Good essay, and I'll comment here since P. doesn't like comments.

I'll only speak for myself. My general belief structure was well-formed before I entered the blogosphere. But comment sections and my own blog have forced me, by writing them down, to think them through a lot better.

Regular readers of this comment section know that I often am a lone voice of disagreement here, but I will freely admit that my views on some national security issues have changed significantly since frequenting WoC (although not necessarily in ways that would make y'all happy).

For instance, I'm much more convinced that the U.N. needs serious reform (but not scrapping!), that the Democrats have national security problem, and that the Israeli situation is almost completely hopeless and I don't have a clue what to do about it.

I read several blogs for information, and others for argument. I find that I learn a lot more about an issue when it is the topic of substantial debate, because the participants often work at digging up new information and fact-checking assertions by their opponents, as well as the rhetorical shotgun approach of presenting many arguments in the hopes that at least one of them sticks.

As a case in point, I held conflicting opinions on the topic of gay marriage. Due to recent events, the subject has seen much treatment on many blogs, and I've read many arguments from many perspectives. What I've read has sharpened my own thinking on the issue, and quite definitively moved me off the fence. I may or may not be able to persuade anyone with my arguments and opinions, but I feel more comfortable now that I have a solid foundation beneath my rhetorical feet. Despite Porphy's thesis, there are a few people out here who aren't completely committed on EVERY topic. =)

Sam, I think maybe you misunderstood my thesis or I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying people were committed on every topic. I am saying that blog readers tend to be committed on major principles.

They're open to being moved on specific issues, such as Gay Marriage, based on an appeal to principles they already hold.

That is, I'd bet actual money that whatever arguments moved you off the fence were arguments based in principles you were committed to already, viewpoints/perspectives you already held. Someone or several someones then convinced you that Position X (either pro or con) regarding Gay Marriage fit within that.

If it seems axiomatic that everyone has that, well it isn't. There are a lot of "apolitical" people out in the world, intelligent people but people who don't/haven't spent much time delving into these things and forming a general position. Those are people most open to being persuaded on an overall vision, but hardest to reach.

But taking Gay Marriage as an example, my own opinion was shifted (in favor), but based on appeals to higher principles I already believed in. It didn't involve a major shift in world-view (such as "converting" someone into a Liberal or conservative or Libertarian). That's much harder to do.

Porphy -

I agree that most blogosphere argument is a huge waste of time, and I only recently came to this conclusion, in the last couple of months. I used to think most people who like to discuss such things are open minded, but am now convinced most of them have made their minds up and purposely use certain sources of information (internet news sites, weblogs, radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, etc.) that either reinforce their beliefs or don't fly too directly in the face of them. I know not all people fit this mold, but enough do to convince me that it is mostly true.

I wish I were wrong.

It is particularly annoying to me personally, as I have undergone a large transformation in the last 3+ years (starting about a year before 9/11), and I used to have one set of views, but now hold an almost completely different set, and it is all because of the things I've read, nothing else.

The lesson I've taken from this is that we should choose our information sources very very carefully, and we should take steps to prevent becoming stale, an echo chamber for the comfort zones we all like to inhabit.

Porphy,

Ok, fair enough. I admit that I was convinced by arguments I was already open to, but I don't think it was inevitable that I would fall off the fence on the side I'm on. After all, there are arguments for the other side that appeal to principles I hold--it's just that I find them less convincing at the end of the day.

In the minds of politically-oriented people, I think most fundamental changes occur as an emotional or intellectual reaction to pivotal events. The event causes you to reevaluate your basic principles and rank-order of ideals as a result of a crucial new data point. 9/11 was that event for many people.

So I guess I agree with your thesis after all...argumentation rarely provides a sufficient punch to accomplish a bedrock reevaluation. My guess is that when it does happen, though, it's at least as often because someone made a spectacularly bad argument for your side as someone making a significantly good argument for the other.

I find blogs most useful as sources of information. Bloggers I generally trust as portals, although I might not agree with them on every issue (ex: here, Instapundit, Oxblog, LGF) are where I go for my daily news roundup. I know I will come away a few hours later having read 10 news stories from different papers, 5 op-eds from same, and eyewitness accounts by bloggers around the world.

As I do that I get exposed to wildly varying viewpoints. i agree with your thesis that these essays don't usually change my mind, but it is valuable to see articulate people make sober arguments, and take a side on issues that I disagree with. it keeps me from being condescending and dismissive to my opponents. I also get to read really stupid arguments pro and con, and that also has an effect on how I view the issue. (ex: I would have been pro-war anyway, but most of the antiwar arguments have been so misleading and vacuous that I am even more confident of my position.)

I've certainly seen and (mea culpa) participated in the kind of circular, pointless debates Porphyrogenitus decries. And I haven't yet read a blog that will change my fundamental world view. But in defense of comments, I see value in being exposed to arguments from those I disagree with. And I enjoy even the pointless circular debates, I suppose for the same reason one enjoys a sandlot baseball game. Nobody really wins anything, but the game itself is entertaining and good exercise.