This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

How to Persuade Stubborn People

George Washington's picture




 

Washington’s Blog

As anyone who has tried to educate people with facts knows, it is very difficult to persuade stubborn people.

New research sheds some light on this frustrating dynamic.

As NPR noted in July:

New
research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds
when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to
their beliefs.

***

 

A new body of research out of the
University of Michigan suggests that's not what happens, that we base
our opinions on beliefs and when presented with contradictory facts, we
adhere to our original belief even more strongly.

 

The
phenomenon is called backfire, and it plays an especially important
role in how we shape and solidify our beliefs on immigration, the
president's place of birth, welfare and other highly partisan issues.

 

***

 

It's
threatening to us to admit that things we believe are wrong. And all
of us, liberals and conservatives, you know, have some beliefs that
aren't true, and when we find that out, you know, it's threatening to
our beliefs and ourselves.

 

***

 

This isn't a question of
education, necessarily, or sophistication. It's really about, it's
really about preserving that belief that we initially held.

As I pointed out in March:

 

Psychologists
and sociologists show us that people will rationalize what their
leaders are doing, even when it makes no sense ....

Sociologists
from four major research institutions investigated why so many
Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it
became obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

The researchers found, as described in an article in the journal Sociological Inquiry (and re-printed by Newsweek):

  • Many Americans felt an urgent need to seek justification for a war already in progress
  • Rather
    than search rationally for information that either confirms or
    disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information
    that confirms what they already believe.
  • "For the most part people completely ignore contrary information."
  • "The study demonstrates voters' ability to develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information"
  • People
    get deeply attached to their beliefs, and form emotional attachments
    that get wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality,
    irrespective of the facts of the matter.
  • "We refer
    to this as 'inferred justification, because for these voters, the sheer
    fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search for a
    justification for that war.
  • "People were basically making up justifications for the fact that we were at war"
  • "They
    wanted to believe in the link [between 9/11 and Iraq] because it
    helped them make sense of a current reality. So voters' ability to
    develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information, whether
    we think that is good or bad for democratic practice, does at least
    demonstrate an impressive form of creativity.

An article
yesterday in Alternet discussing the Sociological Inquiry article
helps us to understand that the key to people's active participation in
searching for excuses for actions by the big boys is fear:

Subjects
were presented during one-on-one interviews with a newspaper clip of
this Bush quote: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks
were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda."

 

The Sept. 11 Commission, too, found no such link, the subjects were told.

 

"Well,
I bet they say that the commission didn't have any proof of it," one
subject responded, "but I guess we still can have our opinions and feel
that way even though they say that."

 

Reasoned another: "Saddam, I can't judge if he did what he's being accused of, but if Bush thinks he did it, then he did it."

 

Others declined to engage the information at all. Most
curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that
Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the
Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?

 

The desire to believe this was more powerful, according to the researchers, than any active campaign to plant the idea.

 

Such a campaign did exist in the run-up to the war...

 

He won't credit [politicians spouting misinformation] alone for the phenomenon, though.

 

"That
kind of puts the idea out there, but what people then do with the idea
... " he said. "Our argument is that people aren't just empty vessels.
You don't just sort of open up their brains and dump false information
in and they regurgitate it. They're actually active processing
cognitive agents"...

 

The alternate explanation raises queasy questions for the rest of society.

 

"I
think we'd all like to believe that when people come across
disconfirming evidence, what they tend to do is to update their
opinions,"
said Andrew Perrin, an associate professor at UNC and another author of the study...

 

"The
implications for how democracy works are quite profound, there's no
question in my mind about that," Perrin said. "What it means is that we
have to think about the emotional states in which citizens find
themselves that then lead them to reason and deliberate in particular
ways."

 

Evidence suggests people are more likely to pay attention to facts within certain emotional states and social situations. Some may never change their minds. For others, policy-makers could better identify those states, for example minimizing the fear that often clouds a person's ability to assess facts ...

The Alternet article links to a must-read interview with psychology professor Sheldon Solomon, who explains:

A
large body of evidence shows that momentarily [raising fear of death],
typically by asking people to think about themselves dying,
intensifies people's strivings to protect and bolster aspects of their
worldviews, and to bolster their self-esteem. The most common finding
is that [fear of death] increases positive reactions to those who share
cherished aspects of one's cultural worldview, and negative reactions
toward those who violate cherished cultural values or are merely
different.

 

Conservative Frank Luntz and liberal George Lakoff have used the principles of neuroscience to show that facts are less important in persuading many people than "framing". This is an important subject to learn about, to become a more effective communicator.

In the meantime, however, there may be an easier shortcut for persuading stubborn people.

Specifically, start by asking the following question:

Do you want to defend your feelings and beliefs or do you want to know the truth?

Most people will respond by saying "I want to know the truth, of course".

They will say that because they don't want to appear irrational, even if they usually are.

You
can then start conveying facts, but repeatedly be sensitive to their
feelings of resistance to the challenging facts you're presenting, by
saying things like:

"I found this hard to believe when I heard it, too"

 

"It's hard for everyone to change our minds"

 

"I know this is contrary to what we've been taught"

 

"I know it would be [painful or scary or infuriating or other
adjective conveying a negative emotion] to believe that [the thing they
don't want to hear about]"

And if they are resisting hearing the facts, gently remind them that they said they wanted to know the truth.

If you don't use these techniques, then the stubborn
person's automatic and unconscious processes will ensure that he or she
will cling to old belief system no matter what you say.
Remember, while you may
be able to think logically, many people make most of their decisions
based on emotions and faulty belief systems. Assuming that everyone
uses the same decision-making process you do is the main impediment to
going beyond preaching to the choir and persuading others.

There is some percentage of people who will never believe the facts, no matter how you say it. Sometimes it is best just to drop it. But the above-described techniques may work on a large percentage of stubborn people.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 01:18 | 736098 revenue_anticip...
revenue_anticipation_believer's picture

Re: persuation 

 

Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase of uncertain origin. It means "I believe because it is absurd" It is derived from a poorly remembered or misquoted passage in Tertullian's De Carne Christi defending the tenets of orthodox Christianity against docetism, which reads in the original Latin:

 

    Natus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;

    et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;

    et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.

    — (De Carne Christi V, 4)

 

    "The Son of God was born: there is no shame, because it is shameful.

    And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.

    And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

 

The phrase is sometimes associated with the doctrine of fideism, that is, "a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority....[Wikipedia]

Tertullian => Martin Luther => Hitler => Milgram => ......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ericksonian_Hypnosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=consen...

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/week-neuroplasticity-data-stream-waves-how-music-moves-us

 

 

 

 

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:41 | 736069 moofph
moofph's picture

...private contributions sure go long way these days...national public radio run by private corporations...hmmmnnn...seems to lack some credibility there...too bad the public is too brainwashed to grasp the intent of this article.

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:37 | 736056 bugs_
bugs_'s picture

Make them feel guilty about their position

If that doesn't work belittle them by showing all the smart people that have the "correct" position

If that doesn't work assassinate  their character

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:33 | 736041 covert
covert's picture

brilliant and ingeniously researched and well written. any other suggestions?

http://covert2.wordpress.com

 

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:19 | 735971 metastar
metastar's picture

I personally like to use shock therapy to convince non-believers. I suppose water boarding might also be effective. Or, the TSA might be on to something by threatening "opt-outs" with sexual molestation.

We have ways of making you comply or changing your views.

 

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:02 | 735901 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

You just want the terrorists to win!  Pinko commie liberal!

 

j/k

Here's a smiley for your trouble.  :)

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:01 | 735897 Cow
Cow's picture

"And all of us, liberals and conservatives, you know, have some beliefs that aren't true"

Speak for yourself

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:19 | 735976 downrodeo
downrodeo's picture

beliefs aren't true by their very definition yo, a cow, of all creatures, should know this...

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:01 | 735894 I Am The Unknow...
I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

Well after reading this missive from Mr. George Washington I fully understand why our beloved King George has labelled him a terrorist....

...and that my friends, is the kind of logic you can not argue with!  Ha ha!

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:08 | 735924 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

I believe George III called the rebels, insurgents too. Isn't nice to know that such terms are still batted around even today.

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:00 | 735887 downrodeo
downrodeo's picture

As a prodigiously stubborn person, I would say that this technique probably has the best chance at success. Thanks for the article GW.

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:53 | 735865 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

GW, Americans are subject to CIA brainwashing known as "the slide" . Its mind control 101.

http://mindcontrol101.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html

Bush even said himself Saddam had nothing to do with 911. The Iraq war plans were on the table long before 911 as were the Afghan war plans. Here he is getting a bit in a snit over questioning. This is the man that went to Harvard and Yale and was in the Texas Air National Guard, yet not one person ever said they knew him at university nor in the Guard. Hmmm.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/AAafghanwar.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ZkqfRsiRo&

George Bush was a man that was created out of whole cloth just like Obama. He was a man that was destined to be President since not long after early childhood probably, so his past has to be made for him and any less than perfect personal malfunctions, hidden. His early life in West Texas, his so-called ownership of the Texas Rangers, his business experience in the oil business, his supposed conversion to Christianity, etc etc etc, were all fabrications to make him look legit. Then using name recognition, Bush was elected governor of Texas. On and on it goes. Whatever may be said, one thing is crystal clear. The entire Bush family is a family of traitors. Now I am sure you know full well what your namesake would do under these kinds of circumstances, without flenching I might add. Back in the day, here, when things were black and white, when good was good and evil was evil and there was no compromise in things about faith and liberty. As the young people of this country awaken and seek things that are greater than themselves, these crooked things will be made straight, one can only hope.

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:50 | 735848 ironymonger
ironymonger's picture

So how can we be sure that we aren't the stubborn one?

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:44 | 735810 title examiner
title examiner's picture

A lot of what we are seeing is a neurosis that comes from Social Rejection.  Typically, these folks reject authority. But when the get power and become the authority, they end up rejecting comon sense--the last remaining authority.

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:44 | 735809 Jaw Knee Cash
Jaw Knee Cash's picture

Do the same tactics work to persuade stupid people?

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:40 | 735794 Fractured Space
Fractured Space's picture

NLP or Neuro-Linguistic Programming is a fascinating field of study. Bernays Et al pioneered the way we think about human behavior. One of the most common skills in coercion is learning the EVNUC question and response model. Getting someones emoitions tied into a decision reinforces that decision.

E - emotion - "how does (situaition xyz) make you feel"

V - vision - what is your (desired outcome) in refrence to (situation xyz)?

N - need -do you know what you need to do to facilitate (desired outcome of xyz)

*here is the most important part of the whole process U - or understanding. Insertion of control happens at this step and control of the situation is shifted to a 3rd party via suggestion.

U - understanding (of suggestion) - If (outside control) were able to help achieve (deisred outcome) would you see it as being beneficial?

C- commitment - based on your understanding of (outside control suggestions) let's start implementation.

 

There are many ways to phrase the above steps but ideas are all sold to buyers who might not even notice the sale. Using EVNUC  can be subtle enough that most people won't notice the absence of control or what the outside suggestions can even do.

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:31 | 735744 Revolution_star...
Revolution_starts_now's picture

With the amount of dis-information out there? why bother? it's not my funeral, I'm just going to party at the wake.

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:32 | 735743 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Hey that's great that the folks at NPR are so open minded.  Would they be so kind as to identify the conditions under which they would concede that:

1. Anthropogenic "global-warming" isn't going to amount to a hill of beans in the long run and/or does not justify a massive global/statist power grab.

2. Economic central planning kinda doesn't work.

3. "Diversity" is a joke and the downside of constant, relentless cultural/ethno-masochism far outweighs the upside.

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:30 | 736023 downrodeo
downrodeo's picture

NPR is to radio what carrot top is (was, lol) to comedy: a blemish so unsightly it makes you wish the whole concept would cease to exist.  

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 16:58 | 735552 Matto
Matto's picture

Vdouble

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 18:06 | 735915 DisparityFlux
DisparityFlux's picture

Proprietary truths and proprieties.

Manifest destinies must ensure the former become the latter.

 

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 16:57 | 735550 Matto
Matto's picture

Very interesting, i'd like to also know about ways to cross check your own belief system and your decisions.

 

If i believe the big banks are bad and have invested a lot of emotion in this thought, how can i protect myself from my own emotionally influenced belief system. How can i look at investing from a rational point of view considering my belief system in place?

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:37 | 735759 Revolution_star...
Revolution_starts_now's picture

"If i believe the big banks are bad"

Then you are right, there I have cross checked for you.

Your welcome.

 

See there, double post I have checked and re-checked.

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:34 | 735754 Revolution_star...
Revolution_starts_now's picture

"If i believe the big banks are bad"

Then you are right, there I have cross checked for you.

Your welcome.

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:07 | 735618 George Washington
George Washington's picture

Yes, all of these guys are wrong:

  • Dean and professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School, and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, R. Glenn Hubbard
  • The leading monetary economist and co-author with Milton Friedman of the leading treatise on the Great Depression, Anna Schwartz
  • Economics professor and senior regulator during the S & L crisis, William K. Black
  • Professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the Chicago Booth School of Business, Luigi Zingales

Others, like Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, think that the giant insolvent banks may need to be temporarily nationalized.

In addition, many top economists and financial experts, including Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer - who was Ben Bernanke’s thesis adviser at MIT - say that - at the very least - the size of the financial giants should be limited.

Even the Bank of International Settlements - the "Central Banks' Central Bank" - has slammed too big to fail. As summarized by the Financial Times:

The report was particularly scathing in its assessment of governments’ attempts to clean up their banks. “The reluctance of officials to quickly clean up the banks, many of which are now owned in large part by governments, may well delay recovery,” it said, adding that government interventions had ingrained the belief that some banks were too big or too interconnected to fail.

This was dangerous because it reinforced the risks of moral hazard which might lead to an even bigger financial crisis in future.

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 16:22 | 735331 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

I violently disagree ;-)

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:38 | 735760 ilene
ilene's picture

trying to delete a double post, but don't see how 

Wed, 11/17/2010 - 17:33 | 735752 ilene
ilene's picture

Interesting... the one little thing I might disagree with (I'd like to see a real life study though) is on how well the techniques to change people's minds work in reality.  I'm thinking even if there's a temporary effect, there's probably a lot of reversion to original point of view.  

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!