Anonymous 09/03/2017 (Sun) 21:09:35 No.12954 del
The issue here is that "factual" doesn't mean anything in layman's data acquisition, it's just surrendering one source of authority over to another, which is itself a cognitive burden, and the general issue of facing the paradox of positivism. When every source of information is a blind gamble, why favor the one supported by people who take a tribalistic stance against you? People with an agenda to "prove you wrong" or in fact who have any care of your previous opinion being either right or wrong. That itself pre-selects the evidence used on the basis of being more effective at proving you wrong rather than being accurate, which makes it inductively weaker evidence than any that would just befall you without any context. Even by chance it's smarter to avoid listening to people who try to convince you, and even if they're trying to 4d chess you into believing the opposite of what they say, it's more likely that they'll just fail even at that. In the meantime, free information that is allowed to disseminate stripped of context is more likely to just happen to teach you more accurately than anybody who is having some kind of an agenda, because statistically they'll cancel each other out but statistically random factions with agendas aren't going to corner you equally.

If you really want to convince anybody, the best way is when they don't know you're trying to, but when neither do you know that you're trying to. But at that point you're really shit at convincing, because you're an unlikable little shit and probably talking shit just to impress a girl or some shit.