Fast Brain and Slow Brain
I found a lot of information in the book, Thinking Fast and Slow, and published a little review of that. It's an excellent work, and I highly recommend it. It is an explanation of the actual research by the scientist who did it - not a popularization. My review is here.
It helps to understand that we have two ways of thinking. One is FAST - intuitive, instant, genetically tuned over hundreds of thousands of years to help us avoid dangers. The other is SLOW - deliberative, difficult, hard to do. And thinking slow is so much work, that when we do it for any extended period, we do it even more poorly.
Pattern Recognition in our Brain
Another way of thinking about this is that our brain is finely tuned by evolution to recognize PATTERNS. The brain sees a large collection of data, and immediately recognizes a pattern buried in the data, and then responds to that. And it does it without any conscious control on our part. For example, when you first meet someone, your brain makes a nearly instant judgement about the trustworthiness of that person, based on a whole collection of data that your brain recognizes as a pattern. The demeanor, the smile, the posture all help form this rapid judgement. If you were to try to break down what just happened, you would not actually be aware of all of the components of that pattern. In a similar way, when you look at the faces of people running for elected office, your brain makes a rapid judgment about their trustworthiness.
It turns out that we are very quick to make very bad judgments about people by looking at their face - but we do it very quickly and not consciously. For more see this study.
You CAN overcome the first, fast judgment, but that is a lot of work, and it is very demanding and tiring. Most people do not do that most of the time - it is just too much work. And, it is dangerous. There is no point in trying to analyze that pattern of the lion in the path - just start moving the other way.
When it comes to persuading someone of a simple FACT, it turns out that we generally do not deal well with facts. We operate mostly on intuition that reacts to the patterns we see. And our intuition works hard to defend itself. If we threaten someone's intuitively held belief, their ego or self feels threatened, and it throws up all manner of defenses. In fact if you offer someone information that runs counter to their beliefs, that actually reinforces their belief. That is NOT a problem, it is simply how humans work. It is called identity protective cognition. Check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_cognition
Progressive/ Conservative
We also have two different world views that are somewhat genetic in origin, and further refined by our cultural upbringing. Jonathan Haidt has done a fine study of these in his book The Righteous Mind. We all have 5 basic moral values that form our ethical beliefs. But progressives tend to lean strongest on the first two, while conservatives put a lot more emphasis on the others.
Haidt's Moral Values Theory
These are the values that Haidt believes drive virtually all moral decisions:
- Harm / Care.
- Fairness / Reciprocity.
- In Group Loyalty. Only humans can form very large groups, which was a major step in enabling us to create civilization.
- Authority / Respect. We love strong leaders.
- Purity / Sanctity. Sex on the right, food on the left.
https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-are-those-idiots-from-other.html
Intuitive / Deliberative
It also seems that some of us are more prone to intuitive thinking rather than the deliberative kind. Researchers used to think that intuitive thinking would not be as prevalent if someone were more intelligent, or were better educated. Neither of those seem to be the case. It appears that SOME of us are more prone to deliberative, and less tuned to intuitive. I'll let you guess which one I am! This has come to light in some studies about how one type is more prone to be religious that the other.
http://time.com/4038407/religion-intuition-deliberation/?xid=newsletter-brief
I guess that is good news, in that it further clarifies why humans tend to be so stuck on their beliefs in the face of any amount of information to the contrary.
This is NOT Rational
When a presidential candidate that fits your GUT or instinctual sweet spot says something totally outrageous, you tend to find an explanation for that, or just simply ignore it. But also means that no amount of information, education, or native smarts is going to persuade people about things that are simple facts that are contrary to their beliefs or values. They are not open to debate. For a simple example, over 40% of people in the US believe in creationism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/creationism-america-survey_n_5434107.html
And this is not just generic creationism - these folk believe that a deity created humans in the form we have now within the last 10,000 years. That defies all rational behavior, but it is true. An additional 31% believe that the deity guided the evolutionary process to arrive at you and me. That is a tad more rational, since it can somewhat be reconciled with the evidence. A tweak here and there is all it would take for the most powerful entity in the universe to guide things to us. But that means that only 19% think evolution is what it seems to be - a simple part of how all things work.
How to move forward
So . . . faced with that, how does anyone ever actually analyze things like "trickle down economics", or a "free market", or "economic impact of immigration", or "global warming", or "statistics on the effect of gun control", or whatever the latest problem is? I think the simple answer is that you do NOT. You need to let go of that approach. In fact, offering information just confirms the contrary belief. Just repeating the contrary belief reaffirms it. You need to take a totally different tack.
I am certain we must continue the research into all of those things, but we should not be misled that the simple creation of the factual research results is going to have much impact. You need a story, and a value based framework to make any significant change in human kind. Think songs, plays, Disney!
Re-Framing
This is the approach best supported by the neuroscience we have at this point. See this article for more on that:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/the-simple-psychological-trick-to-political-persuasion/515181/
Don't Think of an Elephant, by George Lakoff.
Dr. Lakoff's approach is to NOT even mention the "elephant", that is, the other person's viewpoint. Instead, focus on values that you share with the other person, and recast the whole discussion into those values.
I seem to have a real problem doing this. I am a somewhat middle of the road progressive - I lean hard on Care / Harm and Fairness, and I am somewhat open to some of the other moral values: Group Loyalty, Authority / Respect, Purity / Sanctity - but not much. For example, I would find it very insincere to frame an argument about Global Warming in terms of the power bestowed on us by the deity in the biblical story of creation. I also have a hard time thinking that those with power and authority based simply on their position and tradition are owed any respect at all.
Turns out there are OTHER ways to approach people if you are interested in a discussion that might actually lead to new knowledge and understanding on BOTH sides. There is an internet community within Reddit, that has been working on this for some time. Reddit is nothing like Facebook - it is primarily text - and it has strict RULES of civility. Imagine that. One of the cooler things is that as people read things they get to vote them up or down. You can easily see the most popular stuff right at the top - it is NOT filtered by your prior choices or preferences - unlike Google and Facebook.
One of the sub-reddits or communities deals with changing your view: Change My View. AND it can work! This group was used as a data mine for a doctoral research paper on the best ways to approach people with different views. That paper can be found here:
https://chenhaot.com/pubs/tan-thesis.pdf
I got this from a podcast, which you might enjoy listening to more than reading the research - it starts off with the Trix Rabbit:
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2016/10/09/yanss-086-change-my-view/
You will also find a nice summary of the results here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/how-to-change-someones-mind-according-to-science/?utm_term=.421ec88fc11a
Here are the main findings, rephrased by yours truly:
Ask the other person to outline the reasons they hold this belief.
If they have good reasons, that means they have really thought it through. If they do not, there is a high likelihood that they simply hold to this belief without a lot of thought, and they will be resistant to any change. If you can help them work through the basis of their belief, that might move them to think about it a bit more. This clearly has to be done in a supportive framework. Think of Steven Covey's rule: Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Help them express their belief and the reasons for it, in their terms, in their values. You want them to say, yes, you have it! That's right! This lowers their protective threshold. Covey came to this through simple practice - no neurological research - but it does work.
I found one of the keys to this is to NOT think of all the arguments I would make against their view. That leaks out to the other person, they pick it up, and they stop thinking and explaining, and begin arguing. Be positive and affirming - let go of your opinions - hang in there. Show clear empathy. "Wish them well" inside your head, and it will leak out so they can see it. And you might learn something as well.
Do Not Attack In Any Way.
Do NOT offer any negative comments about their point of view. Do not attack it in any way. Simply state your perspective calmly and clearly. Any attack will immediately raise a defensive wall.
Use Bullet Points.
Explain your point of view in some length, but not TOO LONG. Break it up into bullet points. Reference their reasoning points one by one. This helps them see each component separately, and it lets them respond to them individually.
Point to Facts Calmly.
You can point to facts and studies - summarize the result and then reference the other paper or discussion. Use calm language, not hyperbole, not emotional content.
Do not claim a superiority of numbers or anything similar.
Ad hominem arguments tend to backfire. It comes across as an attack to tell them that they are an outsider.
Hedge your statements.
For example, you might say: "It could be the case that such and such", instead of "It is definitely proven that such and such". This tends to soften the tone and avoid a defensive response.
When To Stop.
Research says that after 4 exchanges or so, if you have not made much headway, let it go. Do not lose a friend over it. You can always come back later.
The way people explain their reasons can also give you a pretty good idea as to whether they will be amenable to actual discussion. If they use "I" a lot - things are more likely to go well than if they use "we" - a group with which they identify. Group membership tends to dominate over individual thinking.
If they use superlatives a lot - MOST, GREATEST, BEST, ANYONE, CERTAIN - things are also not likely to go well. (Where have I heard superlatives used abundantly of late?)
Hang in there.
The researchers found, that even in this forum, where people come expressly to get their views challenged, and the rules of civility prevail because the admins enforce them, MOST people do not change their initial view.
My bullet summary:
- Build a relationship of trust with the person, or the audience.
- Talk about values you share.
- Ignore the differences - absolutely IGNORE them. If you are running for political office, NEVER even mention the other view or the other opinion.
- Talk about the values that you hold, that you share with most people. If someone has to know where you stand on a specific decision, find a way to cast your answer into these values - not the simple black and white.
- Ask them to explain the reasons for their belief or opinion.
- Do not criticize or speak negatively about their statements.
- Talk calmly, point to facts, not groups of things or people.
- Seek to understand and restate their opinion better than they do.
- Inside your head, wish them well - it will show.
Remember, I'm pulling for you. We're all in this together.
POSTSCRIPT
It is important to really respect and value the other side. It simply does not work to hold them responsible, blame them for their feelings, etc. But I always have a tough time trying to understand how they could possibly hold to such crazy ideas and still be functioning humans. If that is your problem, try this little thought experiment with me.
What does this FEEL like in the other person?
To get a bit of empathy with the other person, think about the following stories. Psychologists conduct experiments where they present a story that offends one's sense of what is "sacred".
Eating the Family Dog
For example, what if the family pet, Rover, was hit by a car in the street. The father goes out and collects the dead animal, brings it inside. And then he announces to the family that since there are cultures that eat dogs, the family should roast Rover and have him for dinner. MOST people react pretty negatively to that - without thinking at all. Rationally, a dog is meat - just as much as if it were a cow, or a squirrel, or rabbit. There is really nothing wrong with eating the family pet.
Brother Sister Sex
For another example, what if a brother and sister were on vacation together, and they decide to experiment with sex. Neither of them have ever had sex, and they figure it would be fun to learn together. They use some form of birth control, so there is no likelihood of a pregnancy. Again, most people react immediately. But there is no good rational reason for why they should not have sex if progeny are unlikely.
Pedophilia
I have never found the above examples to be compelling, but this one does it for me. A friend of mine was talking about an article in a magazine, lamenting that there is such a stigma to pedophilia that people who have this predilection cannot reveal it to anyone, not even to seek help. He went on to talk about the movement where people with this attraction to young people are seeking to legalize the practice where both parties consent. And, he said, we have to recognize that for some people, this attraction to really young people is simply how they are built, the same as any person attracted to the same sex. Now that one got me. I could feel the negative emotion rising right up, and I was about to object with words about age of consent and the like. But I saw it coming - and I was able to stop it and think about it. I could still feel it - this negative, immediate reaction, but I could explore it a bit. As my friend pointed out to me, there are cultures where sex among young people, and between generations is perfectly acceptable. In those cultures, people are not damaged by the experience. There is nothing anatomically or physically or psychologically harmful in that practice in that world.
Those "Others" are Feeling that their Sacred has been Violated.
If you had the same reaction to that which I had, it is powerful. My sense is that this is the same thing that our friends on the "other" side feel when something is presented to them that their identity cannot accept. It is not rational. It takes quite a bit to stop, grab the feeling, and examine it. Keep that in mind when you talk with them. Wish them well.
ADDENDUM
Just an addendum on this one - there is a wonderful cartoon series, complete with bibliography, which explains the genetic component of this pretty well - in, basically, comic book form. You might enjoy it - just saying:
http://www.startribune.com/this-is-your-brain-on-politics/451274073/?ref=nl&om_rid=1627155913&om_mid=59510217
