Regular readers of this space know that I strongly believe we are all bears of little brains. We think we’re very clever (especially those of us who blog, teach at universities and work on policy) and we are certain we act in ways that are rational and informed by a careful consideration of the facts. But we’re not. Most of us, most of the time, have our views about the world and when we encounter new information or new ideas we slot them into an existing view and say “see, I told you so.”
A recent essay in the Boston Globe, How Facts Backfire, argues that information that runs counter to our views may actually reinforce wrongheaded ideas. This is not news to anyone who has ever engaged in an argument. The more we are called wrong, the more likely we are to insist on our rightness, ideas about which we are ambivalent that we are forced to defend become Truths which are self-evident to all but the ding-battiest. This behavior isn’t limited to them or those people who aren’t like us. Not only is it us, but it’s us in spades. As the essay’s author notes,
“A 2006 study by Charles Taber and Milton Lodge at Stony Brook University showed that politically sophisticated thinkers were even less open to new information than less sophisticated types. These people may be factually right about 90 percent of things, but their confidence makes it nearly impossible to correct the 10 percent on which they’re totally wrong.”
In addition to confirming my biases, this essay is a reminder to advocates that persuasion is not the result of even more information. “If they only knew the facts” is not a solution to “they just don’t get it.”
Rather than try to persuade people they are wrong – which basically doesn’t work – the most successful advocates find ways to make their positions align with the beliefs of those who need to be persuaded. Rather say “you’re wrong, I’m right” the best advocates say “you’re right, here’s why my position proves it.”
