and the idea of holding multiple views in tension, which is *not* what most are trained to do.
As you note, the conflation of position with ID is the culprit - and it not only makes folks resistant to change; it makes arguing more likely to entrench them in their initial POV.
So after learning that... my whole approach to argument flipped.
😉 As it should with new data, right?