How to Change Someone's Mind
You may know him as a meme. He’s the guy who sits behind signs saying “Male privilege is a myth. Change my mind.” His name is Steven Crowder. He then proceeds to engage in a series of arguments against college students who are willing to challenge him. He has a major following that praises him for “destroying his opponent.”
But destroying his opponent doesn’t necessarily mean that he has changed their mind.
Think about it. Have you actually walked away from an argument with a different opinion than when you went into it? Did any of those socratic seminars or school debates actually change your views? Or have you just raised your voice but with the same argument?
Well, we are going to look at some of the factors that can help you change someone’s mind (and tips for opening yours).
Joseph Bazarsky, vice president of Mock Trial, said that in his experience, “There are two ways to approach an argument: the moral, clean way and the sordid, dirty, ‘win-at-all-costs’ way.”
Bazarsky remarked that for the former method of arguing, the first thing to keep in mind is understanding.
“A vital part of argumentation — that a lot of people miss these days sadly, which contributes to increasing political polarization — is the fullest possible comprehension of what the other side says and thinks,” Bazarsky said. “If you can't actually digest what your opponent is saying, and seriously consider it as an option, then the argument is dead on arrival.”
In a 2005 study done at Dartmouth College, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler observed American attitudes regarding the justifications for the Iraq war. Participants were given a news article that revealed no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) had been found. However, afterward, not only did many participants still believe WMDs were involved, they even became more convinced of their original opinions.
The facts were right in front of them. So why were they not convinced?
The answer lies in a TedTalk lesson by Hugo Mercier in which he outlined three main elements for crafting a convincing argument. He pointed out that you will more likely change someone’s mind when you are familiar with what they believe, who they trust, and what they value.
With this in mind, some debates can’t be settled strictly by logic. When arguments are based on outside information, you must take into account what sources people use and trust.
“People must be willing to not just stop short after finding the answer that they are looking for. You have to diversify your sources and be able to take into account the external views of your sources and also the sources' agenda,” sophomore Alex Wong said.
Both Wong and Bazarsky reference to an effect called confirmation bias. In the podcast “Choicology,” Charles Schwab discusses how this psychological phenomenon affects our perceptions by limiting our vision to see only what we want to see.
“You're never going to succeed in changing their mind with your army of straw men, and they're never going to succeed in changing yours because of your unwillingness to listen,” Bazarsky said.
Schwab comments that in an ideal world, we can try to push against this bias by having someone we trust adjudicate the matter. But oftentimes, we try to confront bias ourselves.
“Our best bet to combat the confirmation bias in our personal lives might be to say, ‘What evidence would change your mind down the road?’” Schwab said. “There’s no changing your mind right now, but what would change your mind, what could change your mind?”
Confirmation bias somewhat contributes to the fact that some arguments are simply unwinnable because some subjects aren’t found solely on objective matters and vary on personal experiences or circumstances. Arguments must appeal to its audience’s values and beliefs in have a chance in changing someone’s mind.
“I take into account that there are many arguments based on subjective topics and therefore there might not be an answer that is most fit for both of us,” Wong said.
In politics, we’ve all seen the heated debates. Many of which become a stalemate and leave arguers fired up. Much of this can be attributed to mindsets we have when watching or participating in political arguments.
“There’s this concept called the ‘firehose of falsehoods’ that’s commonly used in modern day post-trust politics,” Bazarsky said. “Essentially, it's the idea that, through a blatant disregard for the truth, you establish that you wield power over reality.”
When arguments aren’t even adherent to reality, it becomes near impossible to change someone’s mind because there isn’t a logical foundation. People with this kind of mindset have essentially no intentions of actually changing their views.
“It's essentially a perpetuation of the "us vs. them" mentality: if each side believes that, through this firehose of falsehoods, their leading representatives are above "reality" — and therefore control it,” Bazarsky said. “Then they have no reason to engage in meaningful discussion with those that disagree with them.”
Regardless of the argument at hand, people need to consider everyone’s viewpoints, rather than a quick dismissal or going into the argument with a fixed perspective.
“I go into arguments with the belief that even though I may be highly educated in the topic, I do not know everything. I need to treat the other person and their views with respect because no matter how polar and against their views I may be, they feel the exact same way towards my mine,” Wong said.
So, go out there and change some minds and maybe you’ll even change your own mind.
But destroying his opponent doesn’t necessarily mean that he has changed their mind.
Think about it. Have you actually walked away from an argument with a different opinion than when you went into it? Did any of those socratic seminars or school debates actually change your views? Or have you just raised your voice but with the same argument?
Well, we are going to look at some of the factors that can help you change someone’s mind (and tips for opening yours).
Joseph Bazarsky, vice president of Mock Trial, said that in his experience, “There are two ways to approach an argument: the moral, clean way and the sordid, dirty, ‘win-at-all-costs’ way.”
Bazarsky remarked that for the former method of arguing, the first thing to keep in mind is understanding.
“A vital part of argumentation — that a lot of people miss these days sadly, which contributes to increasing political polarization — is the fullest possible comprehension of what the other side says and thinks,” Bazarsky said. “If you can't actually digest what your opponent is saying, and seriously consider it as an option, then the argument is dead on arrival.”
In a 2005 study done at Dartmouth College, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler observed American attitudes regarding the justifications for the Iraq war. Participants were given a news article that revealed no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) had been found. However, afterward, not only did many participants still believe WMDs were involved, they even became more convinced of their original opinions.
The facts were right in front of them. So why were they not convinced?
The answer lies in a TedTalk lesson by Hugo Mercier in which he outlined three main elements for crafting a convincing argument. He pointed out that you will more likely change someone’s mind when you are familiar with what they believe, who they trust, and what they value.
With this in mind, some debates can’t be settled strictly by logic. When arguments are based on outside information, you must take into account what sources people use and trust.
“People must be willing to not just stop short after finding the answer that they are looking for. You have to diversify your sources and be able to take into account the external views of your sources and also the sources' agenda,” sophomore Alex Wong said.
Both Wong and Bazarsky reference to an effect called confirmation bias. In the podcast “Choicology,” Charles Schwab discusses how this psychological phenomenon affects our perceptions by limiting our vision to see only what we want to see.
“You're never going to succeed in changing their mind with your army of straw men, and they're never going to succeed in changing yours because of your unwillingness to listen,” Bazarsky said.
Schwab comments that in an ideal world, we can try to push against this bias by having someone we trust adjudicate the matter. But oftentimes, we try to confront bias ourselves.
“Our best bet to combat the confirmation bias in our personal lives might be to say, ‘What evidence would change your mind down the road?’” Schwab said. “There’s no changing your mind right now, but what would change your mind, what could change your mind?”
Confirmation bias somewhat contributes to the fact that some arguments are simply unwinnable because some subjects aren’t found solely on objective matters and vary on personal experiences or circumstances. Arguments must appeal to its audience’s values and beliefs in have a chance in changing someone’s mind.
“I take into account that there are many arguments based on subjective topics and therefore there might not be an answer that is most fit for both of us,” Wong said.
In politics, we’ve all seen the heated debates. Many of which become a stalemate and leave arguers fired up. Much of this can be attributed to mindsets we have when watching or participating in political arguments.
“There’s this concept called the ‘firehose of falsehoods’ that’s commonly used in modern day post-trust politics,” Bazarsky said. “Essentially, it's the idea that, through a blatant disregard for the truth, you establish that you wield power over reality.”
When arguments aren’t even adherent to reality, it becomes near impossible to change someone’s mind because there isn’t a logical foundation. People with this kind of mindset have essentially no intentions of actually changing their views.
“It's essentially a perpetuation of the "us vs. them" mentality: if each side believes that, through this firehose of falsehoods, their leading representatives are above "reality" — and therefore control it,” Bazarsky said. “Then they have no reason to engage in meaningful discussion with those that disagree with them.”
Regardless of the argument at hand, people need to consider everyone’s viewpoints, rather than a quick dismissal or going into the argument with a fixed perspective.
“I go into arguments with the belief that even though I may be highly educated in the topic, I do not know everything. I need to treat the other person and their views with respect because no matter how polar and against their views I may be, they feel the exact same way towards my mine,” Wong said.
So, go out there and change some minds and maybe you’ll even change your own mind.