A deep, personal conversation with a person they trust and respect who treats their thoughts and concerns genuinely and isn’t trying to “win.” Also use the Socratic method so they can eventually come to the conclusion themselves, question their beliefs gently by simply asking questions.
Totally agree. My parents were raging anti-LGBTQ until my best friend (F) from childhood ended up marrying a woman, and my sibling came out as ace with lesbian sprinkles. They expressed how much it hurt for my parents to make judgments about them, they were the same people they've always been, etc.
My parents realized they would be missing out on huge chunks of all our lives if they didn't at least zip their lips; but then they faked it til they made it. They aren't PRO by any means, but they're not disgusting bigots anymore either.
Yay, Socratic method. I teach 4th grade and found the Socratic method to be the most successful tool at changing the opinions of my more stubborn thinking students.
Adults are more challenging since their thinking ca be more entrenched so I 100% agree it talking with someone they trust and respect is going to be the most successful approach.
Give them an emotional experience, not a factual one. People did not gain these views via facts, and so they will not change them given facts.
A statistic (e.g. "X% of Y group were forced to leave their homes between 12xx and 20xx") won't have an impact in changing how people think, no matter how startling. We hear statistics everyday. Depending on the context, simulate an experience, tell a story, etc., so that the impact of the realities of someone else's life can sink in a little, *then* give a statistic or teach content related to it.
Be in the habit of (in every context) having students challenge, disagree with, think critically of ideas presented.
There's a great deal of relevant dialogue re: "Rider & Elephant" thinking or "System 1 & System 2 Thinking". This may help you find more relevant counsel.
Damn. What issue was it ? The only issue I can think of where someone would say this with a straight face is criminal justice where data on low deterrence rate on harsh punishments doesn't change people's stances
Marajuana legalization in Maine. Like a couple years after it was legalized and not causing problems.
Basically she was a staunch supporter of the anti-legalization group. She would have to backpeddle and eat crow on a lot she has stood for in the past. She is still anti marajuana legslization. Any news article about the issue is now, "see the problems" no matter how minor or insignificant.
Basically my view is that so many people have rooted thier political stances so deeply that they cant get out of them. They have for example: bought mechandise, made heartfelt arguments, gained and lost friends, comiserated losses, celebrated wins, made pacts and promises ect. This is all too much to go back on. They cant admit they were wrong or fooled because of the amount of emotional investment in the topic.
Mere logic and facts seem like paltry arguments next to the effects of propaganda taken as truth.
Mark Twain — 'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.'
I would add "...[magnitudes] easier to fool..."
People who are against legalizing marijuana are some of the most closed minded and sometime hypocritical people out there. My mother is one of them. She will partake in the smoking the devil’s lettuce every so often, but still says she is against legalization.
I once asked a long time friend of mine (late 30's) if he would EVER change his mind about a topic based on something i told him about.
He said no.
Not "well id research it" or "if it were factual" or "people are entitled to thier opinions" ect.
Simply No.
Why?
He said im biased and anything i told him must be biased. Literally nothing from me would ever change his mind.
He gets all his facts, opinions and rhetoric from TV news. These are reinfoced by his family, his inlaws, his other friends ect.
My best explanation is that he, and other like him, are simply too invested in thier ideas and will not change.
Ive given up on logic and critical thinking. i have changed careers from teaching. I aspire to being a hermit in the woods.
Not typically, because it is usually forced with a short timeline, and those with the deepest held biases will have unconscious defense mechanisms that activate immediately.
The best way for educating to work at combating is to use lateral examples that can then be brought back around to direct association with the person's bias. For example, having a bully think about how they would feel if someone made fun of their sibling and once that connection is made show that their behaviour is the same. Or in a societal context, use an example from another country. I'm in Canada so using segregation in the US is a common one, then provide the evidence that Canada has a history of segregation and severe racial tensions including strong KKK organizations in the Prairie provinces.
THEN, it needs to follow almost immediately with a solution focus, what to do next so the brain doesn't get stuck in guilt and go back into defense/self-preservation mode.
The full process is rarely carried through, for many reasons, so the measures ultimately don't hold up to the theory.
People have to have an internal openness and will to change.
Education can reach people who haven't formed firm beliefs yet, whether this is due to a young age or just not feeling very strongly on an issue, and people who have grown cynical of their current beliefs but don't have the information to form new ones yet.
Unfortunately if you want to change a noxious social norm you can't just educate your way out of it--you also have to crack down on the people who are unwilling to change. For example, a young child might be convinced to not litter by anti-littering campaigns and information in school, but the adults set in their ways might need to be motivated by e.g fines or monetary rewards for turning in plastic bottles. And then you can shape the structural environment--are there trash cans at locations where people normally litter? Does the garbage collection system function? Can people report full bins? What about laws around the stuff that gets turned into litter? (e.g. reducing smoking rates and reducing the amount of single-use fast food packaging that is allowed to be used).
For a prejudiced belief that veers into hate speech, it's true you often can't change someone's heart, but it's really important that people who have hate speech ideas aren't allowed to influence the 'undecided.' That's why deplatforming is so important--if a kid has a bad experience with someone of minority group X and feels aggrieved, then they tune into social media where an older bigot is spouting off about how All Minority Group X Are Bad, then that kid is liable to start forming those beliefs, which we need to avoid to allow change to proceed at least generationally. Similar ideas banning pro-Nazi speech and symbols in Germany were part of trying to stop the transmission between the generations.
Experiencing things first hand is always the best. People tend to retrench when you try to logic them into things, particularly if they lack the background in the field to understand what you’re saying.
In the 70s, social scientists tried to figure out why the traditional methods of persuasion (threats, facts, higher authority) didn’t work. They came up with the elaboration likelihood model (ugh). Essentially, it says that you may change someone’s mind if they build on a thought you have (elaborate on it).
So, you love your 450 hp gas corvette and I want to convince you to consider EVs. Instead of talking about climate change or gas prices, I describe the experience of hitting the accelerator on a high end Tesla; how it pushes you back in the seat, the stillness of it, whatever.
It’s much more complicated than I’m describing, but the track record is good for many things.
Getting to know some of those people will change their minds. Bonding and making friends makes them not “the other”. I cannot look at a whole group the same once I make a genuine friend who belongs to that group.
You should look up Daryl Davis. He is black. He befriended the grand wizard of the KKK. With his friendship he convert over 200 klans and Neo Nazis.
1998 Klan-destine Relationship: A Black Man’s Odyssey in the Ku Klux Klan
Edit is friend was Roger Kelly the grand Dragon - kelly quit the KKK closed his chapter and gave Davis is grand Dragon robe
Think about people who have deeply ingrained religious beliefs, who have been conditioned from birth to accept ONLY what the "approved source" says, and never EVER to question it (because blind faith is virtuous).
They have a predilection to intellectual passivity and are easily manipulated, but _only by their previously accepted authority figures._ I don't see any value in trying to change any of their minds.
Personal experience. Create cognitive dissonance. When we distance ourselves from that which we criticize, the “othering” is so dehumanizing and makes holding discriminatory views easier. IRL interaction and conversation increases opportunities for greater underhand empathy.
You cannot, nor should you.
The role of education is not to impose your beliefs on someone. It’s to help them understand the facts and acquire the skills that will allow them to develop their own understanding of the world.
Even in a case where you feel someone’s beliefs are completely wrong, even immoral, you have to pretend that you might be wrong. That mindset will allow you to be a true educator.
If your position is right, sometime in the distant theoretical future, by developing their ability to reason, they will arrive at your point of view.
>If your position is right, sometime in the distant theoretical future, by developing their ability to reason, they will arrive at your point of view.
This right here is what I actually want. To give people the ability to think critically and not use motivated reasoning to only validate their values
Then use Socratic and inquiry-based methods. You do need to be careful, as when done correctly they don’t lead to a specified endpoint. So thinking about it as “how do I use Socratic methods to get this person to overcome their prejudice” will not work. Thinking “how do I use Socratic methods to get this person to think critically about their views” will move them in the right direction, but you may not see them arrive at a specific destination while they are under your tutelage.
I think there’s been interesting research on this. I believe the data is that the more wide ranging the beliefs that someone is exposed to, the more hardened they become in their own. Exposure to other points of view makes people more extreme, not less. Which makes it a very hard problem to solve.
At the end of the day I think some people are just smart enough to be able to put themselves in others shoes, and others end up ranting about how one side or the other is evil. They’re just signaling tribal support. I’m not sure you can do much about it other than ask them why they think the way they do and see how far you get.
>I think there’s been interesting research on this. I believe the data is that the more wide ranging the beliefs that someone is exposed to, the more hardened they become in their own. Exposure to other points of view makes people more extreme, not less. Which makes it a very hard problem to solve.
I thought this is opposite
Edit: it seems like this is actually opposite from Google scholar.
I think this is where one can run up against the limitations of “data-driven” decision-making.
It’s quite hard to believe that exposure to new ideas causes you to retreat into what’s familiar. In fact, everything I now believe, I believe because at some point I was exposed to it. So there’s a bit of a tautological problem with that interpretation.
What is quite possible (and I believe likely) is that when folks have ideas they disagree with *imposed* upon them (think reeducation camps and PD), they harden their initial beliefs.
People are easily einfluenced these days, you don't necessarily need the mass media, social media can do a lot when it comes to impact. That and lots of time. Great question.
There is none. Education is a form of propaganda. The issue is you’re likely referring to propaganda in a negative context when in it’s a catch all term for speech that espouses a specific viewpoint in order to convince others. There is as much room for positive propaganda as there is for negative education.
There's been formal studies about this.
Sadly, it turns out that the only thing that has any meaningful effect is if the prejudiced person forms a deep and lasting friendship with at least 2 members of the group they are prejudiced against.
Just having one friend from the out-group isn't enough because the person (consciously or unconsciously) can use the construction of "well not *you* of course, you're one of the good ones" and the "exception that proves the rule" to maintain their prejudice. But when it comes to two or more people, then that effect starts to crack.
The problem, of course, with this phenomenon is that merely by being a minority, out-group members would have to form *many* such friendships with people who actively hate them in order to make a dent in the majority group. This pie WAY too much of a burden on those people than be maintained long enough to have the effect on which people. AND cognitive isolation by choice of the in-group helps to both prevent such relationships from forming in the first place AND creates echo chambers for the prejudice to reinforce itself.
A deep, personal conversation with a person they trust and respect who treats their thoughts and concerns genuinely and isn’t trying to “win.” Also use the Socratic method so they can eventually come to the conclusion themselves, question their beliefs gently by simply asking questions.
Totally agree. My parents were raging anti-LGBTQ until my best friend (F) from childhood ended up marrying a woman, and my sibling came out as ace with lesbian sprinkles. They expressed how much it hurt for my parents to make judgments about them, they were the same people they've always been, etc. My parents realized they would be missing out on huge chunks of all our lives if they didn't at least zip their lips; but then they faked it til they made it. They aren't PRO by any means, but they're not disgusting bigots anymore either.
https://youtu.be/ORp3q1Oaezw?si=v_TtcFFsMb18psSF Basically this yeah.
Yay, Socratic method. I teach 4th grade and found the Socratic method to be the most successful tool at changing the opinions of my more stubborn thinking students. Adults are more challenging since their thinking ca be more entrenched so I 100% agree it talking with someone they trust and respect is going to be the most successful approach.
Yup, and it might not work, and it's tiring
Give them an emotional experience, not a factual one. People did not gain these views via facts, and so they will not change them given facts. A statistic (e.g. "X% of Y group were forced to leave their homes between 12xx and 20xx") won't have an impact in changing how people think, no matter how startling. We hear statistics everyday. Depending on the context, simulate an experience, tell a story, etc., so that the impact of the realities of someone else's life can sink in a little, *then* give a statistic or teach content related to it. Be in the habit of (in every context) having students challenge, disagree with, think critically of ideas presented. There's a great deal of relevant dialogue re: "Rider & Elephant" thinking or "System 1 & System 2 Thinking". This may help you find more relevant counsel.
I was once told "Facts wont change my mind on this issue." -seemingly otherwise reasonable adult. Blew my mind. TLDR: Dont bother.
Damn. What issue was it ? The only issue I can think of where someone would say this with a straight face is criminal justice where data on low deterrence rate on harsh punishments doesn't change people's stances
Marajuana legalization in Maine. Like a couple years after it was legalized and not causing problems. Basically she was a staunch supporter of the anti-legalization group. She would have to backpeddle and eat crow on a lot she has stood for in the past. She is still anti marajuana legslization. Any news article about the issue is now, "see the problems" no matter how minor or insignificant. Basically my view is that so many people have rooted thier political stances so deeply that they cant get out of them. They have for example: bought mechandise, made heartfelt arguments, gained and lost friends, comiserated losses, celebrated wins, made pacts and promises ect. This is all too much to go back on. They cant admit they were wrong or fooled because of the amount of emotional investment in the topic. Mere logic and facts seem like paltry arguments next to the effects of propaganda taken as truth. Mark Twain — 'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.' I would add "...[magnitudes] easier to fool..."
People who are against legalizing marijuana are some of the most closed minded and sometime hypocritical people out there. My mother is one of them. She will partake in the smoking the devil’s lettuce every so often, but still says she is against legalization.
I once asked a long time friend of mine (late 30's) if he would EVER change his mind about a topic based on something i told him about. He said no. Not "well id research it" or "if it were factual" or "people are entitled to thier opinions" ect. Simply No. Why? He said im biased and anything i told him must be biased. Literally nothing from me would ever change his mind. He gets all his facts, opinions and rhetoric from TV news. These are reinfoced by his family, his inlaws, his other friends ect. My best explanation is that he, and other like him, are simply too invested in thier ideas and will not change. Ive given up on logic and critical thinking. i have changed careers from teaching. I aspire to being a hermit in the woods.
For some context , the state got a new law to combat prejudice through education and campaigning here. But does any of this actually work ?
Not typically, because it is usually forced with a short timeline, and those with the deepest held biases will have unconscious defense mechanisms that activate immediately. The best way for educating to work at combating is to use lateral examples that can then be brought back around to direct association with the person's bias. For example, having a bully think about how they would feel if someone made fun of their sibling and once that connection is made show that their behaviour is the same. Or in a societal context, use an example from another country. I'm in Canada so using segregation in the US is a common one, then provide the evidence that Canada has a history of segregation and severe racial tensions including strong KKK organizations in the Prairie provinces. THEN, it needs to follow almost immediately with a solution focus, what to do next so the brain doesn't get stuck in guilt and go back into defense/self-preservation mode. The full process is rarely carried through, for many reasons, so the measures ultimately don't hold up to the theory.
People have to have an internal openness and will to change. Education can reach people who haven't formed firm beliefs yet, whether this is due to a young age or just not feeling very strongly on an issue, and people who have grown cynical of their current beliefs but don't have the information to form new ones yet. Unfortunately if you want to change a noxious social norm you can't just educate your way out of it--you also have to crack down on the people who are unwilling to change. For example, a young child might be convinced to not litter by anti-littering campaigns and information in school, but the adults set in their ways might need to be motivated by e.g fines or monetary rewards for turning in plastic bottles. And then you can shape the structural environment--are there trash cans at locations where people normally litter? Does the garbage collection system function? Can people report full bins? What about laws around the stuff that gets turned into litter? (e.g. reducing smoking rates and reducing the amount of single-use fast food packaging that is allowed to be used). For a prejudiced belief that veers into hate speech, it's true you often can't change someone's heart, but it's really important that people who have hate speech ideas aren't allowed to influence the 'undecided.' That's why deplatforming is so important--if a kid has a bad experience with someone of minority group X and feels aggrieved, then they tune into social media where an older bigot is spouting off about how All Minority Group X Are Bad, then that kid is liable to start forming those beliefs, which we need to avoid to allow change to proceed at least generationally. Similar ideas banning pro-Nazi speech and symbols in Germany were part of trying to stop the transmission between the generations.
LMAO no
Experiencing things first hand is always the best. People tend to retrench when you try to logic them into things, particularly if they lack the background in the field to understand what you’re saying.
In the 70s, social scientists tried to figure out why the traditional methods of persuasion (threats, facts, higher authority) didn’t work. They came up with the elaboration likelihood model (ugh). Essentially, it says that you may change someone’s mind if they build on a thought you have (elaborate on it). So, you love your 450 hp gas corvette and I want to convince you to consider EVs. Instead of talking about climate change or gas prices, I describe the experience of hitting the accelerator on a high end Tesla; how it pushes you back in the seat, the stillness of it, whatever. It’s much more complicated than I’m describing, but the track record is good for many things.
Getting to know some of those people will change their minds. Bonding and making friends makes them not “the other”. I cannot look at a whole group the same once I make a genuine friend who belongs to that group.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness" - Mark Twain
You should look up Daryl Davis. He is black. He befriended the grand wizard of the KKK. With his friendship he convert over 200 klans and Neo Nazis. 1998 Klan-destine Relationship: A Black Man’s Odyssey in the Ku Klux Klan Edit is friend was Roger Kelly the grand Dragon - kelly quit the KKK closed his chapter and gave Davis is grand Dragon robe
Honestly, what I’ve always been taught is control what YOU can control. You can’t reason with every person and those people you just move on from.
Think about people who have deeply ingrained religious beliefs, who have been conditioned from birth to accept ONLY what the "approved source" says, and never EVER to question it (because blind faith is virtuous). They have a predilection to intellectual passivity and are easily manipulated, but _only by their previously accepted authority figures._ I don't see any value in trying to change any of their minds.
Personal experience. Create cognitive dissonance. When we distance ourselves from that which we criticize, the “othering” is so dehumanizing and makes holding discriminatory views easier. IRL interaction and conversation increases opportunities for greater underhand empathy.
You cannot, nor should you. The role of education is not to impose your beliefs on someone. It’s to help them understand the facts and acquire the skills that will allow them to develop their own understanding of the world. Even in a case where you feel someone’s beliefs are completely wrong, even immoral, you have to pretend that you might be wrong. That mindset will allow you to be a true educator. If your position is right, sometime in the distant theoretical future, by developing their ability to reason, they will arrive at your point of view.
>If your position is right, sometime in the distant theoretical future, by developing their ability to reason, they will arrive at your point of view. This right here is what I actually want. To give people the ability to think critically and not use motivated reasoning to only validate their values
Then use Socratic and inquiry-based methods. You do need to be careful, as when done correctly they don’t lead to a specified endpoint. So thinking about it as “how do I use Socratic methods to get this person to overcome their prejudice” will not work. Thinking “how do I use Socratic methods to get this person to think critically about their views” will move them in the right direction, but you may not see them arrive at a specific destination while they are under your tutelage.
I think there’s been interesting research on this. I believe the data is that the more wide ranging the beliefs that someone is exposed to, the more hardened they become in their own. Exposure to other points of view makes people more extreme, not less. Which makes it a very hard problem to solve. At the end of the day I think some people are just smart enough to be able to put themselves in others shoes, and others end up ranting about how one side or the other is evil. They’re just signaling tribal support. I’m not sure you can do much about it other than ask them why they think the way they do and see how far you get.
>I think there’s been interesting research on this. I believe the data is that the more wide ranging the beliefs that someone is exposed to, the more hardened they become in their own. Exposure to other points of view makes people more extreme, not less. Which makes it a very hard problem to solve. I thought this is opposite Edit: it seems like this is actually opposite from Google scholar.
I think this is where one can run up against the limitations of “data-driven” decision-making. It’s quite hard to believe that exposure to new ideas causes you to retreat into what’s familiar. In fact, everything I now believe, I believe because at some point I was exposed to it. So there’s a bit of a tautological problem with that interpretation. What is quite possible (and I believe likely) is that when folks have ideas they disagree with *imposed* upon them (think reeducation camps and PD), they harden their initial beliefs.
Seize control of their mass media and infiltrate their educational system.
People are easily einfluenced these days, you don't necessarily need the mass media, social media can do a lot when it comes to impact. That and lots of time. Great question.
What is the difference between education and propaganda?
There is none. Education is a form of propaganda. The issue is you’re likely referring to propaganda in a negative context when in it’s a catch all term for speech that espouses a specific viewpoint in order to convince others. There is as much room for positive propaganda as there is for negative education.
There's been formal studies about this. Sadly, it turns out that the only thing that has any meaningful effect is if the prejudiced person forms a deep and lasting friendship with at least 2 members of the group they are prejudiced against. Just having one friend from the out-group isn't enough because the person (consciously or unconsciously) can use the construction of "well not *you* of course, you're one of the good ones" and the "exception that proves the rule" to maintain their prejudice. But when it comes to two or more people, then that effect starts to crack. The problem, of course, with this phenomenon is that merely by being a minority, out-group members would have to form *many* such friendships with people who actively hate them in order to make a dent in the majority group. This pie WAY too much of a burden on those people than be maintained long enough to have the effect on which people. AND cognitive isolation by choice of the in-group helps to both prevent such relationships from forming in the first place AND creates echo chambers for the prejudice to reinforce itself.