Jim Chrisinger is a retired public servant living in Ankeny. He served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, in Iowa and elsewhere. He also holds a law degree from the University of California, Berkeley.
Preserving American democracy and the rule of law motivates me every day. I feel compelled to reach across the divide to those in my world who, wittingly or unwittingly, would undermine or even throw these foundations of our republic overboard. So of course I want to persuade them. But I’ve learned the hard way that my preferred mode of persuasion—facts, reason, and values—very rarely works.
Then what does?
Which led me to read David McRaney’s 2022 book How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion. Here are my takeaways, first what I’ll call “Findings” and then practical “Dos and Don’ts”:
FINDINGS
Facts and reason generally don’t work because we are more emotional than rational beings. People have to talk themselves through their own thinking, processing things they have never thought of before. You’re not likely change someone’s mind, but you may be able to help them change their own mind.
They can be helped to see things differently by experiences, their own or those of people they know. If you can, evoke a memory that contradicts their current reasoning, which can prompt them to question their current position.
Strive for “cognitive empathy,” “an understanding that what others experience as the truth arrives in their minds unconsciously, so arguments over conclusions are often a waste of time.” It’s better for both sides to focus on their processing, how and why they see what they see, not what they see.
Reality is subjective. We each see and experience everything though the lens of our priors, our prior perceptions and experiences. Our brains resolve ambiguities, which are everywhere, by using our priors. Which leads us to our truth.
Others, with different priors, see and experience the same thing and come to a different truth. We each tend to think that the way we see the world is free from bias and assumptions. We’re each convinced we’re right and we don’t see how we could be disagreeing.
Our brains are constantly taking in and processing new information. But we see what we expect to see. Information that contradicts our priors is often not acknowledged or in some cases even noticed. For people in a cult-like group, contradictory evidence can be invisible, nonsensical, or irrelevant. Often, perceiving contradictory information actually hardens positions.
Motivated reasoning means you will find the evidence that you’re looking for. In fact, the more intelligent and educated you are, the more data at your disposal, the better you are at motivated reasoning. People are good at picking apart others’ reasoning, but terrible at picking apart their own in the same way. “When you argue with yourself, you win.”
All this can make it feel like we’re battling over reality itself.
Our perceptions and conclusions are reinforced by our peeps and our tribe. We all carry within us an evolutionary “us/them” psychology, a need like hunger or sleep. Once we become an “us,” we begin to loath “them.”
We are “willing to suspend belief to not feel alone.” Communities attract us. They provide support, a sense of belonging, a narrative, and scapegoats.
Our perceptions are motivated by our identity and need for belonging. We highly resist updating our priors when it could lead to being ostracized.
We feel deeply threatened by an idea that challenges part of our “us” identity. And we use motivated reasoning to pick the things that reinforce our tribal identity. Expertise is no longer trusted if tribal loyalty is in play. Taking positions on public policy issues is more about group loyalty because most of us don’t perceive that we have a direct stake in many public policy issues.
We are unreliable narrators of our own stories. We think we’re reasonable, rational, self-aware people, but we aren’t.
People think they know more about what they believe and why than they actually do. When asked to explain, they often have trouble, which can lead to their views becoming less extreme.
We don’t know what we don’t know. “Until we know we are wrong, being wrong feels exactly like being right.”
When contradictory information piles up, we get uncomfortable. At some point the contradictory information can lead to a shock of recognition and we adjust our reality.
People only change when they feel safe and are prepared to actually contemplate the issue.
To exit a cult-like group, a person often needs to develop a trusting relationship with someone on the outside. Treating the member of the group with understanding and kindness opens the door for the group member to see that not everyone on the outside is as terrible as the group maintains.
Responding to hate with hate, or even condescension, makes it easy for the hater to dismiss you. It validates their view. They need to see a community on the other side that would welcome them.
Constructive group dynamics don’t apply online. People there tend to either reinforce each other or shout at each other.
DOS AND DON’TS
Face-to-face conversations are best.
Listen. Be a genuine, curious listener. No one is going to listen to what you have to say unless they first feel heard and understood. When they say something that is important to them, repeat it back to them in your own words and ask them if you got it right. Be sure you did. Keep doing this throughout the conversation.
Establish rapport. See above about listening. Building rapport may take several conversations.
Be clear about your intentions, which should not be condescending or hostile. Transparency builds trust.
Have a conversation, not a debate. Don’t argue. Encourage reflection.
Keep your message simple and positive.
Don’t ask who’s right. Ask why we see things differently. Figure out where the differences come from.
Look for common ground, especially at the level of values. We often share the same values. Then the conversation can be about different ways to act from those values. Appeal to deeper values. The way to the brain is through the heart.
Facts should be delivered by a trusted source in a setting where people are amenable to reflection and learning. We don’t usually pause and reflect, we use shortcuts (heuristics) to process quickly and lazily.
The shortcuts are often self-serving and group-serving.
To make your message more impactful, pair it with a popular counterargument. You’re more credible if you acknowledge the other side’s claims.
Gently probe the “why” behind their position, how they “know” it to be true, and how much confidence they have in their position. Ask what justifies their confidence and how. Then share the same.
Have empathy and humility about what you “know.” Demonstrate that you’re open to their perspective and input.
Sharing stories, your own or others’, can open channels of reflection. Share how you’ve evolved over time on these issues.
* * *
Unfortunately, McRaney’s insights won’t suddenly unite us. They do offer a way for each of us to at least open communication across the divide, and maybe make a difference.
Top image by GaudiLab, available via Shutterstock.