INFLUENCING BEHAVIORS: WHY FACTS DON’T ALTER MINDS

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”- Leo Tolstoy.

Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us?

The Logic of False Beliefs

Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If our model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then we struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.

“Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”- James Clear – Atomic Habits

Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances; social connection is actually more helpful to our daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples, rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.

We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about.If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from. False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.”  When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts.

This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.

Facts Don’t Change Our Minds. Friendship Does.

Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. We can’t expect someone to change their mind if we take away their community too. We have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into our tribe, to bring them into our circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.

The British philosopher Alain de Botton suggests that we simply share meals with those who disagree with us. Sitting down at a table with a group of strangers has the incomparable and odd benefit of making it a little more difficult to hate them with impunity. Prejudice and ethnic strife feed off abstraction. However, the proximity required by a meal – something about handing dishes around, unfurling napkins at the same moment, even asking a stranger to pass the salt – disrupts our ability to cling to the belief that the outsiders who wear unusual clothes and speak in distinctive accents deserve to be sent home or assaulted. Perhaps it is not difference, but distance that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does.

The Spectrum of Beliefs

The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone we know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, we are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. But if someone wildly different than us proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as a crackpot.

One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If we divide this spectrum into 10 units and we find ourselves at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When we are at Position 7, our time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in our direction.

The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer we are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs we don’t share will bleed over into our own mind and shape our thinking. The further away an idea is from our current position, the more likely we are to reject it outright.When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. We can’t jump down the spectrum – we have to slide down it.

Any idea that is sufficiently different from our current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation; people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.

Arguments are like a full-frontal attack on a person’s identity. Reading a book (or a text/email/letter) is like slipping the seed of an idea into a person’s brain and letting it grow on their own terms. There is enough wrestling going on in someone’s head when they are overcoming a pre-existing belief. They don’t need to wrestle with you too.

Why False Ideas Persist

There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated.

People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before we can criticize an idea, we have to reference that idea. We end up repeating the ideas we are hoping people will forget—but, of course, people cannot forget them because we keep talking about them. The more we repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.

Each time we attack a bad idea, we are feeding the very monster we are trying to destroy. Our time is better spent championing good ideas than tearing down bad ones. The best thing that can happen to a bad idea is that it is forgotten. The best thing that can happen to a good idea is that it is shared.

What Is The Goal?

There are instances when it is useful to point out an error or criticize a bad idea. But we have to ask ourselves, “What is the goal?” Presumably, we want to criticize bad ideas because we think the world would be better off if fewer people believed them. In other words, we think the world would improve if people changed their minds on a few important topics.If the goal is to actually change minds, then, criticizing the other side may not be the best approach.

Most people argue to win, not to learn. People often act like soldiers rather than scouts. Soldiers are on the intellectual attack, looking to defeat the people who differ from them. Victory is the operative emotion. Scouts, meanwhile, are like intellectual explorers, slowly trying to map the terrain with others. Curiosity is the driving force. If we want people to adopt our beliefs, we need to act more like a scout and less like a soldier. Are we willing to not win in order to keep the conversation going?

Be Kind First, Be Right Later

“Always remember that to argue, and win, is to break down the reality of the person you are arguing against. It is painful to lose your reality, so be kind, even if you are right.”- Haruki Murakami

When we are in the moment, we can easily forget that the goal is to connect with the other side, collaborate with them, befriend them, and integrate them into our tribe. We are so caught up in winning that we forget about connecting. It is easy to spend our energy labelling people rather than working with them.The word “kind” originated from the word “kin.” When you are kind to someone it means you are treating them like family. Develop a friendship. Share a meal. Be Kind.

**Source Credits: 1)  Language, Cognition, and Human Nature: Selected Articles by Steven Pinker.   2) Religion for Atheists by Alain de Botton.  3) “Why you think you’re right — even if you’re wrong” by Julia Galef.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

PERSONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND PRODUCTIVITY: BEHAVIOURS ASSOCIATED

Story – The Ivy Lee Method:

By 1918, Charles M. Schwab was one of the richest men in the world. Schwab was the president of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, the largest shipbuilder, and the second-largest steel producer in America at the time. The famous inventor Thomas Edison once referred to Schwab as the “master hustler.” He was constantly seeking an edge over the competition. One day in 1918, in his quest to increase the efficiency of his team and discover better ways to get things done, Schwab arranged a meeting with a highly respected productivity consultant named Ivy Lee. Lee was a successful businessman in his own right and is widely remembered as a pioneer in the field of public relations.

The Ivy Lee Method:. . . . . . . . During his 15 minutes with each executive, Ivy Lee explained this simple set of daily routine steps for achieving peak productivity:

1. At the end of each workday, write down the six most important things you need to accomplish tomorrow.
2. Do not write down more than six tasks.
3. Prioritize those six items in order of their true importance.
4. When you arrive tomorrow, concentrate only on the first task.
5. Work until the first task is finished before moving on to the second task.
6. Approach the rest of your list in the same fashion.
7. At the end of the day, move any unfinished items to a new list of six tasks for the following day.
8. Repeat this process every working day.

The strategy sounded simple, but Schwab and his executive team at Bethlehem Steel gave it a try. After three months, Schwab was so delighted with the progress his company had made that he called Lee into his office and wrote him a check for $25,000. A $25,000 check written in 1918 is the equivalent of a $400,000 check in 2015.

The Ivy Lee Method of prioritizing our to-do list seems stupidly simple. How could something this simple be worth so much?

A) It is simple enough to actually work: . . . . . . . . The primary critique of methods like this one is that they are too basic. They do not account for all of the complexities and nuances of life. What happens if an emergency pops up? What about using the latest technology to our fullest advantage? Sometimes, complexity is actually a weakness because it makes it harder to get back on track. Emergencies and unexpected distractions will arise. Ignoring them as much as possible, dealing with them when we must, and getting back to our prioritized to-do list as soon as possible is what brings productivity. The use of simple rules to guide complex behaviour often serves the best results.

B) It forces us to make tough decisions: . . . . . . . . . There is nothing magical about Lee’s number of six important tasks per day. It could just as easily be five tasks per day. However, there is something magical about imposing limits upon ourselves. Sometimes, the single best thing to do when we have too many ideas (or when we are overwhelmed by everything we need to get done) is to prune our ideas and trim away everything that is not absolutely necessary. Constraints can make us better. Lee’s method is similar to Warren Buffett’s 25-5 Rule, which requires us to focus on just 5 critical tasks and ignore everything else. Basically, if we commit to nothing, we will be distracted by everything.

C) It removes the friction of starting: . . . . . . . . . The biggest hurdle to finishing most tasks is starting them. Lee’s method forces us to decide on our first task the night before we go to work. If we decide the night before, we can start work immediately the next day, and not end up wasting time deciding what needs our attention. It is simple, but it works. In the beginning, getting started is just as important as succeeding at all.

Another tool that could be useful here is known as the Eisenhower Box (or Eisenhower Matrix) and it’s a simple decision-making tool. General Dwight Eisenhower had an incredible ability to sustain his productivity for weeks and months. And for that reason, it is no surprise that his methods for time management, task management, and productivity have been studied by many people. Before becoming the 34th President of the United States, Eisenhower was a five-star general in the United States Army, served as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II, and was responsible for planning and executing invasions of North Africa, France, and Germany.

D) It requires us to single-task: . . . . . . . . . Modern society loves multi-tasking. The myth of multi-tasking is that being busy is synonymous with being better. The exact opposite is true. Having fewer priorities leads to better work. World-class experts in nearly any field—athletes, artists, scientists, teachers, CEOs—have one characteristic that runs through all of them: focus. The reason is simple. We cannot be great at one task if we are constantly dividing our time ten different ways. Mastery requires focus and consistency. The bottom line? Do the most important thing first each day. It’s the only productivity trick we need.

The Myth of Multitasking: Why Fewer Priorities Leads to Better Work

The word priority did not always mean what it does today. In his best-selling book, Essentialism (audiobook), Greg McKeown explains the surprising history of the word and how its meaning has shifted over time.

Yes, we are capable of doing two things at the same time. It is possible, for example, to watch TV while cooking dinner or to answer an email while talking on the phone. What is impossible, however, is concentrating on two tasks at once. Multitasking forces our brain to switch back and forth very quickly from one task to another. This would not be a big deal if the human brain could transition seamlessly from one job to the next, but it cannot. Multitasking forces us to pay a mental price each time we interrupt one task and jump to another. In psychology terms, this mental price is called the switching cost. Switching cost is the disruption in performance that we experience when we switch our attention from one task to another.

For example, A 2003 study published in the International Journal of Information Management found that the typical person checks email once every five minutes and that, on average, it takes 64 seconds to resume the previous task after checking your email. In other words, because of email alone, we typically waste one out of every six minutes.

The myth of multitasking is that it will make us more effective. In reality, remarkable focus is what makes the difference. While we are on the subject, the word multitasking first appeared in 1965 IBM report talking about the capabilities of its latest computer.

Finding Your Anchor Task: . .. . . . . . .  . Doing more things does not drive faster or better results. Doing better things drives better results. Even more accurately, doing one thing as best you can, drives better results. The power of choosing one priority is that it naturally guides our behavior by forcing us to organize our life around that responsibility. Our priority becomes an anchor task, the mainstay that holds the rest of our day in place. If things get crazy, there is no debate about what to do or not to do. We have already decided what is urgent and what is important.

Saying No to Being Busy: . . . . . . . . As a society, we have fallen into a trap of busyness and overwork. In many ways, we have mistaken all this activity to be something meaningful. The underlying thought seems to be, “Look how busy I am? If I am doing all this work, I must be doing something important.” And, by extension, “I must be important because I’m so busy.” The people who do the most valuable work have a remarkable willingness to say no to distractions and focus on their one thing.

Implementation Intentions: Mastering One Thing at a Time

Many people have multiple areas of life they would like to improve. The problem is, even if we are committed to working hard on our goals, our natural tendency is to revert back to our old habits at some point. Making a permanent lifestyle change is difficult.

The approach to mastering many areas of life is somewhat counterintuitive. If we want to master multiple habits and stick to them for good, then we need to figure out how to be consistent. How can we do that? Research has shown that we are 2x to 3x more likely to stick with our habits if we make a specific plan for when, where, and how we will perform the behavior. For example, in one study scientists asked people to fill out this sentence: “During the next week, I will partake in at least 20 minutes of vigorous exercise on [DAY] at [TIME OF DAY] at/in [PLACE].”

Psychologists call these specific plans “implementation intentions” because they state when, where, and how we intend to implement a particular behavior. For example, implementation intentions have been found to increase the odds that people will start exercising, begin recycling, stick with studying, and even stop smoking. However (and this is crucial to understand) follow-up research has discovered that implementation intentions only work when we focus on one thing at a time.

When we begin practicing a new habit it requires a lot of conscious effort to remember to do it. After a while, however, the pattern of behavior becomes easier. Eventually, our new habit becomes a normal routine, and the process is more or less mindless and automatic. Automaticity is the ability to perform a behavior without thinking about each step, which allows the pattern to become automatic and habitual. But here is the thing: automaticity only occurs as the result of lots of repetition and practice. The more reps we put in, the more automatic a behavior becomes. The most important thing to note is that there is some “tipping point” at which new habits become more or less automatic. The time it takes to build a habit depends on many factors including how difficult the habit is, what our environment is like, our genetics, and more.

The counterintuitive insight from all of this research is that the best way to change our entire life is by not changing our entire life. Instead, it is best to focus on one specific habit, work on it until we master it, and make it an automatic part of our daily life. Then, repeat the process for the next habit. The way to master more things in the long run is to simply focus on one thing right now.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa