To protect the beliefs and that sense of identity, rationalization takes place. What’s interesting is that once the rationalization has occurred, dopamine is released, rewarding that rationalization and in many ways reinforcing it. The beliefs are re-affirmed and the threat to personal identity averted.
You see this all the time with religionists and ideologues, that arguing on the basis of facts and evidence almost seems to cement the beliefs even further. It’s called the Backfire Effect.
I will never call myself objective, rational, or logical. Because I’m not. And guess what? Neither are you. And if you talk like you think you are, I will end the conversation and stop taking you seriously.
You know how I said I have a couple of boys in my Block 2 World class who like to make as much noise as possible? Today, after they got their work done, they started typing silly things into Translate in order to have the program say them out loud. So one of the other boys turned up his volume and typed in “shut the f*ck up.”
Yeah. That happened.
Did I want to laugh? Yes. Did I manage to keep a straight face and tell everyone to mute their Chromebooks because I didn’t want anymore Translate outbursts? Also yes. Zen-like calm is going to be a necessity with this class, I can tell.
But anyways.
My lesson went pretty well in both classes. I showed a graphic of the “cultural iceberg,” and we discussed visible and invisible culture. Then I played Chimamanda Adichie’s TED Talk, “The Danger of a Single Story” and The Oatmeal’s “Backfire Effect” because I want students to understand that when we study the world we should be mindful of stereotypes and assumptions we might hold, and be aware of how we react to new information, especially information that challenges our core beliefs. Aaaand then I went and assigned an analysis of Warsan Shire’s “Home.”
Most students got the point. They dove into the poem, and really thought about the idea that there’s a “single story” about the border, and that we might have incomplete or inaccurate ideas about why people flee from certain places. A couple students refused to do the assignment, but I have all semester to challenge them to engage with texts that they might find intimidating or uncomfortable, so I wasn’t too fazed.
There is also the phenomena (sometimes referred to as the backfire effect) that so many people on this site have happen to them as well. When faced with a bunch of facts contrary to their preconceived beliefs, people actually hold on to their beliefs EVEN MORE. Even when it has been proven undeniably false.
“Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither.”
When facts threaten one’s worldview or self-concept, facts become “the enemy to be sla[in].” This “power of belief over evidence” results from two factors:
Cognitive dissonance: “The uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts simultaneously.” In other words, if I already have an idea fixed in my head, hearing evidence that conflicts with that idea will automatically cause me distress--which I will then associate with the new evidence, not with my original idea.
The backfire effect: “Corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.” In other words, people are far more likely to “spin-doctor facts to fit preconceived beliefs” than to consider changing their comfortable long-held beliefs to fit the uncomfortable new facts. Example:
“Subjects were given fake newspaper articles that confirmed widespread misconceptions, such as that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When subjects were then given a corrective article that WMD were never found, liberals who opposed the war accepted the new article and rejected the old, whereas conservatives who supported the war did the opposite ... and more: they reported being even more convinced there were WMD after the correction, arguing that this only proved that Saddam Hussein hid or destroyed them.”
So how to communicate effectively with those whose worldviews are, to put it delicately, totally and completely wrong?
“Keep emotions out of the exchange”;
“Discuss, don’t attack (no ad hominem and no ad Hitlerum)”;
“Listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately”;
“Show respect”;
“Acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion”; and
“Try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews.”
“How,” I hear you cry,” could I possibly understand why someone might believe [insert idiotic theory here]?” The key seems to be to realize that any individual issue is almost certainly not the underlying worldview itself; to understand the difference (and make sure the other person knows it); and--to the extent one can do so honestly--to allow for the validity of the underlying worldview (and make sure the other person knows it).
The article kindly provides several useful illustrations:
Those who believe Iraq concealed MWDs “supported the war” and believed it was justified.
Creationists “are concerned about secular forces encroaching on religious faith.”
Antivaxxers “distrust big pharma and think that money corrupts medicine.”
Conspiracy theorists “think the government lies.”
Climate deniers “are passionate about [the] freedom ... of markets and industries to operate unencumbered by restrictive government regulations.”
Obama birthers... well, no, they’re just racists.
Those worldviews (except that last one) are all rational positions on which opinions might reasonably differ. The government does lie, even though 9/11 was not a “false flag” operation. Big pharma’s pursuit of profit can conflict with the most effective healthcare, even though vaccines don’t cause autism. Hillary Clinton hasn’t always been 100% truthful, even though she didn’t sell our uranium to the Russians. Hell, for that matter Obama was black, even though he wasn’t born in Kenya. You get the idea.
Identifying the underlying worldview, and separating it from the specific instances, can demonstrate that the evidence does not, in fact, contradict the worldview as a whole. This, in turn, can help to minimize or even eliminate the cognitive dissonance, and ultimately allow acceptance of the facts.
