when was the last time you changed your opinion on some relatively big issue? (could be both in your personal life as well as your intellectual life)

For example, I used to be in favor of the war in Iraq (I know, I know...) and I find myself now using some of the same arguments that I had dismissed out of hand before (the war will breed more terrorism & imposed democracy doesnt work) which is quite shocking since it means that before I was simply not reasoning but instead sort of posturing

(i think my main 'argument' for the war was that I hated all the lefties so much and thought they were wrong on everything and so they had to be wrong about the war too. And i tried to make myself feel sort of special and superior by opposing the lefties. Also I didnt understand Austrian Economics very well back then (though I had been reading Mises.org) and the non-aggression principle seemed unrealistic in this case)

recently i changed my opinion about the libertarian theory of free immigration into a welfare society (I was against it on libertarian principles, but in a discussion and through my own thinking I realized my argument didnt make sense. As you may have noticed I'm still far from happy with the consequences of free immigration, but I will accept it as long as i cant find a convincing argument to the contrary)

other examples include

-Freud (I used to find him and his work ridiculous, but under the influence of Wittgenstein I started to see his work differently and began to appreciate some aspects of it tremendously),

-psychology in general (I thought it could hardly be called a science, but under the influence of Stefan Molyneux I began to see that there *are* strong regularities and principles that can be found in this realm),

-religion (used to be a militant athetist, then under the influence of Wittgenstein I began to see a possibility for a different conception of religion (as non-literal and non-metaphorical but expressive of our most intense emotions and such. so i was still an atheist, but one who appreciated religion in the William James' 'Varieties of Religious Experience' sense), then under the influence of Molyneux began to think again that I was being merely sentimental and that it was worthless nonsense after all and that forgiveness etc. are not necessarily things to strive for, and now I am sort of in dubio again),

-intellectual property (used to be for it, now against)

-all sorts of philosophers that I used to like that I now dont take seriously anymore (at least not in their core ideas)

and so many other things

and in my personal life I have tried (and to some extent succeeded) not to invest my ego in discussions or conflicts anymore and instead examine them openly and honestly, and now have no problem in changing my opinion (which makes life so much more pleasant) or sticking with them when I think it's justified.

recently though I have had some debates about e.g. free will vs. determinism and some other issues (moralit principles of debating) and at this point I cannot really tell whether I am maintaining (and developing) my position out of some sort of stubbornness or because of a complete blindspot for obvious arguments to the contrary (like with the Iraq war) or because I truly think my arguments hold up. I think it is the latter of course, but i wouldnt be surprised if some time from now I look back on this episode seeing through my 'old self and his stubbornness or blind spot'

it's often hard to tell is what I'm saying...

would anybody be interested in sharing their experiences or theories about the psychology of opinion change?

I did a video once on YouTube where I criticized the Ayn Rand Institute, and one of the things I pointed out was how they tended to conclude someone was irrational or evasive because they wouldn't change their opinion on the spot when presented with a rational argument.

I think the deeper you dig into someone's conceptual hierarchy, the more difficult it is going to be to change their opinion on something. Even if they see the logic in your argument, they may need time to think it through or to deal with the consequences of changing a large portion of their entire worldview.

A few months ago I abandoned Objectivism for market anarchism. This is probably the most recent major change of opinion for me. In some ways it was a small change (minimal state -> no state) and in some ways it was a large change (voting is aggression, corporations are statist, etc.)

I've noticed it's been impacting my worldview in ways I didn't expect as well. While I was never terribly fond of the police before, I find myself being disgusted when I see them now. In a way this is good; I wouldn't feel guilty about lying to their face in order to avoid losing my liberty when I did nothing wrong.

I'm actually right in the middle of one of these Opinion Changes.
I'm at a cross roads with Objectivism. I haven't really given up on it, but certainly have diminished respect for most people I meet and get to know who call themselves Objectivists. Through an on-going 'no true Scotsman' approach I disconnect the philosophy as it is written, with the way the intellectual authorities, and those that subscribe to it implement it's principles... or fail to do so.

I have a problem with the notion that "Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy and if you don't subscribe to it as she wrote it, you're not an Objectivist." This only promotes the "cultification" and dogma of the philosophy. It also places a timetable on the philosophy's lifespan because it stops it from being adaptive. It seems to me that notion is easily dismantled by pointing out that our knowledge is incomplete about all sorts of things, and never necessarily sufficient -as is- and exempt from revision. As our knowledge refines, about human nature for example, our understanding of ethics and politics will need to be further refined or at least expanded. Instead of Objectivism's intellectual leaders assimilating what we learn and integrating it into Objectivism... the same problems exist that did half a century ago with no expansion or clarification whatsoever. I don't believe an "intellectual leader" for a philosophy is the guy who memorizes it the best who used to hang out with Ayn Rand (*cough*Peikoff*cough*).

Ayn Rand has been dead now for more than 20 years and the biggest problems in Objectivism... ethics/politics... have been highlighted and have become it's undoing because every well read Objectivist knows, and evades those problems. Can a rational philosophy which attempts to be what Objectivism attempts to be, remain unchanged for over 20 years in the Information Age?

My original conception of "A rational philosophy to live one's life by" is something much more along the line of something that assimilates every other area of inquiry into one solid cohesive Philosophy, and changes even if only subtly, as understanding grows. Philosophers interested in promoting such a philosophy would be obligated to burden themselves with the responsibility of maintaining a working knowledge of every science they can ingest, and using that science to justify or revise their theories.

Maybe I'm just emotionally attached to giving a name to my entire philosophy because it makes it sound integrated, and maybe I'm partial to the name "Objectivism" because I value Objectivity. For comparison, A similarly screwy attachment might be an X-Scientologist who really wants to continue calling himself by that name, because he really values Science. LOL. I'm much more like an Objectivist than a Scientist would be to a Scientologist obviously, but the word game is one of the problems I think.

I haven't yet begun trying to tackle the problems that have been highlighted in Objectivism, and I don't believe I've read anyone who's attempted it... or even know if they are fixable... or even know that if they were fixed the "official philosophy" would adopt the changes.

I am also interested in IP. My thoughts are apparently the same as Stephan Kinsella's (I'll read his article in the next few days). I think you can't own knowledge, which reduces to: the only property you can own and protect is that which is scarce.

btw, Thomas Szasz' 'The Myth of Psychotherapy' is an excellent excellent critique of Freud and the basis for an alternative view of therapy not as a science but as a conversation.

also, the quoted text above is from a review of De Bouveresse's book about Wittgenstein's views on Freud: http://www.amazon.com/Wittgenstein-Reads-Freud-Jacques-Bouveresse/dp/0691029040/ref=sr_1_1/002-3525138-3229641?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192548184&sr=8-1 and that is a very good and relatively short introduction to Wittgenstein's views on Freud (I dont think it assumes prior knowledge of Wittgenstein)

ah, you have a copy of the Tractatus! a small warning: it is not the type of book that you just read on a long train ride and then understand. It took me years to understand more and more of it.

You can't come close to a universal morality while accepting the existence of positive moral obligations. Logically, no positive action can be performed always by all people, thus when the action is not being performed, the person not performing it must be immoral, and then moral again when the action is resumed.

Stefan is a little fuzzy in this area, because he likes those tight logical loops which he can wield like a club. You know how it goes: "you can't argue against UPB without using UPB." But if UPB is purely negative, then you clearly can.