But part of it, possibly connected to the same emotion, is that changing minds rarely involves a sudden realization, except with regard to simple objective facts that are not core beliefs.* Rather one works through things as the necessary adjustments get made in one's overall web of belief and finds oneself, subtly, with changed views at the end. There wasn't a moment at which I realized, for example, that I wasn't really a Marxist, this just emerged from thinking about issues and questions over many years.
Even relatively rapid changes often take some time. I recall back during the invasion of Lebanon in '82 (yes, yes, I'm ancient) visiting to my then-girlfriend's place and getting into the screaming argument about Israel with her folks that every progressive young Jew got into at that time with their parents (or in-laws, etc.), when it was no longer possible to be silent for the sake of civility. It made for a very antagonistic visit, but we were gratified, on a subsequent trip that fall to hear her father, who was not, to put it mildly, receptive when we first raised the point, basically echoing our arguments in a fight (which we fled) with other family. It just took him a few months to readjust. And then the point was that he came to see it our way, not that he ever said to us, I Was Wrong -- which he never did.
What's the point of looking for the further statement, I Was Wrong. What one hopes for in discussion, ideally, is to be enlightened and to help enlighten others, not to establish victory or defeat. Looking for admissions of error in that context only gets people's back up and interferes with the purpose.
It reminds me (speaking as lawyer) of a basic mistake novices make in cross-examination, asking one question too many. Witness says, X. You say, did you not say not-X at your deposition? Witness grudgingly concurs and tries to explain. Instead of saying, thank you, and asking the next question on a different topic, you say, So were you lying then or now? At this point the court will indeed allow the Witness to explain, and your impeachment will probably fail.
Just as in cross, it's best to let the jury see the contradiction and ask that question itself, here it's best to watch as one's ideas quietly change minds over time, and to let others note how their ideas have changed yours, rather to to try to make points and keep score. That might not be the intention of expecting admisions of error, but it is the effect.
* Thus I said that the gains of US capitalism accrued to less than 1% of the population, and Doug corrected me with the right figures; it has been substantially more, at least upper quintile. However it seemed unnecessary to waste bandwidth by posting a statement that I Was Wrong. Challenge to facts that support core beliefs rarely meet with such acceptance -- see James H's turns with regard to the underlying point, that capitalism has not been so great for US workers over the last generation.
--- Dwayne Monroe <idoru345 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Thornton wrote:
>
> Truthfully Doug, when was the last time you saw a
> list
> member admit they were mistaken in one of their
> beliefs?
>
>
> Carrol replies:
>
> New Angel has persuaded me that I need to modify my
> perspective on "united front against the u.s."
>
> .....................
>
>
> And I'm sure others have also experienced such
> changes, even if they don't speak up (or are lurkers
> and therefore, by definition, never emerge from the
> shadows).
>
>
>
> Hell, I even devoted a whole post to ideas I've
> discarded because of list discussions:
>
>
>
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2006/2006-December/024483.html>
>
>
>
>
> .d.
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail