[ad_1]
Anyone who has argued at least once with a friend, family member, or colleague about a controversial scientific topic – climate change, vaccine safety, the severity of the current pandemic – is often upset and frustrated by their stubbornness. opponent. This sentiment is familiar to many – a nuisance caused by a reluctance to take publicly available facts into account.
Psychologists argue that denial of the facts is not due to ignorance, but rather to a person’s desire to have a sense of belonging to one group or another. Therefore, convincing a stubborn dissident of COVID will require more than just common sense, writes science journalist Markham Heid in the platform publication Medium Elemental.
“People who reject science often try to maintain an addiction to someone they consider important,” says Nina Eliasoph, a professor of sociology at the University of South Carolina. You can belong to a religious political group or any other group united by some ideas or ideals and communicate them. The shape of these groups can be as diverse as possible. As soon as a community absorbs one idea or another, it becomes clear that abandoning it (and following a different approach) means automatic termination of membership, which is very difficult for sincere members of that group.
In this case, denial means the rejection (or minimization) of a phenomenon with a fairly broad evidence base. One of the most striking examples is global warming and the enormous contribution of humanity. Despite all the available evidence and the well-established consensus of scientists, many people deny the obvious. Why? According to experts, one of the explanations is avoiding cognitive dissonance.
It is “a negative emotional state characterized by discomfort or tension, perhaps even anxiety and even guilt. It is caused by behaviors or beliefs that are incompatible with each other, ”said April McGrath, a psychology professor at Mount Royal University in Canada who specializes in the subject. For example, a person expecting global warming still drives an SUV that uses too much fuel.
What is cognitive dissonance?
Because cognitive dissonance is unpleasant, people try to avoid it. According to McGrath, this can be done in two ways. It is possible to change behavior, that is, to go from an SUV to an electric car. Or – change beliefs. Most people choose the second way. “Behavior change is difficult because most of our actions have a rewarding effect,” says the psychologist. It is much easier to change beliefs, and this is where the element of denial comes into play. You can try to reduce the importance of the source of dissonance – for example, tell yourself that choosing an electric car will not change the big picture. Or accept a new idea that supports and justifies your choice – for example, the conspiracy theory that this global warming was supposedly invented by scientists themselves for profit.
However, McGrath does not recommend blaming anyone; after all, we all choose and make decisions that cause dissonance or conflict in one way or another. “We cannot act constantly recklessly obeying our ideals,” says the psychologist.
Other scenarios
Besides cognitive dissonance, there are many other negative scenarios. And they’re mostly interconnected, says Craig Anderson, a professor of psychology at Iowa State University.
For example, “preserve the faith”: Anderson attributes this scenario to people’s attachment to some beliefs they have held in the past. We do not like to change our attitude, it causes us discomfort, so we prefer to ignore new data that could shake our faith, he explains. This idea is related to a generalized cognitive error: confirmation bias.
Another scenario is a terrible “overreaction.” Fear is a powerful motivator. When people are threatened by freedom, by routine activities, the pandemic itself, and global warming, they begin to deny it.
Theory of self-determination
Rebekka Darner, director of the Illinois State University Center for Mathematics, Science and Technology, which promotes science and fights its denial, subscribes to the “theory of self-determination.” According to this theory, people have three basic psychological needs that motivate them to behave in one way or another.
The first is the need for autonomy, the belief that you are acting independently. The second is the need for professionalism. A person does not need competence in one subject or another, it is important that others believe it. The third is belonging to one or the other group, the feeling that people agree with your attitude and appreciate your contribution, explains the psychologist. The social groups to which a person is assigned meet all these needs. As a result, people accept typical ideas of their supporters (“the government will not be able to control me”) and put them far above others (such as wearing masks and distance).
Self-determination theory helps explain the threat posed by such widespread adoption and acceptance of unscientific views. If belonging to a group motivates a person to deny, say, the theory of evolution, this is, of course, a problem, but it is local. After all, if the majority of Americans decide that an essential element of their identity is the denial of science (expert opinion), the problems will rise to a qualitatively new level. The danger is real: According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 36 percent. Americans believe that the theory about the origin of the coronavirus in the laboratory (and the fact that the authorities planned the pandemic) is plausible and is even guaranteed to be true. Let us remind you that this is not the case.
According to Darner, the good news is that people are extremely complex creatures, they can belong to different groups and their beliefs cannot be called immovable. When people constantly see diversity that contradicts their views, they doubt. Uncertainty and uncertainty cause discomfort, but they also encourage the person to learn and rethink their approach.
Unfortunately, some elements of life today (the “echo chamber” or the social media bubble) limit people from those necessary contacts with new and unfamiliar people who take a different approach. This ideological myopia (as well as the division: they are against us) is characteristic of much of modern media, both traditional and relatively new.
How to talk to conspiracy theorists: 10 rules
By the way, there are people who engage in persuasion and conscientious objectors on a daily basis: the yrar / ChangeMyView online community, and brands it as a relatively quiet and peaceful place for discussion. It’s important to remember that conspiracy theories resonate with all of us, MIT Technology Review told its most active participants. Sitting on Facebook, you may feel smarter than your second-rank aunt reading the news on Classmates, but none of us have immunity from liars and conspiracy theories; you can only rely on the hygiene of the information.
Interestingly, according to Joan Donovan, a disinformation expert at Harvard University, social distancing makes coronavirus conspiracy theories even more attractive. They give people a sense of belonging to a group when social distance sets them apart and photographs of patients and empty stalls seriously traumatize us. Therefore, according to the expert, now people even more actively seek consolation in conspirology.
Members of the yrar / ChangeMyView community have come up with 10 rules for talking to conspiracy theorists, covid dissidents, and science scholars. They have been tested in practice:
- Always (stress – always!) Speak respectfully. If you don’t show empathy and respect for your opponent, no one will listen to you.
- If the platform has this capability, please communicate privately: for example, in personal messages on Facebook, not in post comments. This will once again emphasize respect for the person and the fact that you do not embarrass them in front of outside observers.
- Examine the floor first to save time and energy. One might ask what would help his opponent change his attitude. If the answer is a categorical “Nobody!”, It is not worth the effort. There is a list of behavior options in the community that indicate that a person is not ready for a discussion.
- Agree. Almost all conspiracy theories have a “grain of truth” with which to disagree. Use it to show a person that you are basically on their side, but there are nuances.
- Try the “truth sandwich” method (“fact-mistake-fact” first proposed by linguist George Lakoff).
- The alternative is the method of Socrates. Ask questions to help people “feel” your arguments and assess their strength. People start looking for sources to support their position. The best way to change someone’s opinion is to make the opponent seem like you’ve reached a conclusion that contradicts their beliefs. This means a question-and-answer dialogue when someone is at a dead end and you delicately point out any discrepancies, recommends one of the community moderators. One study suggests that such a method can change a person’s mind in such a way that they don’t even feel like someone is attacking them and forcing them to change position.
- Be very careful around those close to you. You need to seriously consider whether it’s worth trying to change your attitude at all. Perhaps a timely language will also help your mental health.
- Keep in mind that some people just don’t want to change, despite the facts. Researchers have found that in highly politicized regions, people tend to justify their belief systems at any cost, even in the face of resistance from reality. No matter how many published and reviewed articles you support your claims, they will not change your mind. In this case, opponents should ask additional questions to help them understand their entire belief system (and detect a weakness in it) and express sympathy, advises one of the moderators.
- Stop if you feel angry or if the conflict is clearly brewing. Turn off the phone and go for a walk.
- Note that drop by drop and the stone explodes. A conversation probably won’t change a person’s point of view, and that’s normal. Sometimes it is enough to raise doubts, to mark the way for who will overthrow this conspiracy theory.
[ad_2]
