Why your arguing is backfiring…
This week in Sunday Life I quit arguing
via powrightbetweentheeyes
If I had my time again I wouldn’t have asked Dad’s permission to see Nightmare on Elm Street 4 when I was 15, thus spending the next five weeks arguing why he was wrong to say no. I would’ve just gone, like my friends did.
At a guess, I spent approximately 11/15ths of my teenage years arguing My Point to my parents. Which handed my five younger siblings incredible unscrutinsed freedom to do what they liked. They – wisely – took the line, that I only learned much later in life while working for Kerry Packer, “Don’t ask for permission, know how to beg for forgiveness”.
It’s an interesting point to explore right now. Because, frankly, everyone seems to be arguing to flaccid effect. If you’re not throwing the remote at journalist Andrew Bolt’s head on the telly, you’re throwing it at Dick Smith’s or Gwyneth Paltrow’s or Lord Monckton. And Federal politics has descended into a My Point-scoring scrum. One where the ball was lost long ago. It’s like we’re all standing in front of my dad. I say this, because my dad was supreme at not relenting to Another Point.
A Gen Zer asked me at a Coal Seam Gas rally the other day if there was any point to arguing. A Gen Yer wouldn’t have asked such a question. They’re the quintessential younger sibling in the equation (with Gen Zers a sort of second-rounds eldest child). I took on his question quite seriously (as Gen Xers do; we also still attend rallies) and this week explored it further.
Dispiritingly, a lot of the research dedicated to the topic finds arguing a point doesn’t work. Worse, it leads to what has been dubbed “The Backfire Effect” by US researchers. When you challenge someone’s deepest convictions – especially on wedge issues like climate change and refugees – it actually works to strengthen their views.
We are programmed to only listen to views that keep us feeling as we already do (which is understandably efficient). So we only notice and accept, for instance, the studies that confirm red wine is good for us. Unless we’re militant teetotalers. I guess it’s also why when we weigh ourselves – and like the result – we don’t double-check.
But worse, we also actively dismiss evidence that contradicts us. Which is why birthers became more and more convinced Barack Obama is not a US citizen when his birth certificate was finally presented. It gave them more content to critique and posit as conspiracy theory, thus deepening their original belief that there’s a grand coverup going on.
But surely we should stand by our convictions, no? Perhaps not. David McRaney explores the research on the topic in his new book You Are Not So Smart and finds we actually have no idea what our convictions are. Or at least once we start explaining or arguing them, we lose them. He cites The Poster Test. Scientists invited one group to choose and keep their favourite art poster from a selection. A second group was asked the same, but had to explain their choice. Six months later, the first group still loved their choice. The second hated theirs. Which, as McRaney says, renders focus groups, “farts in the wind”.
I’m not sure I accept all this (but then I wouldn’t – it contradicts my belief about arguing). But during the week followed some heated threads on my blog. When arguments ignited, they went nowhere. And the more hyperlinks and Wikipedia references thrown down, the more dissenters jumped on loopholes or mis-logics. We now have every fact available to us at a Google click. But it’s not producing consensus. It’s sending us further and further into our preconceived ideas.
So what’s the solution? Important points very much need to be made at the moment – especially in regards to climate change and refugees. I guess one approach is to consciously and humbly accept we might not actually know things, that we’re just gripping to A Point. To explore facts innocently. And not impose or go for the jugular. Which can be hard when you think you’re right, right?
I personally found this helped humble me a little: McRaney also highlights research that shows the less we know, the more we think we’re right.
Or conversely, as Bertrand Russell said:
“In the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
I can definitely relate to your experiences Sarah. After having a massive argument with my sister yesterday (over her stealing my favourite tshirt) I was reminded of some of the unjustness of our childhoods – me as the oldest child, doing the responsible thing and asking permission and her as the youngest, with her inate sense of entitlement, just doing what she wanted. It’s fascinating how we’ve turned out to be such oldest/youngest child cliches. But I’m 29 now, so I really do need to get over it!
[Reply]
Great Stuff Sarah ..
But Beware !!
A few more months in the Bush
and you’ll be taking a Vow of Silence ..
Let’s hope Not !!
[Reply]
July 17th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
i’ll never shut up!
[Reply]
I concur!
Par example… I attended a gay marriage “debate” last week (in quotation marks because everybody on the panel and in the audience were pro) with my mother and brother. My Gen Y brother and I are, of course, vehemently in support of gay marriage but my mother is not. She thinks gay people should be allowed to have same-sex unions, but not marriage, because marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, and the bedrock of society and family and… ahem. Anyway, no matter my brother and I argue Our Points, no matter how many gay rights rallies she attends with us (because she is all for gay rights, just not marriage specifically), she won’t change her mind. As her reasoning gets weaker and weaker, she is more steadfast in her views.
Similarly, my dad’s conviction that John Howard was The Best Prime Minister Of All Time will just not budge. Or my grandfather’s surety that we should have kept the White Australia Policy (even though me, his granddaughter, is part Malay).
So thank you Sarah! I will stop arguing, because I am just strengthening their positions, not changing them. And maybe it is me who is wrong? (No, that can’t be!)
PS I just thought about Go Back to Where You Came From… perhaps the participants changed their stance because they were actually forced to experience a contradiction of their views. So the solution could be to broaden people’s minds… gently, in real life, so as to not put pressure upon them to change, but just to subliminally encourage them to “come round”. After all, every time I have changed my mind on something, it is not because somebody has shouted at me; it was by reading, or watching, something true and heartfelt that humbled me and made me see the error of my ways.
[Reply]
July 17th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I soooo get the John Howard thing!!!
I think we change when we’re ready to. And I think we have to come to the learning in our own way.
[Reply]
July 17th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
So the lefty’s are getting a little tired of arguing? Poor things.
[Reply]
Sarah, if you are still looking for a boyfriend I think you should hook up with Pete Murray. There was an article on him in one he newspaper magazines today and he is now single (separated) and lives in Byron Bay. You two would make a very handsome couple.
Or, my other thought was the Dr from Bondi Vet. I have seen a few photos of you together at functions and you look good together (actually, you look like better friends).
Anyway, just an idea.
[Reply]
July 17th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Mia, you are very cute! Thanks for thinking of me x
[Reply]
Don’t quite follow you Sarah. You are a journalist and more importantly, looking for a better life, so you are meant to argue! I don’t always agree with everything you say, but that’s what makes your blog interesting.
I have read a few of the heated debates which go on here and notice you don’t intervene until practically WW3 has broken out. Do you prefer to sit back and see how things unfold or perhaps you don’t always have time to read comments. Either way, it would be good to see you put a stop to it sooner rather than later because it often distracts from the original point of the article.
[Reply]
July 17th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Hey Sam, I’m very much one for an argument. But over the years I’ve learned to, yes, sit back and let things unfurl as they need to. It’s not my place to stop people expressing themselves. Even ugly expression leads people to somewhere…it might be to their own ugly realisation. But that’s their “journey’. My belief is that we often meet exactly what we need to see in OURSELVES in a heated argument. So when people bicker on this blog, i let it go to a point. I intervene when it’s grating on me and I can feel it dragging the tone down for everyone. Sometimes I can’t jump on it as it happens cos I’m doing other stuff.
Does that make sense?
[Reply]
July 17th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Hi Sarah…yep, makes perfect sense. Thanks for confirmation.
[Reply]
Hi Sarah, from the various posts your written, it sounds like your dad made most of the decisions in the house. My dad would always say “ask your mum”, which of course we never did and, therefore, got away with murder! It’s only now as a parent I know these tricks.
But as children we were always told to respect what others say (despite being right or wrong) and even now I find it very hard to bring myself to voicing an opinion, which is why blogging is so great. I can say exactly what I like without visibly having to confront someone. Interesting.
[Reply]
I find quite a lot of contemporary discussion (in politics; on forums; inter-personally) falls into de Bono’s ‘I Am Right And You Are Wrong’ trap. Which is not to say that we shouldn’t challenge each other’s ideas, lest we become part of a ‘mutual admiration’ society (or, as readers of your blog, limpet-like followers). That said, so many disagreements seem to arise due to a lack of (full) understanding of what the other person is saying, and if we approach discussions in this way, we may realize we are not in disagreement after all, instead seeing the issue is more complex than we had envisioned. It’s a little finding that field Rumi refers to (in a quote from one of your blogs): a ‘meeting place beyond right and wrong’.
[Reply]
July 17th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Ah yes, that field!
[Reply]
I love reading Edward De Bono. His book How to have a Beautiful Mind is a wonderful read, not only because it’s about communicating your ideas and being open to new ideas, but what it is that really makes a person beautiful!
[Reply]
Did you read the article on Dave Grohl in the Good Weekend yest? Isn’t he just a better looking, plumper replica of AZ??
[Reply]
I was always the one that would argue for what I thought was right. Now I just DO what I think is right and when questioned I simply say because I think it is the right thing to do. Change comes from people seeing something they denied actually happening/working and then they quietly adopt the new behaviour. Well that’s my theory anyway and I am always right – right?! LOL
[Reply]
July 18th, 2011 at 5:21 am
So agree with you Mrs Horty. We need to approach what we do in a considered manner, but when it comes to changing people’s minds, providing tangible proof seems to have far greater impact. A bit of a shame really, given the amount of problems which could be prevented with collective foresight, but I guess that just underscores the need for people to be more active, leading by example as it were. PS Like your irony by the way!
[Reply]
I gave up arguing long ago, mostly because I am a useless arguer. I have opinions and all, but my downfall is that I can nearly always see where everyone is coming from. I just don’t have whatever drive it is to bludgeon someone with my opinions until they either agree or break down and weep.
I can’t decide if it’s a problem or not. I think it means I never really make up my mind on anything and that gives way to a lot of existential angst. Something that seems to be pretty common amongst Gen Yers with arts degrees.
[Reply]
I reckon debate and communication can be great, but once people are set in their opinion, you’re right – actual arguing tends to go nowhere. Ever been at a party with a militant atheist, or a die-hard vegan? There is nothing like watching vegans argue their point to make me want a big juicy steak. Which makes me somewhat less open-minded than I thought I was, but I cant deny that’s what happens. Maybe it has something to do with not wanting to be able to relate to the angry person frothing at the mouth in front of you?
There’s enough opinions out there that you can always find someone to back you, or disagree with you, no matter what you believe in. I like to say “That’s just the way I see it!” and let it go. Tends to save a lot of pointless back and forth.
[Reply]
As I was reading through the comments, my thought was that the next step from sitting back and not arguing is really listening to a point of view that you don’t “agree” with. I have learnt to argue or press my point less, as I have found that people are not interested in a conversation or discussion what they are looking for is their ” audience” to surrender and give up their position….but next time instead of just sitting quietly and singing la la la I’m my head I am going to listen deeply and see what I discover about my self. Sarah, I am sure you have read Leigh Sales book on doubt but for those who haven’t it is a great read.
[Reply]