We Are Not As Open As We Think
We all like to think we’re open-minded, but election season lays bare the worst of even the best of us. Even the most “open” and “informed” among us are much more closed than we think, and they openly admit. Let’s see why this is and what we can really do about it.
Openness is traditionally the recognition of the possibility that an idea is true or false. We all close our eyes to a lot of things, and that’s not a bad thing. As soon as an idea turns out to be false, we must abandon it . Most of us don’t need to waste time being open to facts that are false, and being impartial would mean that you can never form a real opinion about anything that is not proven fact or fiction. Fortunately, you can be open-minded but still be critical, but it takes work.
Countering our beliefs reinforces our prejudices
Nobody wants to hear that they are wrong. When someone challenges your beliefs, you must embrace this new information and reevaluate your feelings. However, it is usually the other way around. When we are challenged with new information, it only strengthens our pre-existing faith. This is called the reverse effect .
Oddly enough, this year I’ve seen most of the backfire in arguments between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. As for Sanders, the most common argument I’ve seen is that Clinton is too pragmatic, dynasty-run, and untrustworthy. When someone claims the opposite, say on Facebook, Sanders supporters flock to links that support their argument. Clinton’s supporters do the same, and the result is a senseless squabble of people offering only those points of view that reinforce the opinion they have already formed. I would venture to suggest that no one bothers to read at least one of these links after the title.
Our biases call into question our ability to absorb new information. This makes it difficult to stay open to new ideas. The examples above are simple anecdotal notes about some random people I know, but it doesn’t seem like it exists in a Facebook feed vacuum. You Are Not So Smart provides several examples of this effect :
When scientists forced people to watch Bob Dole’s debate with Bill Clinton in 1996, they found supporters even before the debate tended to believe their preferred candidate had won. In 2000, as psychologists studied Clinton’s lovers and haters throughout the Lewinsky scandal, they found that Clinton’s lovers tended to see Lewinsky as an unreliable home destroyer, and found it hard to believe that Clinton had lied under oath. The haters, of course, felt the opposite. Fast-forward to 2011 and see Fox News and MSNBC battle for cable territory, both promising a point of view that will never challenge the beliefs of a specific segment of the audience. Partial assimilation is guaranteed.
Its essence is simple: challenge my beliefs, and instead of being critical of your challenge, I will sit and think how right I am and how stupid you are. When we are shown something that undermines what we believe in, we feel embarrassed, maybe even angry, but we rarely change our minds. This happens regardless of the tone of the article. People may argue that challenging persuasion in a more neutral manner will lead to better discussion, but this is not the case. The more neutral an argument, the easier it is to reject it (or just turn it over to your side).
Unfortunately, there is little we can do to fix this. The best thing you can do is accept the likelihood that you are wrong, wait a bit for a heated debate or angering article, and then reconsider your point of view when you cool off a bit.
We focus on what directly benefits us
This is probably not surprising, but we pay more attention to issues that affect us directly, and discard those that do not affect us. Because of this, we may be closer to a problem that does not affect us directly. This happens with a variety of issues, especially class, race, gender, and sexuality, but money is one of the simplest examples from an instructive point of view.
Student loan debt is the simplest example of this. Each candidate has a position on student loan over-indebtedness and some semblance of a plan to fix it. If you have a lot of student loans right now, you are probably looking at which candidate will benefit you the most. This is also probably one of your main reasons for favoring one candidate over another. You may agree with Trump’s approach to cutting Department of Education funding and ensuring that the federal government does not profit from student loans . Or maybe you’re more interested in Clinton’s plan to offer refinancing at a lower interest rate. If you’ve just graduated from college, student loan reform is probably the platform you follow the most, and a candidate offering a program that directly benefits you will be your supporter, not to mention other issues.
Of course, on the other hand, there is another voter who does not have student loans, either because they did not go to college, they already paid off their loans, or they had enough money to pay for college out of their own pocket. In this case, student loans may not be on their radar at all. In fact, it may not be so much of a problem that they are confused as to why this is the main topic of conversation. Worse, the money for student loan reform has to come from somewhere and that might affect them at some point, so they might be interested in voting against your interests .
It’s really hard to see both points of view at the same time. If you’ve already worked hard to pay off your loans, or paid out of pocket for your college tuition, you will feel cheated or wonder why everyone else can’t do it too (although obviously for good reason). On the other hand, if you find it difficult to pay your rent because half of your salary goes towards student loans, you cannot imagine why the government has not yet addressed this issue. If the interest on your debt alone is higher than the loan itself, it makes sense to offer refinancing.
Granted, this is an incredibly complex problem with many variables, but most of us can’t help but notice the benefits that we ourselves could potentially go away with.
The fact is that when we talk about problems that directly affect us, we are often self-serving. None of this means that one point is more important than another, but it does mean that it is extremely difficult to remain open-minded about policies when they directly affect you. It’s hard to exclude yourself from the equation and think about the greater good. Putting yourself in someone else’s shoes is one of those silly recommendations that always come with impartiality, but it’s probably the only approach that will help you change your mind.
In addition, no one actually reads the opposing views.
We said before that if you want to open your mind, read opposing views from different sources , sit and contemplate each argument, and then form your own opinion. Let’s be honest for a second: most of us never actually do this.
Of course, many of us can take the time to watch the opposing side debate. We may even have made sure that we are actually paying attention to opposing points of view, and not just looking for holes in them. But I would venture to suggest that the popularity of the Republican debate has more to do with spectacle than open-mindedness. People love to watch Trump do Trump because it’s interesting. If you agree with him, you will rally behind him. If not, then this is a great excuse to yell at the TV. Listen, I agree, it’s fun to shout at the TV. It’s nice to be angry and rant about some kind of political ideology. But come on, most people don’t read opposing points of view, put limits on critical thinking, and don’t think deeply about pressing issues.
The feedback effect tends to be that even if we take the time to read opposing points of view, it ends up simply reinforcing our existing beliefs. Few would argue: “Look, I am reading this article with an open mind, and this is what I disagree with, this is what gave me new ideas, and this is where I would like to learn more.” Most of us do not read the opposite point of view, believing that it may be true or false. We think this is a lie or that we are doing ourselves a masochistic benefit by reading someone else’s opinion, and we use that as fuel to rekindle the fire of our pre-existing opinion.
The best solution to this problem is to keep your mouth shut and listen to the opposite opinion. Don’t react, don’t poke holes. You can read or watch whatever you want, but if you are in a conversation, you are more likely to hear what the other party has to say if you shut up and listen. Before you fight your opinion, take some time and just sit down on this new idea.
In fact, it is surprisingly difficult to start a political conversation with an open mind. Heck, it’s tricky on simpler levels. I decided long ago that I was tired of superhero movies, and despite all the rave reviews, I refuse to admit that I might like Deadpool. Which is funny and pointless . But when I think about my limitations in such silly situations, it helps me at least recognize these biases at the macro level. I can only hope that this is enough.