You don’t have to look very far for examples of people holding on to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Thousands still hold to the idea that vaccines cause autism, that all life was created a few thousand years ago, and even that drinking industrial bleach is a good idea. Look at comment threads across the internet and you’ll inevitably find legions of people who boldly support for these ideas in the face of any rational argument.
That might be depressing, but it’s not unexpected. In a new study, David Gal and Derek Rucker from Northwestern University have found that when people’s confidence in their beliefs is shaken, they become stronger advocates for those beliefs. The duo carried out three experiments involving issues such as animal testing, dietary preferences, and loyalty towards Macs over PCs. In each one, they subtly manipulated their subjects’ confidence and found the same thing: when faced with doubt, people shout even louder.
Gal and Rucker were inspired by a classic psychological book called When Prophecy Fails. In it, Leon Festinger and colleagues infiltrated an American cult whose leader, Dorothy Martin, convinced her followers that flying saucers would rescue them from an apocalyptic flood. Many believed her, giving up their livelihoods, possessions and loved ones in anticipation of their alien saviours. When the fated moment came and nothing happened, the group decided that their dedication had spared the Earth from destruction. In a reversal of their earlier distaste for publicity, they started to actively proselytise for their beliefs. Far from shattering their faith, the absent UFOs had turned them into zealous evangelists.
The case study inspired Festinger’s theory of “cognitive dissonance”, which describes the discomfort that people feel when they try to cope with conflicting ideas. Festinger reasoned that people will go to great lengths to reduce this conflict. Altering one’s beliefs in the face of new evidence is one solution but for Martin’s followers, this was too difficult. Their alternative was to try and muster social support for their ideas. If other people also believed, their internal conflicts would lessen.
Festinger predicted that when someone’s beliefs are challenged, they would try to raise support for those beliefs with paradoxical enthusiasm. Amazingly enough, during the intervening half-century, this prediction has never been tested in an experiment – that is, until now.
In their first experiment, Gal and Rucker asked 88 students to write about their views on animal testing for consumer goods, but only half of them were allowed to use their preferred hand. This may seem random, but previous studies have shown that people have less confidence in what they write with the hand they’re less comfortable with. Indeed, that’s what Gal and Rucker found in their study. When asked later, the volunteers who didn’t use their dominant hand were less confident in their views.
However, they were also more likely to try and persuade others of those same views. When they were asked to write something to persuade someone else about their opinions, those who felt less confident wrote significantly longer missives. With a sliver of doubt in their minds, they spent more effort in their attempts at persuasion.
Gal and Rucker also found that this extra effort vanished if the volunteers had a chance to affirm their own identity beforehand. If they were asked to identify their favourite items (books, cities, songs and so on) before writing about animal testing, the choice of hand had no effect on their advocacy attempts. If they were asked to say what their parents’ favourite things were, the hand effect reappeared.
In their second experiment with 151 fresh volunteers, Gal and Rucker found the same effect. This time, they influenced the recruits’ degree of confidence by asking half of them to relate memories where they were brimming with certainty, and the other half to describe relate memories where they were plagued with doubt Afterwards, the volunteers said whether they were vegans, vegetarians or meat-eaters, how confident they were in their opinions, and how important their choice was to them.
As expected, those who remembered times of uncertainty were less confident that their food choices were the right ones. And as before, those same doubtful volunteers advocated their beliefs more strongly. When asked to imagine convincing someone else about their diet, the uncertain group wrote significantly longer messages and spent longer composing those messages.
This experiment – with a different method of manipulating confidence, a different issue at stake, and a different measure of evangelical effort – adds weight to the results of the first one. However, the effect only held true among those who felt that their dietary preferences were important to them. This showed (perhaps, more expectedly) that the ties between doubt and advocacy are stronger for beliefs that are people hold more dearly.
The third experiment found similar results, using a far more trivial issue (well, supposedly more trivial). Gal and Rucker worked with 106 students who all thought that Macs were superiors to PCs. Again, the duo successfully manipulated the students’ confidence by asking them to remember a previous incident of certain resolve or uncertain doubt.
The students had to imagine convincing a PC-user about the merits of an Apple product but this time, half were told that they were talking to a Windows-diehard, and the others were faced with a more open-minded partner. As before, the students put more effort into persuading their imaginary partner if their own confidence was weakened, but only if their partner was receptive.
In all three cases, Gal and Zucker found that doubt turns people into stronger advocates. More subtly, their study shows that this effect is stronger if someone’s identity is threatened, if the belief is important to them, and if they think that others will listen. It all fits with a pattern of behaviour where people evangelise to strengthen their own faltering beliefs.
Their study also casts the acts of advocates in a different light. They might be outwardly trying to change the minds of other people but their actions could be equally about bolstering their own beliefs. As Gal and Zucker write:
“The present research also offers a warning to anyone on the receiving end of an advocacy attempt. Although it is natural to assume that a persistent and enthusiastic advocate of a belief is brimming with confidence, the advocacy might in fact signal that the individual is boiling over with doubt.”
Dharma talk is a form of shaking people's belief system (for the non believer, non buddhist). Shaking people's belief system based on ignorance and false views. If wat your heading, title said is true, then no point inviting non believer, non buddhist to any dharma talk.
Originally posted by Zenist69:Dharma talk is a form of shaking people's belief system (for the non believer, non buddhist). Shaking people's belief system based on ignorance and false views. If wat your heading, title said is true, then no point inviting non believer, non buddhist to any dharma talk.
Dharma talk doesn't always have to shake a person's belief system if the listener doesn't even have one (e.g. with regards to religion) to begin with. A novel way of looking at things could also be a welcome change for persons who are already dissatisfied with their current situation, and are looking for something better.
There's no harm inviting non-believers or non-Buddhists to Dharma talks, but you have to be prepared that in some people, the need to more vehemently defend pre-existing views may kick in. Or, denial could kick in too.
Originally posted by realization:
Dharma talk doesn't always have to shake a person's belief system if the listener doesn't even have one (e.g. with regards to religion) to begin with. A novel way of looking at things could also be a welcome change for persons who are already dissatisfied with their current situation, and are looking for something better.
There's no harm inviting non-believers or non-Buddhists to Dharma talks, but you have to be prepared that in some people, the need to more vehemently defend pre-existing views may kick in. Or, denial could kick in too.
Everyone has got their belief system. Everyone. e.g. Believing in playing electronic game all day, thats also a form of belief system.
When comes to communication, I believe in straight talk. Tackle the issue head on. Dun have to be shouting or aggressive. But the direction and style have to be straightforward and clear.
But to each his own...
Originally posted by Zenist69:Everyone has got their belief system. Everyone. e.g. Believing in playing electronic game all day, thats also a form of belief system.
When comes to communication, I believe in straight talk. Tackle the issue head on. Dun have to be shouting or aggressive. But the direction and style have to be straightforward and clear.
But to each his own...
The problem with talking straight in our country Spore, is that there are lots of people with the knack of coming up with excuses, smoke and distraction. They prefer not to get to the bottom of the issue, but just touch the issue on the surface, and everything seems well on the surface, thats wat they like and prefer.
And people who prefer straight talk, if didn't handle it straight from start, dealing with the excuses, smoke from start might get distracted and tangled, and go in a different direction of the issue. Thats the problem.
Gotta be focus and stick to the guns when doing straight talk in Spore... :D
Originally posted by Zenist69:The problem with talking straight in our country Spore, is that there are lots of people with the knack of coming up with excuses, smoke and distraction. They prefer not to get to the bottom of the issue, but just touch the issue on the surface, and everything seems well on the surface, thats wat they like and prefer.
And people who prefer straight talk, if didn't handle it straight from start, dealing with the excuses, smoke from start might get distracted and tangled, and go in a different direction of the issue. Thats the problem.
Gotta be focus and stick to the guns when doing straight talk in Spore... :D
In general, when people are challenged with something that's beyond their comfort zone, they will choose to evade. And sometimes, you'll be surprised at what our minds can come up with to validate evasion.
If we're disciplined enough, regular meditation will help us realize how we came to own the personas we project, how we came to "own" our current set of neuroses, and what lies behind our reactions to events.