On The Art of Changing Someone’s Mind

“When I ask you about something that you believe in — whether you believe or don’t believe in climate change or whether you believe in some political position or other — as soon as I raise the question why, you have answers. Reasons come to your mind. But the way that I would see this is that the reasons may have very little to do with the real causes of your beliefs.” - Daniel Kahneman, “On Being with Krista Tippett”

To be sure, many of the reasons that come to mind for believing thus-n-thus do, in fact, hit the mark (e.g. I run because it makes me feel good, I’m drinking water because I’m thirsty, etc.). It’s not always a game. But when we try to explain our most complex beliefs, entrenched by many seasons and years of one’s life, we’re ready with reasons all too fast.

Daniel Kahneman recognized that for our more complex justifications, ranging from the likes of climate change, political leanings, career choice, why someone quit their job, what they’re looking for in a relationship, their favorite sports team, etc., the reasons that anchor such beliefs actually tend to be overvalued by everyone involved—and so causing misunderstandings (having some affinity with stated vs revealed preferences).

If you’re looking to better understand why someone holds a complex belief or even go a step further and change their mind, then their initial justification alone typically won’t get you there.

Simple vs Complex Beliefs

“Yeah, and it’s a game because even if you did destroy the arguments that people raise for their beliefs, it wouldn’t change their beliefs. They would just find other facts to entrench their arguments,” -Krista Tippet, “On Being with Krista Tippett”

When your friend lists the reasons why Taqueria Azure is the best Mexican restaurant in the south side, you’ll be forgiven for picking apart their justification. This is a simple belief. The stakes are low. The cognitive support is minimal. They might even change their tune once you remind them of Taqueria Jalisco’s homemade tortillas and fresh salsa. Changing their mind here should encounter little resistance.

But when someone explains to you why the earth is flat or that bad things always happen in threes, the stated whys will almost certainly mislead. Their initial explanations are more likely to be peripheral girders, helping make up a larger structure of mental support. In these situations, if you try to negate their quasi-reasons, you’ll likely witness a bit of motivated reasoning that indicates your window of opportunity is all but closed. /encounter a wall (which materialized in an instant) which will prove almost too tall to scale.

This is part of what makes changing someone’s mind an art; it resists immediate understanding and a direct approach.

Thus, we arrive at the main rule for changing someone’s mind: for important issues, you should always avoid trying to change someone’s mind on the spot (unless it’s urgent). Beliefs typically won’t change on the spot and you risk making them feel like an idiot. Sometimes the shortest distance between two points is anything but straight.

What You Hear Isn’t All There Is

Avoiding the heavy-handed approach and playing the long game has the higher success rate for changing their mind; it makes space for more information to be revealed and gives them time to digest new ideas. Yes, the long game can be tedious. But after all, if you could quickly change their mind, then it wasn’t near and dear.

The network of girders that support such beliefs can be erected during childhood, built during formative years, fortified by a connection with a community or simply borrowed from the parents (the beliefs’ origins may even be forgotten). Though how often does one state: “I believe it because my parents did”? Perhaps that would be unflattering.

Big beliefs are structured like trauma—deep-seated and requiring time to unwind. Wouldn’t it be something to reverse someone’s childhood trauma on the spot? Entrenched beliefs aren’t much different. You can lead ‘em to water, but ultimately, they’ll need to take a swig.

Conclusion: This Conversation Should Have Been an Essay

While every one of our beliefs isn’t a mile deep, for a few, we all take the why-of-it too seriously. Like Kahneman suggests, stated reasons for complex topics are merely part story and often a byproduct of our overzealous cognitive machinery.

Unlike the essay format where there’s more time and space for clear thinking to emerge, conversation often lacks depth. Though this is more an indictment on the structure of conversation than the people involved.

As with trauma, entrenched beliefs require time to unwind and, like leading a horse to water, there’s only so much you can do. And besides, if everyone’s flip-flopping convictions at the first sign of trouble, the unreliability would spell trouble for a functioning society.

Author’s Note

“So the real cause of your belief in a political position, whether conservative or radical left, the real causes are rooted in your personal history. They’re rooted in who are the people that you trusted and what they seemed to believe in, and it has very little to do with the reasons that come to your mind, why your position is correct and the position of the other side is nonsensical. And we take the reasons that people give for their actions and beliefs, and our own reasons for our actions and beliefs, much too seriously.” - Daniel Kahneman