"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
When Prophesy Fails, by Leon Festinger, Henry W. Ricken, and Stanley Schachter
How many times has this happened to you? You’re having a pleasant dinner with your family when suddenly the conversation drifts into to a politically charged topic. Everyone does their best to keep things civil, but for some reason your quirky uncle Ralph just can’t seem to contain himself. As if overcome by a mysterious compulsion, he completely derails the discussion with a series of bizarre interjections:
Nine-eleven was a satanic hoax orchestrated by Bill Gates. The Lizard People are using 5G networks to steal our gold. Jewish space lasers invented the moon!
It almost comical at first glance, until to suddenly realize that Ralph is being perfectly serious. He does this sort of thing all the time, as if he can't help but disrupt every peaceful gathering with his political accusations. It’s weird, too, because they never seems to arise from innocent misunderstandings. They’re wildly unhinged rants that angrily defy every observable fact. What do you do?
Well, if you anything like me, then you probably take it upon yourself to set the record straight. You very calmly explain to your uncle Ralph that Jewish space lasers are absolutely not a real thing. Bill Gates is almost certainly not a devil-worshiping Satanist, and it would be physically impossible for wireless networks to steal our gold. If you’re feeling extra motivated, you might even put together a visual presentation, complete with academic citations, compelling graphical data, and a detailed exploration of relevant counter arguments; anything it takes to demonstrate the error of his ways and bring him back into some alignment with reality.
Given such a thorough correction of his misguided beliefs, how exactly do you think Ralph ought to react? Because if this were an ideal world, then the correct response would be to thank me for taking the time to point out his mistakes. Ralph would then correct his erroneous beliefs accordingly, and he would refrain from spreading any further misinformation.
Or better yet, suppose that Ralph is feeling skeptical. Maybe he doesn’t want to take my presentation at face value but would instead like to independently verify my claims. That's fine too. Once all the data checks out, he would again change his mind and thank me for the effort. Or better still, maybe he could discover a few mistakes of my own, in which case he would counter my well-researched presentation with an even better presentation. He would dig up his own credible academic citations, peer-reviewed data, and well-reasoned arguments with which to challenge my assumptions and demonstrate my errors. If done honestly and properly, then I could be the one thanking him.
But who’s kidding who? We don’t live in an ideal world, and that kind of honest, intellectual humility is extremely rare. If anything, the most likely response is for Ralph to get wildly defensive. You're probably even experienced it for yourself dozens of times. It usually begins with Ralph ignoring the ignoring the correction entirely and then immediately changing the subject:
Jewish space lasers aren’t a real thing, you say? Then how do you explain the faked moon landing? What about the Russian bitcoin mines? Why is no one talking about that? I'm just asking questions, here.
Not to be deterred, you politely explain to Ralph that NASA mooning landings and Russian cryptocurrency operations are not the subject of this debate, and that merely "asking questions" is a meaningless gesture when one is unwilling to sit and listen to the answers. But rather than accept his mistakes and apologize for the derailment, Ralph only seems to escalate the tension even further.
You’re just a radical leftist who’s been brainwashed by the mainstream corporate media. Stop dividing the country with your anti-American homosexual propaganda. Nothing can shake my faith, you fascist.
In response, you gently explain to Ralph that dismissals, insults, and red herrings are completely unhelpful, and you desperately plead with him to kindly focus on the original matter at hand. Yet once again, this only seems to antagonize Ralph even further. Rather than humbly admit to his errors and apologize for his rude behavior, he instead gets so angry that he just terminates the discussion outright. Perhaps he even threatens to cut off your inheritance as he throws up his hands and storms out of the room. Anything, so long as he never has to admit one little thing: The idea that, God forbid, maybe he just got something wrong!
I wish I could say that this sort of scenario was far-fetched, but it seems to be a depressingly common feature in our national discourse. Challenge anyone on a political, philosophical, social, or religious topic, and you are almost guaranteed to trigger an absurdly aggressive response. I, myself, am personally guilty of this exact behavior, and I strongly doubt any human being in history can truly claim innocence. It's a phenomenon so consistently reliable, in fact, that social media websites are often deliberately designed to exploit this phenomenon for better engagement [1].
Surely, though, we can all agree that such a reaction is wildly inappropriate, can’t we? After all, everyone is wrong about something, and most of us are generally wrong about lots of things. We are all fallible human beings with an incomplete perspective of a complex world. We all exhibit cognitive biases, subjective perceptions, distorted memories, and cultural indoctrination to varying degrees. Belief in true things is certainly preferable to false, which means everyone should presumably want to know if and when they’re wrong about any particular claim. Yet every time we try to correct each other on the most trivial of errors, the result can often feel like pulling teeth.
There’s a bizarre phenomenon in our culture whereby people actually treat it as a sign of weakness to simply get things wrong. For example, the very act of correcting another human being online is often described as “destroying them” with facts and logic [2]. Countless politicians will routinely hurl the dreaded accusation of “flip-flopping” against their opponents [3], as if merely updating a policy were some kind of failure in leadership. Even scientists are often dismissed with an aggressive skepticism, simply because expert consensus tends to evolve over time []. It's ironic, too, because everyone knows that true strength of character comes not from stubborn pigheadedness, but from humility. “Real” men, so to speak, understand that the only way to truly grow is by ferociously seeking out our weaknesses and then fixing them. But if it really is that easy, then why are we all so quick to react with such belligerence against counterfactual data? What exactly is going on here?
Consider the following experiment [4].
How much coffee do you drink on the average day? Would you consider yourself a heavy consumer of coffee? A moderate consumer? A low consumer? Or none at all? Got your answer? Great. Tuck that answer aside and keep it in mind for later.
Next, I would like for you to read a scientific publication. It’s a peer-reviewed article from a prestigious medical journal called the Health Today Newsletter. The title of this article is “Caffeine and Women: A New Health Risk.” As far as you can tell, it’s a totally legitimate research paper written by actual medical experts using real-world data. It's actually a fabricated study created just for this experiment, but let's just pretend it's real for the sake of argument. According to the research, caffeine consumption appears to be strongly linked with fibrocystic disease, which is a well-known precursor to breast cancer. Women are therefore strongly urged to reduce their caffeine intake so as to mitigate their future risk.
Now I’m no medical doctor, and in all probability, neither are you. The average lay person knows nothing about the biochemical connections between breast cancer and fibrocystic disease. So when I’m faced with an apparent preponderance of empirical data backed by expert analysis, I can’t help but feel a bit obligated to accept their findings. Not absolutely, mind you, because science is always tentative and the data is not necessarily decisive. But on a scale of one to nine (with one being not convinced at all, and nine being totally convinced), where do you think it should land?
This question was presented to the control group of the study, which consisted of female participants who only identified as low or non-consumers of coffee. It should therefore come as no surprise that this very same group tended to average a score of 6/9 when grading the article---not convinced entirely, but generally swayed by the data.
Now let’s shake things up a bit...
Consider this same information from the perspective of a female participant who also happens to identify as a moderate-to-heavy consumer of caffeine. How exactly should she respond? After all, this study has direct relevance to her personal lifestyle choices. She is the one who will the suffer the most if the findings are accurate, which means she is the one who desperately needs to change her risky behavior. Even if she decides to accept the risk anyway and continue to consume caffeine, then at least she can do so from an informed perspective. It therefore stands to reason that coffee-drinking females should be just as inclined to accept the research, if not more-so, than their non-drinking counterparts. Right?
Actually, no. As it turns out, the exact opposite is true. Female participants who identified as heavy consumers of caffeine were actually less likely to accept the findings of the study (mean score = 4). Isn’t that weird? What exactly is going on here?
This is a classic psychological experiment that’s been replicated many times throughout the scientific literature [5,6,7,8,9]. Oddly enough, however, no one seems to have given it an official name, which is kind of weird for such a well-documented phenomenon. Defensive processing, biased assimilation, and motivated reasoning are only some of the names given to the same general observation: human beings have a strong tendency to unreasonably reject any new information that threatens their self-identity. There’s a certain cruelty about it as well, like a smoker who refuses to accept the risks of their habit. The people who identify most with certain labels are often the very same people who suffer the most from their inability to process conflicting information. Even worse, those same beliefs might even drive us to inflict harm on other people---like when parents refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated against preventable diseases. It’s stupidly self-destructive and often outright sociopathic, yet human beings cannot help but do this sort of thing all the time. What on Earth could possibly compel such ridiculous behavior?
Imagine you’re out hiking in the woods one day when you happen to stumble across a mother bear with some cubs. Everyone intuitively grasps that this is a terribly dangerous situation, and so any normal human being would immediately enter a fight-or-flight response. That means various glands will suddenly release a chemical cocktail of stimulating hormones, which in turn triggers a number of physiological responses throughout the body. Such responses generally include [10,11]:
- Increased heart rate and respiration.
- Diversion of blood flow away from internal organs and towards extremities.
- Dilated pupils.
- Sweaty palms.
- Decreased appetite.
- Sudden release of glycogen for rapid metabolism.
All of this is perfectly natural, and even necessary, when faced with immediate danger. But there’s at least one additional reaction that bears special scrutiny, because it directly affects our capacity to make informed decisions. In all mammalian species, stress hormones also have the added benefit of inhibiting the prefrontal cortex (or PFC) [12].
Broadly speaking, the prefrontal cortex is the part of your brain that allows you to think objectively about the world [13]. Without it, you would be unable to perform basic cognitive tasks like plan for goals, predict the outcomes of your actions, or regulate social behavior. That’s why stress hormones like adrenaline tend to shut it down during times of danger. We simply cannot afford to waste time on complex introspection when an angry creature is immediately threatening to eat us. The result is thus a tendency to react out of more immediate instinct and muscle memory, rather than careful analysis.
All of this is to say that, when confronted with a physical threat to the self, it is perfectly natural (and even healthy!), to get a little dumb. Not just a mere reduction in basic reasoning skills, either, but a wild defensiveness driven by self-preservation. It is simply not reasonable to expect human beings to grapple with deep philosophical conundrums when their brains are dealing with stress. Even a relatively mild amount of stress, when experienced over a long span of time, is known to wreak havoc on the physical structure of the prefrontal cortex [14].
That’s all well and good for a dangerous fight-or-flight encounter, but what does any of this have to do with the art of being wrong? Surely, a simple disagreement over some trivial matter of fact has nothing in common with a violent threat, does it?
Well, actually, it kind of does!
It’s important to understand that the human sense of self, or ego, is not just limited to our physical bodies. From a purely mental perspective, we are also a collection of memories, experiences, values, skills, social connections, and yes, beliefs. Our brains work very hard to construct a complex narrative about the relationship between our selves, the world around us, and our place within it. So when other people come along with counterfactual data that threatens our narrative, they are, in a very literal sense, threatening us personally. Human psychology is almost just as protective about the mental image of ourselves as it is about the physical bodies we inhabit. The natural human response is to therefore treat threatening information as if it were a similar kind of threat to the physical body. Even a relatively benign challenge to someone's cherished beliefs can almost feel like threatening to cut off a hand or a foot. The very act itself is fundamentally perceived as a kind of aggression, and so it is naturally met with a proportionately defensive response.
That’s a fine hypothesis and all, but how can we be sure that it actually reflects human psychology? The answer, of course, is to formulate a testable empirical prediction and then measure it under controlled laboratory conditions. So let's try it now.
Think again about that same coffee-drinker experiment. According to our model, if we can just convince participants to stop identifying personally with the heavy consumption of caffeine, then presumably that will eliminate the threat to their egos. It’s actually a pretty easy thing to do, too. Before evaluating the merits of that scientific study, simply ask participants to reflect on things that are important to them.
To demonstrate, suppose that you happen to identify strongly with the pursuit of knowledge in the physical sciences [15]. Given that information, which of the following famous people would you rather spend an afternoon with?
- Neil DeGrass Tyson
- Denzel Washington
One of these names relates heavily to the core value of the participant, while the other is far less so. Thus, by drawing attention to the things we truly value, we divert attention away from things we might care less about. It’s an amazing psychological tool known as self-affirmation---the act of reminding ourselves about salient values to our self-identity; and it works great, too! Coffee-drinking subjects who were primed with the positive affirmations completely eliminated any defensive bias against the challenging scientific report:
So what can we learn from all this?
For starters, if the goal is to change someone’s mind about a difficult subject, the very last thing you want to do is antagonize them. Shame, insults, and any other belligerent confrontation will only trigger a defensive reaction in your subject's brain. Even the relative sensibility of a moderated debate is inherently adversarial, which is why public debates are practically useless as a platform for changing minds. Instead, we need to engage in cooperative discussions that seek to solve common problems under a shared system of values.
Second, even if you do approach the subject with the gentle tone of Fred Rogers himself, you’re still not going to get anywhere if the belief is fundamentally intertwined with your subject’s ego. Challenges to our core beliefs, no matter how kindly they are presented, can still be interpreted as personal attacks. It is therefore vital that we focus our sense of personal identity away from the issue at hand. Try to preface any difficult conversation as something which promotes a core value, rather than threatens it.
Finally, be prepared for the possibility that you’re the one who is honestly mistaken. Nobody is immune from the effects of motivated reasoning, which means every conversation has the potential to backfire into a revelation of personal error. Embrace this! Make a commitment right now to personally define yourself as a fallible human being who values truth above all else. That way, being wrong is not an affront to your ego, but an opportunity to reinforce it.
As hard as it might seem to accept when we’re wrong about things, it’s important to remind ourselves that our popular culture is actually full of heroic characters who are idolized for doing exactly that. It’s a classic trope known as the redemption arc [16]---a character journey defined by the discovery of something terribly wrong about oneself, followed by an honest change for the better. For example, consider the famous Ebenezer Scrooge from the beloved Dickens novel A Christmas Carol [17]. For years, Scrooge hoards his wealth under miserable solitude, only for a bunch of spirits to confront him about the error of his ways. Literally overnight, the guy transforms from an angry, hollow shell into a happy, charitable person. He does all of this for no other reason than because someone else was nice enough to show him the consequences of his actions.
Notice also how the spirits don’t just beat Scrooge over the head with their “facts and logic.” The whole experience is completely devoid of any shameful belittlement, and it operates as a sincere effort to help Scrooge come to grips with his self-destruction. The guy even looks back on the ordeal with actual gratitude as he expresses his thanks for the enlightenment. No one mocks him for his spineless flip-flopping, no one holds any grudges for his past mistakes. If anything, we in the audience openly admire him for his willingness to change.
Bear in mind now that merely coming to terms with human limitations does not mean we should just unilaterally conform to every contrary opinion that happens to blow our way. There are rules you have to follow in order to make a compelling argument, and people are not going to change their minds unless those rules are met. For example:
- Can you rigorously define your terms?
- Are you citing your sources to back up claims?
- Can I check those sources myself for validation?
- Does the argument follow a logical structure in accordance with established rules of inference?
- Are there any obvious fallacies that would undermine the conclusion?
- Can I test those conclusions against empirical predictions?
Just imagine how Scrooge’s story would have ended if all the spirits did was call him a worthless idiot before hurling a bunch of dubious rhetorical arguments. Instead, they went out of their way to express real concern for his well-being, and they showed him direct empirical evidence of how his actions might reasonably unfold into the future. No amount of affirmation will save you from a bad argument, and no amount of rigor will make a dent against a determined ego. If, however, you can honestly satisfy all of these criteria, then I guarantee you it will absolutely convince me to change my mind over any matter of fact. Not only that, but I’ll actually be excited about the prospect, and I may even thank you personally for the enlightenment.
It’s interesting to hear myself say that last sentence out loud, because it almost sounds weirdly wrong to do so. Nevertheless, I absolutely guarantee you that it really is how most professional scientists tend to behave. Falsifiability is a central pillar to the philosophy of science, and a significant chunk of our time is devoted entirely to rooting out the flaws in everybody else’s work. That’s a good thing. We like it when our errors get spotted because it represents an opportunity to learn something new. There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong, and most scientists are perfectly okay with that. Being wrong is one of the best tools by which we ultimately figure out what is right.
“But surely!” I hear you say. “What’s the harm in being wrong? What’s so terrible about letting people just believe whatever they want to believe? Why must me take such a vested interest in what other people think?”
That’s a fair question, and I’m sure many of you listening to this have either heard it before or even asked it yourselves. So let me answer that question by asking you another one: Do you want to make the world a better place or not? No matter what political or philosophical beliefs you may hold to, I’m sure we can all agree that the world is full of problems. So pray tell, how exactly do you plan to solve those problems without a proper understanding of their causes and effects? Millions upon millions of people around the world are suffering horribly from disease, violence, scarcity, oppression, ignorance, abuse, and a host of other agonies, and all that suffering won’t just magically disappear by playing pretend. We live in a complex, interconnected environment where failure to understand the world can lead to devastating consequences for everyone. Correct beliefs allow us to take effective actions that alleviate suffering, while false beliefs only have the power to compound it.
I get it. We all have our beliefs, and many of those beliefs are fundamental aspects of our personal identities. But one way or another, those beliefs are going to manifest as actions, and those collective actions (or even in-actions!) will have consequences for both yourself and others. Some of those consequences may only be relatively localized, but many of them have a tendency to get amplified on a national scale. So whether we like it or not, we do not possess some unilateral privilege to just believe whatever we want. It is a moral imperative to grind out errors in both ourselves and others.
There’s a famous saying in our popular culture that everyone should be willing to “Stand up for your beliefs.” It’s pretty good advice for the most part, in that it merely encourages us to do the right thing, even when it’s unpopular. When taken literally, however, then it can inadvertently turn us into fanatical dogmatists. There’s no shame in standing up for our ideals, provided that we diligently root out the flaws with those ideals and FIX THEM. The real shame is when we stubbornly cling to those ideals forever, no matter how much harm they might cause. That’s the unforgivable sin in our popular discourse, because that’s the sort of behavior that inevitably leads to massive amounts of needless suffering. Those who cannot be convinced to change through reason can only ever be compelled to change through violence.
So the next time you find yourself on the verge of getting sucked into yet another heated debate, STOP. Take a breath and reflect for a moment on what matters most. Are you doing this to learn? Or are you doing this to defend your ego? Because the moment things begin to get “heated,” both you and your interlocutor have already lost. Both of your prefrontal cortexes will immediately lose all capacity for higher reason, and any further discussion from this point on will only degenerate into a meaningless shouting match. Take the time right now, while you are still calm and in control, to define yourself by a relentless pursuit of the truth. That way, when your errors are inevitably pointed out, you can actually learn from them and grow. Being wrong doesn't have to be a devastating humiliation. It's an exciting opportunity to show the world your true strength of character!
References
- Jaron Lanier, "Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now," Picador (2019) [link]
- Ubran Dictionary, "DESTROYED with LOGIC and FACTS" [link]
- Liasson, M., "How Do We Define A Political Flip-Flop?" NPR.org (2008) [link]
- Sherman, D., Nelson, L., and Steele, C., "Do Messages About Health Risks Threaten the Self? Increasing the Acceptance of Threatening Health Messages Via Self-Affirmation," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 26, No. 9, 1046--1058 (2000) [link]
- Reed, M., "Self-Affirmation Reduces Biased Processing of Health-Risk Information," Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 22, No. 2, 99--132 (1998) [link]
- Cohen, et. al., "When beliefs yield to evidence: Reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1151–1164 (2000) [link]
- Harris, P. R., and Napper, L, "Self-Affirmation and the Biased Processing of Threatening Health-Risk Information," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(9), 1250-1263 (2005) [link]
- Kunda, Z., "Motivated Inference: Self-Serving Generation and Evaluation of Causal Theories," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 636-647 (1987) [link]
- Liberman, A. & Chaiken, S., "Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 669--679 (1992) [link]
- McLeod, S. A, "What is the stress response?" Simply Psychology (2010) [link]
- Cafasso, J., "Adrenaline Rush, Everything you Should Know" (2018) [healthline.com]
- Arntsen, A., "Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function," Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410–42 (2009) [link]
- Richard Passingham, Understanding the Prefrontal Cortex: Selective Advantage, Connectivity, and Neural Operations, Oxford University Press (2021) [link]
- Woo, E. et al, "Chronic Stress Weakens Connectivity in the Prefrontal Cortex: Architectural and Molecular Changes," Chronic Stress, Vol. 5. pp 1--5 (2021) [link]
- Oles, P., and Hermans, H., "Allport‐Vernon Study of Value," Chapter: Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, 67--68 (2010) [link]
- "What Is The Meaning Of A Redemption Arc?" Self-Publishing School [link]
- Dickens, C., "A Christmas Carol" (1843) [link]