ANS -- People’s Imperviousness to Evidence and Reason is Being Overstated: Prof. Jonathan Baron

This is about whether or not people can be persuaded by reasoned argument.  It brings in the scientific findings on the subject.  I've included the comments thus far. 
Find it here:  http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=10816
--Kim

People's Imperviousness to Evidence and Reason is Being Overstated: Prof. Jonathan Baron

Some years ago, my researches brought me into contact with Professor Jonathan Baron, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania specializing in matters like cognitive processes and decision-making.

Recently I went back to Jon because I wondered about the validity of assertions, said to be based on good scientific research, and much heard these days in the blogosphere, about how futile it is, in seeking to persuade people in general, to speak to them as rational beings. As a candidate these days for public office, thus one who seeks to persuade people, and as one whose values and habits are both oriented toward the appeal to empirical evidence and logic, I wanted to know if people are as impervious to rational argument as these much-circulated reports suggested.

Below, Professor Baron quotes the question as I posed it to him, and then provides his response.

*************************

You asked me the following question, and my answer follows:

Question:

An idea has been making the rounds over the past four or five years.

It's said to be supported by a fair amount of social-psychological research, and it takes various forms, but the essential point is this:

PEOPLE'S OPINIONS, it is reported, SEEM TO BE INVULNERABLE TO MODIFICATION THROUGH THE PRESENTATION OF FACTS (OR LOGIC) THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR BELIEFS. Some research is said to indicate that … people will become even more deeply entrenched in their original beliefs when confronted with evidence that refutes those beliefs. …

What I want to ask you is this: how true is all this? How robust are these studies? Should I, as a candidate, give up on the notion that if I present people with certain clear and well-supported facts they can be led to reconsider beliefs that those facts refute? Is it futile to speak to people as if logic mattered?

Response:

This issue is one of my pet peeves. All the findings that people cite are correct. But they are almost all based on aggregates, averages, over many subjects. This is in part a statistical issue. Suppose you do an experiment looking for "myside bias". This is a general term (invented by David Perkins) for all the things you describe. The bias can be positive (that is, present), zero (no bias, complete fairness), or even negative (bias against one's own position, excessive self-criticism). And each subject in the experiment gets a number indicating the degree of bias. The usual thing is to show that the average number is positive. But this does not mean that everyone is biased. All it means is that the average positive bias is stronger than the average negative bias.

It turns out, though, that in all these experiments, many people do not show very much bias. I don't know of any clear demonstrations of negative bias. But what seems to be happening is that the average is positive because some number of people – 50%, 25%, 75%, depending on the study – show a substantial bias and others show very little or none. But the study gets reported as "people are biased". This often happens in the original articles, but it almost always happens when findings are reported in the news.

If you think the way that business firms think when they do marketing, you are interested in market share, not in convincing everyone that your product is the best, but in getting a reasonable percent. That percent is there. There are people who listen to reason, even in the U.S.

The fads in psychology right now emphasize cynicism. I think they over-do it, so that people give up and don't even try to use reason.
Of course, those studies are right in showing that many people display "myside bias" all the time, probably most of us display it some of the time, and certain conditions, such as group identification, make it more likely. Still, there is room.

Reasoning with people is hard. My first impulse is to say just lay out the arguments and try to engage them. When I do this, though, I often find that my opponents start citing "facts", which I think are just wrong, like "global warming is in dispute" or "economic analysis shows that lower taxes bring prosperity". At this point the discussion stops because, if I am to back up my position, I have to go find citations. (If you do this by email, it can eat up hours and hours, as you end up critiquing each others' sources.) So I usually just say, "I think you are wrong" but give up further discussion. It _might_ help to add in a little lesson about the psychology of biases, but if your opponents are smart they will just play that back, accusing you of displaying the same bias.

Most of the advice that psychologists give now (implicitly, through their research emphasis) is to appeal to emotions such as empathy or fear. But I think this just encourages irrationality, and it is a tool that can be used by both sides.

Jon

For more about Professor Baron:

Home page: www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron

Blog: judgmentmisguided.blogspot.com/

*****************

This entry was posted on Friday, June 3rd, 2011 at 4:31 amand is filed under Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
  Print This Post
  Email This Post

7 Responses to "People's Imperviousness to Evidence and Reason is Being Overstated: Prof. Jonathan Baron"

1. David R Says:
2. June 3rd, 2011 at 5:36 am
3. What do people want (and need) in the way of government -and from government ?A convincing SENSE OF LEADERSHIP over public affairs so that they can lead their own private lives without being distracted by idiocy and self-seeking in those managing and mis-managing public affairs.
4. Simple ! F D R again !
5. Most people were glad when school days were ended and happy to leave the classroom behind.They are now immersed in the social/ economic enterprise up to their ear-balls. Want to lead now ? Don't BE a problem !
6. They do not need government in their face nor in their way nor taking their money nor undermining their nation in favor of other nations or a so-called United Nations, and certainly NOT contradicting their common sense by which they solve their own problems and live Their Own lives every day . . day after day . . as the 'leaders' come and go !
   
   
7. Want to 'lead' ? Don't BE a problem
8. Robin Pettit Says:
9. June 3rd, 2011 at 7:05 am
10. In the past, I tried to reason with global warming deniers, even looking at a research article they cited to support their global warming denier side and discovered that the research was misinterpreted by them and actually supported global warming supporters, they then called into question the research that they earlier had cited. I agree with Dr. Baron to some degree, but there are definitely those who are impervious to reason out there.
11. Arthur Says:
12. June 3rd, 2011 at 9:34 am
13. This dialogue was preempted already decades ago, when von Neumann and Morgenstern wrote their THEORY OF GAMES AND ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR. Their conclusions are competent and decisive. Those who battle on nevertheless only disclose their ignorance of the established results in this genre. They also disclose a troubling reality about the secular trends in our educational establishment! /Arthur /arthur.gillman@gmail.com/ 204-896-4967 (CT Zone)
14. Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
15. June 3rd, 2011 at 10:11 am
16. Why be such a tease, Arthur? Instead of ALLUDING to all sorts of important knowledge –"conclusions" that are decisive, "established results" and "troubling reality"– give us some succinct statement about what the conclusions, results and realities ARE.
17. Bob F Says:
18. June 3rd, 2011 at 10:38 am
19. I agree with the professor, but I don't think that means that it is easy, or even feasible in some situations, to win political arguments by reasoned argument and fact. When we try to win people over, we are not just working against any internal bias they may have. I agree that if that were all we had to face, we could find that reasoned persuasion works better than we give it credit.
20. However, in a political setting, we are also working against those making arguments against our position. Some of those arguments may be based on reason and fact-based logic, but there is another factor as well.
21. Reason isn't the only way to reach people! Appeals can also be made to their emotions, especially fears. We can do that; our opponents can do that. It seems that in modern politics people are flooded with such appeals.
22. I think that "myside bias" has relatively little to do with the net effect of political appeals on voters; however, unfortunately, that doesn't mean that reason rules the day.
23. Arthur Says:
24. June 3rd, 2011 at 10:51 am
25. Unfair, Andy! Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (say) contains durable wisdom of great power. But how could anyone boil it down to an Elevator Message? ("Obey the 'Categorical Imperative'!") Those who come to trust that Kant's offering is worthwhile considering must be prepared to invest seriously in reading, studying, working through Kant. Or else they must pass him by. Any true friend of theirs could do no more than point this out; and take care not to cheat them into a Flash Comics caricature! (Of course the same argument runs for the discoveries of Marx, von Mises, Darwin, and Pavlov.) /Best! Arthur
26. Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
27. June 3rd, 2011 at 11:49 am
28. That may be. But as your comment is written, I could not say with any degree of certainty anything about what you are saying. It would seem that you are taking sides in this "dialogue," but you refrain from any clear statement about what side you are taking. I've been in the idea business for a very long time, and I have plenty of experience in saying things concisely and clearly. Brevity often gets in the way of saying things altogether satisfactorily, but one can always say SOMETHING worth saying that has a clear import and meaning.