I like to debate things – it fires me up, makes me feel alive. In high school I even found myself arguing both sides of the abortion debate (depending on which stance the other person took), I guess I was neutral on the subject and a little angry about how each side could be so ignorant of the other. One thing I have learnt is that if you feel strongly about a subject and another person takes the opposite view it is dam near impossible to bring them over to your side (and vice versa) no matter how rational your argument is. I remember trying to explain the basics of evolution to a religious girl in my chemistry class – it just wasn’t going to work. That’s why I was very interested in learning the scientific explanation for ‘confirmation bias’ in this article. Here’s a few snippets:
“I have found at least something to like about each Republican or Democrat I have met. I have close friends in both camps, in which I have observed the following: no matter the issue under discussion, both sides are equally convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position. “
“This surety is called the confirmation bias, whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence. Now a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study shows where in the brain the confirmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and driven by emotions.”
“During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men–half self-described as “strong” Republicans and half as “strong” Democrats–were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook. “
“The neuroimaging results, however, revealed that the part of the brain most associated with reasoning–the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex–was quiescent. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions; the anterior cingulate, which is associated with conflict resolution; the posterior cingulate, which is concerned with making judgments about moral accountability; and–once subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable–the ventral striatum, which is related to reward and pleasure.”
“Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones,”
I decided to link this article now because I find it interesting that I see this happening in the media today (even on your blogs) – Once a candidate is chosen positive information is sought out on that person whilst negative information is emphasised regarding the others. It’s also very interesting the immense support the conservative part of the nation is now giving a female politician whose unwed teen is carrying a baby. I could only imagine the the judgements these people would be making if Obama had chosen a woman in the same position to be his VP.
So how do we go about making people see reason if they are simply going to twist every piece of information in order to support their current beliefs? especially if those beliefs were taught during their young formative years when they didn’t yet have the ability to reason themselves? It’s not as though we can storm catholic schools handing out biology textbooks and pamphlets about contraception.
All I can think of is to try and take a neutral approach - listen to their evidence and put yourself in their shoes. If you can agree on some points and find a common ground then they are more likely to consider your own views in an unbiased manner. Argue your point too forcefully and defences will be up, they won’t even begin to see your point of view. Lastly, the most important thing to remember is to refrain from making personal insults (I see this happen all the time on youtube and ONTD). Not only does it make people angry but it makes you appear as though you have run out of valid points and are feeling defeated.
I can’t say I’m that great at winning arguments, but then again I don’t always follow my own advice (I get fired up easily) – does anyone else have any tips for successful arguments?
Recent Comments