Have you noticed? Everyone seems to have strong opinions these days. Really strong opinions.
Sure, itâs an election year and the list of contentious issues seems to be growing. But not all of the commotion is about politics. And despite the billions of dollars invested in changing peopleâs minds (or beseeching them to at least consider alternate views), most folks are pretty stuck in their thinking.
Yes, that includes you and me.
The science around this human phenomenon is interesting. Seriously. And a fascinating look into all is found in MINDSTUCK: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds.
Leading change strategist Michael McQueen provides a fascinating new guide for leveraging the best of neuroscience, behavioral economics, and psychology to persuade even the most stubborn minds.
Why do so many attempts to persuade others fall flat? McQueen says it all starts with the assumption that humans are fundamentally reasonable.
âWe too easily fall into the trap of imagining that someone who holds an unenlightened or uninformed view must lack the information they need to âsee reason,ââ he says. âSuccessful persuasion is rarely a function of providing others merely with watertight logic and reliable evidence.â
On the contrary, he says, recent research shows that the more evidence or logic we present to someone with a fixed belief or opinion, the more entrenched their views become. âOur very efforts to open peopleâs minds tend to have the opposite effect. And the harder we push, the more data and information we pile on, the more obstinate our counterpart becomes.â
McQueen says people are less rational and evidence-driven than we might assume.
âWe often describe ourselves as being âof two mindsâ without realizing just how true this statement is,â he says. âThe reality is that in so much of life, we do operate in two different mindsâand not just in an indecisive sense.â
He says our first mind, which he refers to as the Inquiring Mind, is in fact highly rational and evidence-driven. âLocated in the brainâs frontal lobe, the Inquiring Mind is linear and methodical, but it takes a lot of energy and self-discipline to use. And so, we use it for roughly only 5% to 10% of perception formation and decision making.â
In contrast, he says, the vast bulk of our thinking happens in whatâs called our Instinctive Mind. âThis is quick, gut-driven, and impulsive. The Instinctive Mind is governed by the part of our cognitive hardware responsible for our tribal instincts and fight/flight reflexes.â
McQueen says that although the Instinctive Mind has kept us safe as a species for millennia, it can also make us incredibly stubborn. This is because the Instinctive Mind responds to psychological threats the same way it does physical ones. When exposed to ideas or information that feel threatening, unfamiliar, or uncomfortable, we instinctively respond by denying, defending, or digging in our heels.
Sounds a lot like the talking heads on cable TV, doesnât it?
According to Timothy Wilson, a University of Virginia psychology professor, the sheer volume of ideas and input we are exposed to in modern times has a huge influence on this process.
Wilson cites data showing our brains are exposed to roughly 11 million pieces of information at any moment. Eleven million! âGiven that we can consciously process only forty of those inputs,â McQueen says, âwe are left with little choice but to go with our gut or defer to our Instinctive Mind. Overwhelm and obstinance go hand in hand.â
So, what does McQueenâs research reveal about peopleâs mental inflexibilityâor being âMindstuckââwhen dealing with new ideas and approaches?
âIf there was one factor thatâs most closely associated with mental inflexibility, it would have to be fear,â he says. âThe common adage would tell us that humans are inherently afraid of change. Yet the latest discoveries in neuroscience reveal that in fact itâs not change that we most fear most as humansâitâs loss.â
McQueen says the moment a new idea or perspective might require us to change our minds, itâs the accompanying fear of what we might lose in the process that we react to. And the three primary fears that lead to mental inflexibility are a loss of certainty, a loss of power and a loss of dignity.
âIf certainty, dignity, and power are threatened, we will double down on our existing opinions and beliefs even if we suspect that what is being suggested or proposed is a good ideaâand one that could even benefit us,â he says. âSuccessful persuasion, then, isnât as much about âsellingâ the upsides of change as it is about lessening the loss.â
âPut your worst foot forwardâ is a persuasion tool McQueen recommends. That approach seems counterintuitive. So, how does it work?
âOpting for self-deprecation does seem very counterintuitive when our culture tells us that self-confidence and self-promotion are the key to getting cut through with our ideas,â he says. âWhile we tend to assume that offering our strongest evidence and most polished arguments will prove most persuasive, winning hearts and minds is always a function of trustâand trust requires vulnerability.â
He notes that Quintilian, one of the legends of Roman persuasive speech, believed that vulnerability was the single most important factor in building affinity with those we seek to influence. âFor Quintilian, one of the most powerful elements of transparency involved an openness about doubt and uncertainty. This idea came to be known as âdubitatioâ from which we derive the modern English word âdubious.ââ
McQueen says the effectiveness of this kind of transparency is true across industriesâeven in the ones we might think are most dependent on confident certainty. He cites research by social psychologist Kip Williams finding that jurors were more likely to view an attorneyâs case more favorably if the attorney revealed weaknesses in the case before the opposition had the chance to do so. The perception of honesty this established in the eyes of jurors meant that verdicts were statistically more likely to be given in favor of the party first to bring up the issue.
âSelf-doubt and self-deprecation may feel deeply exposing, but it has a powerfully disarming effect on those we are seeking to influence,â he says.
In our current atmosphere, some politicians talk a good game about not treating opponents as enemies, but todayâs political and social atmosphere seems more divided and intolerant than ever. What can leaders (political and otherwise) do to help create an environment where people focus more on what unites than what divides?
âThe truth is that our commonality as humans does not need to be fabricated, it just needs to be facilitated,â McQueen says. âThere are far more things that unite us than that which divides us. Leaders in all positions, political and otherwise, could begin by adopting an approach to debate that emphasizes affinity in place of antagonism.â
McQueen notes that one of the oldest and simplest tricks in the book for garnering commitment, votes, and loyalty is to unite against a common enemyâwhether the foe is real or perceived. âBut while inciting fear, disgust, and animosity toward the âother sideâ will certainly achieve short-term wins,â he says, âthis always comes at the cost of constructive engagement and real progress. We may have common enemies, but we also have common foundations. Many of our values, goals and lifestyles are shared by the majority of others. While these are often shrouded behind the politics and ideologies that divide us, they are powerfully unifying realities which leaders only need to draw our attention to.â
In his research on persuasion and decision-making, what has been McQueenâs most surprising finding?
âWe have all become familiar with human tribalism in recent years, but what most surprised me in doing this research was discovering just how deeply we are wired to move with our herd,â he says. âLikely a hangover from our tribal origins, we readily defer to the collective, comply with norms, and avoid dissent out of an instinctive fear of being excluded from the group. Our sense of collective identity has a powerful impact on how we think and make judgments. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of fifty studies by the psychologist Peter Ditto confirms that the herd instinct is the single biggest factor in determining whether we accept or reject information.â
McQueen says the reason for this is that when exposed to unfamiliar information or ideas, we tend to be unconsciously guided by the question, âWhat would people like me think about an idea like this?â Identity tends to trump inquiry.
âWe like to think we are independent, free thinkers,â he says. âBut our belonging and acceptance within our tribe is perhaps our most fundamental priority. While this dynamic has led us down some destructive paths throughout history, itâs also the driving factor behind things like altruism and responsibilityâpowerful forces for good for those who know how to harness the herd instinct.â
What about situations where people donât change even when they want to and know they should?
McQueen says one of the key reasons is something he refers to as Psychological Sunk Cost.
âMost of us are familiar with the idea of an economic sunk cost which describes what happens when we stick with an unfavorable decision or course of action simply because we have already invested so much money or time in it,â he says. âIn much the same way, we have a tendency to hold onto opinions or worldviews simply because we have invested so much of our time, energy and most importantly, our reputation into them. As a result, we will cling to old ideas, approaches and ways of thinking rather than embracing ones we know will serve us better because changing our mind can come at too great a cost for our ego.â
Bearing this in mind, he says, âpersuasion is as much about allowing someone to save face as it is about winning them over. We need to ensure others feel able to acknowledge they may have been wrong without having to admit they are stupid.â