Skip to content
Back to the collection

Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussions

Chenhao Tan, Vlad Niculae, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Lillian Lee

2016 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
3
Readers
3
Months
3
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

Changing someone's opinion is arguably one of the most important challenges of social interaction. The underlying process proves difficult to study: it is hard to know how someone's opinions are formed and whether and how someone's views shift. Fortunately, ChangeMyView, an active community on Reddit, provides a platform where users present their own opinions and reasoning, invite others to contest them, and acknowledge when the ensuing discussions change their original views. In this work, we study these interactions to understand the mechanisms behind persuasion. We find that persuasive arguments are characterized by interesting patterns of interaction dynamics, such as participant entry-order and degree of back-and-forth exchange. Furthermore, by comparing similar counterarguments to the same opinion, we show that language factors play an essential role. In particular, the interplay between the language of the opinion holder and that of the counterargument provides highly predictive cues of persuasiveness. Finally, since even in this favorable setting people may not be persuaded, we investigate the problem of determining whether someone's opinion is susceptible to being changed at all. For this more difficult task, we show that stylistic choices in how the opinion is expressed carry predictive power.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions

thomascountz
Neutral mention · rule
The researchers argue that the ends justify the unethical means because they believe their research is meaningful. I believe their experiment is flawed and lacks rigor. The delta metric is weak, they fail to control for bot-bot contamination, and the lack of statistical significance between generic and personalize models goes unquestioned. (Regarding that last point, not only were participants non-consenting, the researchers breached their privacy by building a personal profile on users based on their Reddit history and profiles.) Their research is not novel and shows weak correlations compared to prior art, namely https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01103
indemnity
Neutral mention · rule
You’re not using effective arguments that will change someone’s point of view. I believe climate change is coming but trying to convince someone they should change because they are a Bad Person if they don’t change their ways, or that some unspecified type of fuckedness is looming, is not very successful. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01103v1.pdf

Keep following the thread.

More in Psychology

More from the same topics.

2018arXiv

Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure

A. Pluchino. A. E. Biondo, A. Rapisarda

The largely dominant meritocratic paradigm of highly competitive Western cultures is rooted on the belief that success is due mainly, if not exclusively, to personal qualities such as talent, intelligence, skills, efforts or risk taking.

16 mentions14 months
2.5HN score