The following link:

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/com...chapters/consist.htm

has inspired some discussion.  If presenting convincing arguments solidifies your detractors in their beliefs, what does that mean for communication?  For social interaction?

When I read that article I did think it was very interesting.  Generally I pride myself on approaching debate forums like this and community chat with the intention of learning.  However, I've also realized that I enjoy debates the most when I'm playing devil's advocate; defending the minority view only because it is in the minority.  On the other hand, when I am surprised by a debate and actually find myself defending my views, I oftentimes don't enjoy it at all (unless it's one that I recently changed my stance on, because then I feel like I'm sharing what I've learned rather than defending myself).

I don't know... but I like this phrase:

It takes courage to be in the minority,
and it takes integrity to be in the majority.

Even if we are in the minority group, be it religion, ethnic, race, etc. There comes a moment where your courage has placed you in a certain comfort zone that makes you feel as if you were in the majority group. Thus requiring integrity.

Perhaps this is why, in my church, we're often told, "Don't argue.  Just bear your testimony."  My aim is usually to give a good explanation, to clear up confusion, etc., but all too often I just start argueing -- it's one of my greatest faults.  Not my greatest fault, but it's definitely up there on my all time worse habits list.

The article brought up some interesting points, but I think some of it's assumptions were a bit off.  They seemed surprized by the experiment with the feminists, and interpreted it in a somewhat strange way.  They seemed to expect that showing people their own faults would make people think "well, I guess those faults are okay after all," rather than make people want to get rid of those faults even more.  If someone is opposed to smoking because it causes cancer, showing them that they've got lung cancer too isn't going to make them say, "well, I guess smoking really is okay!" it's going to make them all the more angry about smoking.  Similarly for feminists.  They believe that society causes people to have unjustified assumptions about genders.  Showing them that they make those same unjustified assumptions isn't going to make them think "well, I guess those assumptions aren't so bad after all!" it's going to make them all the more upset about the situation.  I don't think showing feminists that they too make gender-biased assumptions is the same thing as showing them convincing evidence that people should make gender-biased assumptions.  So, I don't think the take-away message from this article is that "showing people evidence contary to their beliefs makes them believe it even more."  Usually when you show someone evidence contrary to their beliefs they will try to come up with a reason not to believe the evidence.  This is a good thing, I think, so long as the reasons for not believing the evidence are good.  What constitutes legitimate grounds for doubting the evidence varies from person to person and belief to belief, but if the person can't come up with a decent reason to doubt the evidence, they'll have to change their beliefs (or simply ignore the evidence, but that doesn't necessarily make their beliefs any stronger).  It may be that if they do come up with a reason to doubt the evidence that their belief will be made stronger.  But in that case, it's justified.  If your evidence against their belief is doubtful, it is logical for them to become more confident in their belief.  In other words, the article doesn't imply that you shouldn't try to change people's minds, just that you should have sufficient evidence ready to do it when you try.

I do think the feminist example they opened with was a little silly.  What was that supposed to prove?  Non-feminist views are okay because you've been indoctrinated with them too?  However the later examples are better.

I would agree, in theory, with your statement that a person will first try to invalidate your argument.  But let's assume your argument is solid (that doesn't necessarily mean it is strong enough to justify a change in views, but it stands on its own).  I believe the article is saying in those cases, when there are two strong arguments for opposing views, people will reinforce their belief in their pre-existing view.  Hypothetically, this can be taken to extremes, since if you reinforce a view enough, it becomes dogma without necessarily requiring justification.  Political discussions really are the best example in my experience.  It's hard to really argue science, since it relies on hard evidence, but economics?  Social sciences?

Speaking for myself, I've found this is true.  The topics I've made the biggest change in views in are one where someone basically challenged me to do my own research on both sides.  The ones I'm strongest in are where people regularly tell me I'm wrong (in part because it's forced me to research why I believe what I believe).

I'd be interested what would happen if we held a 'reverse debate' here, where people argue the opposite of what they really believed.

Heh, that'd be an interesting/fun idea to try.  Back in my college humanities class I would always write my essays expressing the opposite view that I actually had, because it was easier for me to spot the holes in my arguements.  Though, those were usually on things that weren't based as much on evidence, like the politics and such that you mention, but more on ideology (ie, "a is better than b," rather than "a is true and b is false") which made things a bit easier.