Changing your mind is mental hygiene

You have to be very, very stupid to believe such a thing!” "Aren't you ashamed to say such a barbarity?" "Maintaining an opinion like yours is only possible if you are perfectly ignorant.

Thomas Osborne
Thomas Osborne
16 July 2022 Saturday 20:58
6 Reads
Changing your mind is mental hygiene

You have to be very, very stupid to believe such a thing!” "Aren't you ashamed to say such a barbarity?" "Maintaining an opinion like yours is only possible if you are perfectly ignorant."

Thus, in beauties like these, what we call a “discussion” takes place many times, a social phenomenon that exists, as I have just read in a book, since our ancestors lived in the trees, a time in which the tribal instinct was conceived. The vehemence with which we argue has accelerated in the age of social networks, giving rise to the invention of words or phrases such as post-truth and fake news and the new dangers of the old polarization.

The book I just read is by an American science journalist named David McRaney and it's called How Minds Change. The objective is urgent, he would say. Whether the issue is Trump, or Putin, or military spending, or the monarchy, or historical memory, the rival sides are digging deeper trenches every day. There is no dialogue; there is deafness Fake news is what others believe.

As I do not consider myself innocent of these defects (variations of the three sentences with which I start this column come out of my mouth with alarming regularity), I read McRaney's book in an effort not only to find recipes to improve the world but also to civilize myself. to myself.

First, a diagnosis of the problem. McRaney points out that the probability of changing one's mind exists in inverse proportion to the strength of our certainty, a stubborn beast that comes more from emotion than from logic. That is why if what you aspire to is to persuade, a good piece of advice would be that the enemy to defeat is not the intellect but the feelings.

Persuasion will never work by way of coercion, if it consists, as McRaney says, in an attempt to defeat your rival with facts or to crush him with your moral superiority. "If the other thinks that you see him as a gullible fool or as a bad person, then of course he will resist and the arguments you present will be useless." I mean, calling him a jerk might do you good as a vent, but he won't come close to your point of view. He will be outraged and cling to the idea of ​​him with redoubled conviction.

So what are the steps to follow? First, says McRaney, establish a relationship of respect with those who think differently. Reassure him that your purpose is not to beat him or embarrass him. Second, ask him to tell you his version of the truth. Third, repeat her explanation in your own words, to show her that you have understood her correctly. Fourth, once this initial consensus has been established, ask him how he came to his opinion and to what extent he is convinced of its truthfulness. One Hundred percent? Eighty percent?

If he says a hundred, ask him why and repeat his answer, one more time with your words, so that he continues to see that you listen to him and take him seriously. If you say less than a hundred try to explore, but cautiously, that point of doubt. In any case, end the conversation (not "the debate") with kindness and, at the very least, you will have managed to lower the temperature of your relationship with the other; you will have reduced the possibility of disagreement turning into hate in this particular case of polarization. In the best of cases, you will have planted the possibility that over time the other person will moderate or change their point of view.

As an example, McRaney recounts how a public act took place in which he spoke with Mark Sargent, a flat earther who has become famous on YouTube. McRaney did not present him with any of the abundant evidence that the world is spherical. He didn't yell at her, "Talk to an astronaut, you idiot!" Rather, he ceded the spotlight to Sargent, allowed him to expand on his reasons for believing that the Earth is more vinyl record than soccer ball. It was not so much a discussion as an exchange of ideas.

Finally, McRaney asked him if he would change his mind if he received proof that he was wrong, and Sargent said yes, "in a second." With which McRaney ended the conversation, the two left the stage, had a drink and Sargent commented that he had never had such a pleasant conversation about his great obsession. McRaney's subtle victory was that Sargent demonstrated his willingness, in principle, to correct himself.

I compare this to how I blew up at a dinner party this week when someone suggested that Putin might have had reasonable excuses for invading Ukraine. Words like imbecile or scoundrel fall very short. I blush remembering the episode because I have always known in theory that one has to make the effort to listen to the other's point of view with an open mind, but in practice it is difficult for me.

However, I want to try it. And this book is helping me. I read an article in the Financial Times this week that made me question a view that I had made very clear. Such is the rejection that Putin generates in me, so viscerally I detest the tyranny, cruelty and lies that he represents, that the need to increase NATO military spending after the invasion of Ukraine quickly became an article of faith for me. . I became convinced that those on the European left who opposed spending on weapons what could be spent on, say, education were like “useful fools” who once supported Stalin. Democracy is at stake, don't you see?

But the Financial Times article got me thinking. He explained, among other things, that already today the military spending of the Europeans in NATO is five times greater than that of Russia; that if you add the spending of the United States, it is almost eighteen times greater. The article added that the more weapons and soldiers there are, the more chance there is for more stupid wars. I'm not going to say I've totally changed my mind. I still need to hear more arguments. But I open myself to the possibility that maybe I was wrong.

Now, after this small advance in mental hygiene, I hope to be able to apply a similar rigor to other of the great certainties that beat in my gut. Try it you, dear readers and dear readers. I recommend it. Self-criticism is healthy. The absence of doubt leads to too many of the world's ills.