>

I like this topic. I generally agree with what you are saying and for reasons you mention plus it's helped me discover the errors of my own thinking. There are even books about conversation skills that advise listening to the other person and repeating what you think you've heard so the other person can let you know if you have a correct understanding.
My only arguments:
- Time. There are situations when someone must act quickly and delaying action with further discussion could be costly or catastrophic. In those situations a person has to go with the information they have and deal with the consequences. The hope, of course, is that the person isn't too far off in their judgement. A good example of this is one person deciding whether to use lethal force on another person.
- For some people, certain opinions are part of their identity. Exposing these opinions to scrutiny is like exposing their identity to scrutiny. In this situation, the person may view a rational discussion of the closely-held opinion as, "academic" or "theoretical," or even as a personal attack. I think a person in this situation has to already be open to change before they can entertain others' arguments.
/u/mxlp (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards