Why Facts Do not Change Our Minds?

Economist J.K.  Galbraith once wrote, "Faced with a choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets preoccupied with the evidence."

 

  Leo Tolstoy was courageous: "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the slowest man, but the simplest cannot be explained to the wisest man if he is firmly convinced that he already knows, without  of doubt, which has been placed before him."

 

  What's going on here?  Why don't facts change our minds?  And why would anyone continue to believe in a false or false idea?  How do such practices serve us?

 

 

  Human beings need a reasonably accurate view of the world to survive.  If your model of reality is wildly different from the real world, you struggle to take effective action every day.

 

  However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind.  It seems that human beings also have a deep desire for belonging.

 

  In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals.  We want to fit in, connect with others, and earn respect and approval of our peers.  Such inclinations are essential to our existence.  For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes.  Separation from the tribe—or worse, being driven out—was punishable by death.”

 

 

  Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is the rest of a tribe.  While these two desires often work well together, they sometimes come into conflict.

 

  In many situations, social interactions are actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea.  Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, "People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so a function of the mind can be to hold beliefs that the belief-holder may have to associates, mentors, or disciples."  of the greatest number of people, rather than the beliefs that are most likely to be true."

 

  We don't always believe things because they are right.  Sometimes we believe things because they make us feel good for the people we care about.

 

 

 Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, "If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it is pleased to do so, and much of that."  Doesn't care where the reward comes from - whether it's practical (better decisions result in better outcomes), social (better behavior than your peers), or some mix of the two.

 

  False beliefs can be useful in a social sense, even if they are not useful in a factual sense.  For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach "factually incorrect, but socially accurate."  When we have to choose between the two, people often choose friends and family rather than facts.

 

  This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongues at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but it also suggests a better way to change the minds of others.

 

 

  Facts do not change our minds. Makes friends.

 

  Persuading someone to change their mind is actually the process of persuading them to change their tribe.  If they abandon their beliefs, they risk losing social relationships.  You can't expect anyone to change their mind if you remove their community as well.  You have to give them somewhere to go.  No one wants their worldview to be shattered if loneliness is the result.

 

  The way to change people's minds is to befriend them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle.  Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being socially abandoned.

 

 

 

  "Sitting at a table with a group of strangers has incomparable and strange benefits, making them a little difficult to hate with impunity. Prejudice and ethnic conflict nurture abstraction. Food, however, is essential to  Proximity—something about handing the dishes around, opening the napkin at the same time, even asking a stranger to pass the salt—inhibits our ability to cling to the belief that  Outsiders who wear unusual clothes and speak distinctive accents deserve to be sent home or attacked. For all the large-scale political solutions proposed to address ethnic conflict and foster tolerance among dubious neighbors, There are more effective ways to force them to eat together.

 

  Perhaps it is not the difference but the distance that gives rise to tribalism and hostility.  As closeness grows, so does understanding.  I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's quote, "I don't like that man. I should get to know him better."

 

 

 

  spectrum of beliefs

 

  Years ago, Ben Kasnocha mentioned to me an idea that I can't shake: The people most likely to change minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics.

 

  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 him in most areas of life.  Maybe you should change your mind on this too.  But if someone wildly different from you proposes the same radical ideas, well, it's easy to dismiss them as crackpots.

 

  One way to visualize this difference is by mapping beliefs onto a spectrum.  If you split this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself in position 7, there is no point in explaining it to someone on position 1.  The gap is vast.  When you are in position 7, you are better off connecting with people in positions 6 and 8, slowly pulling them in your direction.

 

 

  The most heated arguments often take place between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but most often with learners who are around.  The closer you are to someone, the more likely it is that one or two beliefs you don't share well drift through your own mind and shape your thinking.  The further away an idea is from your current state, the more likely you will reject it outright.

 

  It isn't easy to jump from side to side when it comes to changing how people think.  You can't go down the spectrum.  You have to slide it down.

 

  Any idea that is substantially different from your current worldview will feel threatened.  And the best place to consider a threatening thought is in a non-threatening environment.  As a result, books are often a better medium for changing beliefs than conversation or debate.

 

 

  In conversation, people have to consider their status and appearance carefully.  They want to save face and avoid looking stupid.  When faced with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than be publicly wrong.

 

  Books take away this tension.  With a book, the conversation takes place inside one's head and without the risk of being judged by others.  It's easy 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 sifting the seed of an idea in a person's mind and letting it grow on its own terms.  There's enough wrestling going on to get over the belief that's already in one's head.  They don't even need to wrestle with you.