KEY #7: Remember this friggin guy?
I started thinking about this newsletter in 2013, when I was taking a class in cognitive neuroscience and I started reading the research on a very intriguing question: How do people change their minds?
Psychologists have an answer to that question: They don't! People hate to change their minds! You hate it and I hate it. Conservatives hate it and liberals hate it.
I eventually discovered that people can change their minds under some circumstances — and that's actually why this newsletter exists, and we'll talk about that in the next two weeks. This knowledge is going to help you in the year ahead.
But let's start by focusing on some of the ways we resist changing our minds, because our psychology is strongly fortified against ever having to do that terrible thing.
• Motivated reasoning
Remember Todd Akin? Before losing the 2012 Senate race in Missouri, he opined as follows in an interview:
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Later he explained further:
" 'Legitimate rape' is a law-enforcement term, it’s an abbreviation for 'legitimate case of rape.' A woman calls a police station, the police investigate, she says, 'I’ve been raped,' they investigate that. So before any of the facts are in, they call it a legitimate case of rape."
This is known as "digging yourself in deeper," but in psychology it's called "motivated reasoning."
Let's follow the steps in Todd Akin's thought process, because they show us something.
1. I'm against abortion. I'm on the anti-abortion side. Being anti-abortion is who I am.
2. But oh no — I feel uncomfortable (i.e. I feel cognitive dissonance) about banning abortion in cases of rape. What I need to do is solve this in a way that proves I was right in step 1. I have two ideas.
3. The first is that women are going to lie about being raped so they can have abortions, so we have to isolate "legitimate" rape cases. To get there, I am inventing the concept of "legitimate rape," which I attribute to "law-enforcement" sources that I also have to invent because they don't exist.
4. Now that the number of rapes that I actually believe in is reduced, I am going to dispose of them by inventing the idea that women who are raped can't get pregnant, which I will attribute to "doctors," whom I have to also invent because they don't exist either.
5. Now I have eliminated the problem of abortion for rape victims, because (a) some rape cases are "illegitimate," and (b) the rest do not result in pregnancy. I am cognitively resolved. I feel good about #1 again.
Akin did not dream up these ideas on his own, but rather he picked them up from the anti-abortion community, which has developed a lot of justifications, including spurious ones, to support its cause. But it's an example of motivated reasoning — believing something because it's necessary to believe it to support your side.
Do liberals do this? Absolutely — everybody does this. (Liberals may have greater adherence to fact and reason than conservatives — some research has suggested that.) But you will see it a lot among public figures and voters. Climate change is another area where it is easy to find. Susan Collins saying Donald Trump “learned his lesson” was another instance of saying what you need to say to vote how you need to vote.
"If you want a piece of chocolate cake, you'll find a reason to eat it."
— David McRaney
The thing to keep in mind is, people come up with beliefs to support their beliefs, regardless of whether they're true. Looking back to last week, we can make an even more useful conclusion — people come up with justifications that reinforce their identity, which is the ultimate source of their opinions.
Takeaway: People believe what they need to believe.
• Okay, so how does this help me?
I'm going to be saying this a lot this week. The main way this helps you is that there is not much point arguing against people's beliefs, even if they're wrong. This is part of a psychological self-defense system in our brains that is very strong. We're going to find ways around it in a couple weeks.
If I were running for office and I heard motivated reasoning from a constituent, I would probably just say, "Okay, I understand that you believe that."
If it came from my opponent and it were as outrageous as what Todd Akin said, I would use it relentlessly. In this case, it was an effective wedge issue for Claire McCaskill. I would say, "He actually thinks . . . and this guy wants to go to Washington and have control over your body and your life."
Joshua Tanzer
jmtanzer@gmail.com
Los Angeles, California
Takeaway Toteboard
- KEY #1: Republicans are from Mars, Democrats are from Swarthmore. (Feb. 23):
• Democrats run an intellectual campaign to voters who are emotional creatures.
• Instead of running an intellectual campaign, we need to use our intellect to create an emotional campaign.
- KEY #2: What does the Democrats’ hat say? (Feb. 26)
• The Republicans’ philosophy fits on a hat. Democrats don’t have one.
- KEY #3: Love isn’t rational. (Feb 28):
• Politics is emotion.
• If you find yourself trying to argue intellectually, stop! Find the emotional argument.
- KEY #4: You’re an animal! (March 1):
• Our attitudes come from our identity.
• You are speaking to the voter's animal brain.
- KEY #5: Don’t take away my _____! (March 4):
• Don't get into a fight with people's way of life.
• When you talk about change, find the “win.”
- KEY #6: You are this boy and life is this marshmallow. (March 6):
• Find ways to affirm people's way of life.
• Don’t just campaign; build community.
- KEY #7: Motivated reasoning (aka “Remember this friggin guy?”) (March 8):
• People believe what they need to believe.