How often do you/can you change your mind on a topic?

I'd definitely only ever change my mind once on a topic.

Although now I think of it, it might be twice.

Actually it could be three times.

No, no, I was right the first time. Only once. That's definite. 100%.

Or maybe it's never. That one would be handier. Never. You won't find me changing my mind on anything. Too stubborn

People who are authoritarian personality types will change their mind but rarely admit to it

People who are flakey personality types will often find it hard to commit to any position and defend it when challenged

The flakey people will think they're more reasonable, almost by definition, in that they can be reasoned into almost anything, but what good is that if you can be immediately reasoned back out of it, even with poor quality arguments?

At the end of the day, all humans are flawed bags of walking contradictions and you should never meet your heroes

I've been able to change my mind on several things over the years. Growing up, I would have been far right without even knowing. I had a very sheltered childhood with parents who were (and still are) very racist. But once I fled the nest I began to realise that much of the world around me didn't see things the way I did, and I softened my stance on quite a few bits as a result; abortion and homosexuality being the two I can think of right away. If I'm given sensible, logical evidence that proves me wrong on something, then I'm more likely to change my view on it.

Definitely have changed my mind on certain topics. Eg younger me very much so bought into conspiracy theories but I just got a lot more discerning as time went on. Then other things I've become far less certain of. Eg if nuclear power makes sense in Ireland.

I read history and over the years I've changed my mind on numerous topics because better arguments and more evidence has been put my way. One has to allow one's mind to be changed, at least in part, based on what comes to light. Being staunchly rigid in an opinion or a position even when the evidence against both is overwhelming is just, frankly, a symbol of stupidity or simply an unreasonable fear of being viewed as "wrong" by one's previous fellow travellers or even by one's own self.

Far too many people, these days, blithely pick a position (often with an abundance of ignorance on the topic) and then will argue to the death (including the death of their integrity) in defence of that position, no matter how untenable it is and, more often than not, it stems from their political views rather than any objective reading. And those political views are often handed down to them from elsewhere.

This is especially prevalent in online "discussions" (which are often anything but) where you can see people bleat a whole host of absolute gibberish, change their lines in the sand and move the goalposts just to try an "win" something, even though there's nothing to actually win. I've seen that around here numerous times, where you'll have certain posters type reams and reams of complete drivel and then disappear when they have their arses handed to them, only to re-reg and try again under a different guise. This is, obviously, because the internet is anonymous and the web allows cranks of all colours to find a voice and a receptive ear. I would seriously doubt that you'd see a lot of the opinions expressed on Boards knocking about openly in the real world.

I don’t mind reading other people’s opinions but they aren’t going to change my mind on anything.

Ken fukking ham..isn't that the gobsh1te that build noahs ark ?

I'd pretty much fall within this range.

I try and take in as much evidence as possible and then come to a position. Even more important than just "evidence" though?

Is the quality of it. What weight or bias does one ascribe to their sources.

One should of course be able to change their position if there is a paradigm shift. Holding a position that's untenable solely because of dogma never ends well.

Yeah. Lots of people like to thnk they are open to reason and follow the best evidence all the time but we're all frail humans with unconscious biases.

I didn't mean that there were two types of people, but people exist in the spectrum of stubborn vs flakey, both types will change their minds over their lifetime, it's just how they do it and how they justify those changes internally that are different.

It's really the difference between Authoritarians and free thinkers. Some free thinkers are far too credulous and can be convinced too easily by anyone who sounds convincing, while Authoritarians tend to pick a side and go with that package of beliefs all in (even if that means supporting multiple contradictory positions all at the same time)

I recommend 'the authoritarians' by Robert Altemyer

So one of the worst human flaws is the attachment of ego to our stated opinion. As soon as we state an opinion, we take ownership of it and thus we have a huge bias against breaking that opinion, despite any evidence that contradicts that opinion. It's why I loved the idea of 'proof by contradiction' when I first heard it in a math class as a kid. I think you can see it as the root to abusive relationships too, where the abuser cannot change their initial judgement of the abused, as to do so would require them to accept the shame and guilt of abusing an innocent victim, better to not change ones mind, than face the pain of growth.

Realistically it's absolutely ridiculous to think that your opinion has any value to anybody except for yourself. Therefore changing it costs exactly nothing. However we are humans with egos, so I find the best solution to this problem is to suspend judgement until the last moment where you are forced to commit, that way at least you can maximize the time under judgment before you force yourself into a position and be trapped by your own ego.