Frequent in-person discussions between people with different opinions tends to make people compromise and find nuance more easily. However if one side of the discussion is self-censoring, then both sides will tend to develop extreme opinions without any means to tamper them. As such, what you are describing is actually evidence to support the self-censorship hypothesis, not refute it.
>Frequent in-person discussions between people with different opinions tends to make people compromise and find nuance more easily
Is there any reason to think this is the case? In my experience, in-person disagreements over 'big things' (be they politics or philosophy) either end in bitter disagreement, or what appears to be a compromise but actually isn't (because one or both parties do not wish to talk about the topic any more, before things get worse).
> However if one side of the discussion is self-censoring, then both sides will tend to develop extreme opinions without any means to tamper them.
This assumes that most disagreements are resolved when there is a difference of opinion. Personally, I rarely change my opinion after speaking to someone, and I instead change it when I do my own reading around topics. The fact is that it's awkward to ask 'what's your source for that?' in a conversation between friends. Either one or both parties don't care enough to provide a source, or it's impractical (such as at a dinner party).
To surmise, I'm questioning whether mere in-person disagreement really does tamper the essence of those extreme opinions, not merely the appearance presented to that particular conversation partner.
I don't agree. I have many very interesting conversations with people that I do not agree with politically, but I respect their intelligence and point of view, and vice versa. It is vastly more realistic to have a nuanced and respectful debate in private, versus a public discussion which will inevitably devolve. If you would like proof of this, open literally any twitter thread about politics with more than a few replies.
>I have many very interesting conversations with people that I do not agree with politically, but I respect their intelligence and point of view, and vice versa.
Likewise. But I wasn't saying that's not possible, I was saying that I'm not convinced many people change their opinions over the course of such conversations. Being civil is important, but the question was whether civil debate among people who know each other in person results in more reasonable opinions, or compromises.
It's obviously better than online conversations. But to what extent? I don't think GP made a sufficiently convincing case.
The objective of a conversation is not to change the other’s opinion, it is to understand each other on a deeper level than at the start. If the net result is a shift in opinion on either side (or both) then so be it.
The idea of “right” and “wrong” views is flawed and to set out with the objective of persuading the other to your view is a mistake. Getting them to understand you view, whilst you get to understand theirs, is a better objective. You can’t change the world if you don’t understand it.
It is of course extremely difficult to have this kind of conversation online especially in short form.
