As an academic, I deal in facts. Facts are the basis of our democracy and its processes. People who refuse to believe facts are not just annoying to me - they're an existential threat.
I just can’t deal with people who reject facts. It’s always been one of the ways to guarantee I’ll see red and blow my top. It’s like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
But this morning, I read an article in Slate that offended me to my very bones. Why? Because despite the fact that I hated what it was saying, I was also able to recognize that it was the truth and that I’d better shift my thinking. Its basic thesis: Facts don’t work to convince scared people to change their minds. And they never, ever will.
In this article, Jess Zimmerman lays it out for us in a one-two punch:
1. Facts that contradict a person’s beliefs often serve as a way to reinforce those beliefs, not change them. Fact-checking often makes this worse — people don’t read the fact-checker’s rebuttal of their incorrect idea; they only read the statement of the incorrect idea and cling to it.
2. Trying to counter “alternative facts” with real ones is the same thing as bringing a book to a gunfight. It doesn’t work.
Zimmerman then explains the distasteful method we must use to actually get people to change their minds: stop using facts. Stop bringing up facts. Don’t talk about facts. Treat the lie like the source of the symptoms and find out what’s powering it. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
Here’s an example scenario:
John, who supports the current liar-in-chief, says “The Muslim ban is good, because all Muslims are terrorists!”
Jane, who does not support the current LIC, says “Are you crazy? There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and only a tiny fraction are doing anything like terrorism! And none of the seven countries he’s banning have ever attacked us!”
STOP. This does not work. All John hears is “1.6 billion Muslims,” and his mind already has the deeply held assumption “Muslim = terrorist.” The rest of it is just so much white noise that doesn’t penetrate beyond the assumption.
Let’s try this the way Zimmerman suggests.
John, who supports the current liar-in-chief, says “The Muslim ban is good, because all Muslims are terrorists!”
Jane, who does not support the current LIC, says, “I can understand why you’re afraid of terrorism. I am too. What does terrorism mean to you?”
Through discussion it comes out that John’s definition of “terrorism” is people destroying property and/or randomly killing other people because of their beliefs (although he sticks to his story that it’s always Islamic beliefs).
Jane says, “Hmm, yeah. I get it. The thought of someone randomly setting fire to my house of worship, or worse yet, killing people at random, is really scary. We should do something about terrorism.”
John says, “Yeah, so Muslims shouldn’t be allowed in the United States!”
Jane says, “Well, I was thinking of the guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, Colorado a few years ago. Or the ones who burned down the mosque in Texas last week. That’s destruction of property and randomly killing other people — and that’s terrorism, for sure. I get why you’re afraid of terrorism, but this ban wouldn’t have stopped either one of those from happening.”
Note that Jane isn’t arguing with John about terrorism being something Muslims do. That will not work. That will just get the assumption singing in his head and blocking out anything else she says. Instead, she acknowledges what he’s afraid of and moves forward with examples of that which fit his definitions, but which aren’t Muslim. Instead of addressing the facts, she’s addressing the fears.
There’s no guarantee this will work, but finding something that can occupy the same space in John’s mind as “all Muslims are terrorists” may work. Now, he’s got “terrorism is scary for everyone” competing for that space. At minimum, it avoids setting up the singing assumption in his head.
Like all activism, this is a marathon, not a sprint. Jane won’t convince John in one conversation. But it’s necessary.
I won't pretend that the writer's conclusions don't piss me off. They do, because her suggested methods aren't ones I'm personally able to put into practice. I can't stand it when people spout off falsehoods and then refuse to hear the facts that debunk them. It makes me want to scream at them, not listen quietly and politely while they insist that my marriage will kill the United States, or that Muslims are all terrorists, or that single-payer medical care will somehow lead to the Apocalypse.
It's just like phone banking. I can't do that either. I tried once, during the Prop H8 campaign in 2008. I lasted exactly three calls before I had to stop, because by that point I was enraged at the stupid people I had to try to reach on the other end of the line. I couldn't do it.
But maybe you can. And if you can, we need you on the front lines. This is a special talent and not all of us have it. I don’t. But maybe you do.
Now, I’m still of the opinion that we need to reach those who didn’t vote, first, before trying to convert those who voted for the LIC. But this is at least a viable way of finding a way into their heads, once we start devoting resources to that issue.
