Living in an information age, an age of statistics and facts at your fingertips, it would almost seem trivial that one's mind could be changed with the use of simple facts. Yet, ironically enough, they often do not. Whether the topic be political, an argument of health, or a social debate, the presentation of factual evidence often fails to produce a belief or behavioural shift. Why is this so? The answer lies at the end of a complex interplay between cognitive biases, emotional influences, and social factors.
The Power of Cognitive Biases
One major reason facts often fail to change our minds is confirmation bias. Human beings are wired to process information in such a way to support preconceived beliefs. This phenomenon is what is called confirmation bias: we selectively seek out and interpret in a biased way information supporting our views, discarding or rationalizing the facts that support the opposite. People can even more strongly hold to their original belief when confronted with the irrefutable evidence-a phenomenon termed the backfire effect.
Moreover, people harbour a status quo bias-a preference for things remaining the same. Coming across new facts conflicting with our core beliefs require us to revise our interpretation of the world, which may be seen as threatening to one's self. So we all avoid reevaluation and stick with more familiar thought patterns-even if that thought pattern happens to be wrong or outdated.
Attachments to Beliefs--Emotional
Facts often take the backburner to emotions. People do not create beliefs in a vacuum; reason plays an important role. Identity, personal values, and cultural influences-the things that mean most to us-are wrapped in our emotions. Facts challenging these deep-seated ways of looking at the world immediately raise defenses. Clearly evident, this can be seen in any debate on politically charged topics. For instance, when one is emotionally attached to a cause, certain facts that do not agree with them will become his or her identity and therefore, more resistance may be put up rather than opening themselves up to new ideas.
Social Dynamics Influence
Another factor concerns social influence. Humans are essentially social beings, and our beliefs can just as well emanate from the groups we belong to. Because if accepting new facts threatens to put us at odds with our social group, then we tend to reject those facts in the name of harmony. The threat of social exclusion will therefore make many people deny evidence of even the most improbable nature. This would explain the groupthink behind: why certain myths, conspiracy theories, or beliefs can endure despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Motivated Reasoning: Defending Our Ego
People protect their self-esteem and identity through motivated reasoning. When facts are presented that are incongruent with one's image, the subconscious mind will defend against such positions with biased information processing. This is not an act of wilful lying but rather a subconscious method of protection from discomfort due to cognitive dissonance-the tension between incongruent ideas or beliefs.
Motivated reasoning supports preserving previously held beliefs, not necessarily because they are true, but because admitting oneself was wrong is a threat to one's ego. In other words, if a business leader has consistently supported a particular strategy, then evidence of the strategy's failure might be very difficult for them to digest. Admitting this would be thought to say he or she was wrong, which most people try to avoid.
How to Overcome Feelings of Resistance to Facts
Where do we begin in the light of such psychological barriers? Given this, framing information in a manner that resonates well with people's values is one correct approach to beginning with open-mindedness. It is less threatening, hence more palatable, if new information is presented in a subtle manner. At times, instead of piling facts upon facts on someone, it would be better to ask questions and allow him or her to question his or her opinions in order to gently set his or her mind open.
Then again, intellectual humility can be cultivated when a person is placed in an environment where they are free to explore other perspectives without fear of being judged or ostracized. If he did not believe his identity was being attacked, he might have been more amenable to position revision.
It may sound counterintuitive, but the idea that "facts don't change our minds" has a lot to say about important truths in the human psyche. Cognitive biases, emotional attachments, social influences, and motivated reasoning all play their role in making us resistant to facts. Being able to understand these dynamics empowers the individual to approach conversations better, fostering greater openness to the engagement of facts in a meaningful way.
Open-mindedness and intellectual humility are especially needed in today's time when misinformation and disinformation run amok. Where facts alone sometimes may not succeed in changing anybody's mind, creating an avenue for dialogue, understanding, and reflection does promise more effective changes in belief.
Comments