Why don't the facts change our minds
The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote: "Faced with the choice between changing your mind and showing that there is no need to do so, almost everyone takes up the test."
Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the slowest man of ingenuity if he has not already formed an idea of them; but the simplest thing cannot be clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is presented to him ”.
What's going on here? Why don't the facts change our minds? And why would anyone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do these behaviors serve us?
The logic of false beliefs
Human beings need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the real world, then you will struggle to take effective action every day.
However, truth and precision are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
En Atomic Habits, escribí: “Los humanos son animales de manada. Queremos encajar, vincularnos con los demás y ganarnos el respeto y la aprobación de nuestros compañeros. Tales inclinaciones son esenciales para nuestra supervivencia. Durante la mayor parte de nuestra historia evolutiva, nuestros antepasados vivieron en tribus. Separarse de la tribu, o peor aún, ser expulsado, era una sentencia de muerte ".
Comprender la verdad de una situación es importante, pero también lo es seguir formando parte de una tribu. Si bien estos dos deseos a menudo funcionan bien juntos, ocasionalmente entran en conflicto.
En muchas circunstancias, la conexión social es más útil para su vida diaria que comprender la verdad de un hecho o idea en particular. El psicólogo de Harvard Steven Pinker lo expresó de esta manera: “Las personas son aceptadas o condenadas de acuerdo con sus creencias, por lo que una función de la mente puede ser mantener creencias que traen al creyente el mayor número de aliados, protectores o discípulos, en lugar de que las creencias que tienen más probabilidades de ser ciertas ".
No siempre creemos las cosas porque son correctas. A veces creemos cosas porque nos hacen ver bien a las personas que nos importan.
Pensé que Kevin Simler lo expresó bien cuando escribió: “Si un cerebro anticipa que será recompensado por adoptar una creencia en particular, está perfectamente feliz de hacerlo y no le importa mucho de dónde proviene la recompensa, si es pragmática ( mejores resultados como resultado de mejores decisiones), social (mejor trato por parte de los compañeros) o alguna combinación de los dos ".
False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we could call this approach "factually false, but socially accurate." When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family on the facts.
This idea not only explains why we shut up at dinner or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but it also reveals a better way to change the opinion of others.
The facts do not change our minds. Friendship does.
Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they risk losing social ties. You can't expect someone to change their mind if you also take away their community. You have to give them a place to go. Nobody wants their worldview to be shattered if loneliness is the result.
The way to change people's mindsets is to befriend them, integrate them into your tribe, bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being socially abandoned.
British philosopher Alain de Botton suggests that we simply share meals with those who disagree with us:
“Sitting at a table with a group of strangers has the unparalleled and strange benefit of making it a bit more difficult to hate them with impunity. Prejudices and ethnic struggles feed on abstraction. However, the proximity required for a meal - something about handing out plates, unfolding napkins at the same moment, even asking a stranger to pass the salt - disrupts our ability to cling to the belief that outsiders wearing unusual clothes and talking accents distinctively deserve to be sent home or assaulted. Despite all the large-scale political solutions that have been proposed to alleviate ethnic conflict, there are few more effective ways to promote tolerance among suspicious neighbors than forcing them to dine together. "
Perhaps it is not the difference, but the distance that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I remember the Abraham Lincoln quote: “I don't like that man. I have to get to know him better."
The facts do not change our minds. Friendship does.
The spectrum of beliefs
Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned to me an idea that I have not been able to shake: the people who are most likely to change their minds are those with whom we agree on 98 percent of the issues.
If someone you know, like, and trust believes in a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Perhaps you should also change your mind in this case. But if someone very different from you comes up with the same radical idea, well, it's easy to dismiss him as a nut.
One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and find yourself in Position 7, then there is little point in trying to convince someone in Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you are in position 7, it is best to spend your time connecting with people who are in positions 6 and 8, and gradually lead them in your direction.
The most heated arguments often occur between people at opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs with close people. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it is that one or two beliefs that you don't share will spill over into your own mind and shape your way of thinking. The further an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it entirely.
When it comes to changing people's minds, it is very difficult to jump from one place to another. You can't jump across the spectrum. You have to slide down.
Any idea that is different enough from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to reflect on a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates.
In a conversation, people should carefully consider their condition and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When faced with a series of uncomfortable events, the tendency is often to redouble their current position rather than publicly admit that they are wrong.
Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone's head and without risk of being judged by others. It's easier to be open-minded when you're not feeling defensive.
Arguments are like a complete frontal attack on a person's identity. Reading a book is like slipping the seed of an idea into a person's brain and letting it grow on its own terms. There is enough struggle in someone's head when they are overcoming a pre-existing belief. They don't need to fight you too.
Why misconceptions persist
There's another reason bad ideas keep living, and that is that people keep talking about them.
Silence is death to any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated.
I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to indicate that they are part of the same social group. But here's a crucial point that most people miss:
People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can critique an idea, you must reference that idea. You end up repeating ideas that you hope people forget, but of course people can't forget because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
Let's call this phenomenon Clear's Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe that an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated in the last year, even if the idea is false.
Every time a bad idea strikes, you are feeding the very monster you are trying to destroy. As one Twitter employee wrote: “Every time you retweet or date someone you are angry with, it helps them. Spread your BS. Hell for the ideas you deplore is silence. Have the discipline to give it to him. "
Better to spend your time defending good ideas than tearing down bad ones. Don't waste time explaining why bad ideas are bad. You are simply fanning the flame of ignorance and stupidity.
The best thing that can happen to a bad idea is that it is forgotten. The best thing that can happen to a good idea is that it gets shared. It makes me think of the Tyler Cowen quote: "Spend as little time as possible talking about how other people are wrong."
Feed the good ideas and let the bad ideas starve.
The intellectual soldier
I know what you might be thinking. James, are you serious right now? Am I supposed to let these idiots get away with it?
Let me be clear. I'm not saying that it is never helpful to point out a mistake or criticize a bad idea. But you have to ask yourself: "What is the goal?"
Why do you want to criticize bad ideas in the first place? Presumably, you want to criticize bad ideas because you think the world would be better off if fewer people believed them. In other words, you think the world would improve if people changed their minds on some important issues.
If the goal is to change your mind, then I don't think criticizing the other side is the best approach.
Most people argue to win, not to learn. As Julia Galef so aptly puts it: People often act like soldiers rather than scouts. Soldiers are on the intellectual attack, seeking to defeat people who differ from them. Victory is operative emotion. Meanwhile, explorers are like intellectual explorers, gradually trying to map the terrain with others. Curiosity is the driving force.
If you want people to embrace your beliefs, you must act more like a scout and less like a soldier. At the center of this approach is a question that Tiago Forte asks wonderfully: "Are you willing not to win to keep the conversation going?"
Be nice first, be right later
The brilliant Japanese writer Haruki Murakami once wrote: “Always remember that arguing and winning is breaking the reality of the person you are arguing against. It's painful to lose your reality, so be nice, even if you're right. "
When we are in the moment, we can easily forget that the goal is to connect with the other side, collaborate with them, befriend them, and integrate them into our tribe. We are so engrossed in winning that we forget to connect. It's easy to spend your energy tagging people instead of working with them.
The word "kind" originated from the word "relative." When you are nice to someone, it means that you are treating them like family. This, I think, is a good method to change someone's opinion. Develop friendship. Share a meal. Give a book as a gift.
Be nice first, be right later.
Comments