“It’s different!”: why you shouldn’t convince your opponent in a dispute

Together with the expert, we “fry” the popular myth that you can win in any dispute with the help of iron arguments. We will find out what our beliefs are actually based on and why it is so difficult to convince someone

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Which egg tastes better: soft-boiled or hard-boiled? Who was right in the Civil War: Reds or Whites? Most likely, on each of these questions you have your own, somewhat reasoned opinion. Let’s imagine that you need to convince someone of this opinion. It seems to us that we just need to give some arguments and, if they are strong enough, a person will change his point of view. Actually, this is a delusion.

Components of a dispute

So. What are we dealing with? We have two opposing points of view, which, according to the laws of logic, in the presence of strong arguments, can be refuted. But I am a social psychologist, so I understand that in addition to opposing points of view and clear arguments, there are still quite a few components.

Let’s start with the fact that there are people themselves who embody these points of view. Why am I getting into an argument? Perhaps, in order, as the ancient philosophers taught us, to comprehend some truth in a dispute. But, perhaps, I simply proceed from some demonstrative needs, when I want to look good, prove my worth, be better and smarter than my interlocutor. Then I have no desire to come to the truth, I just proceed from the fact that I need to win.

Attitudes, attitudes and value orientations

There is some very important event for the group, and people have different points of view on it. It can be a rather ironic thing: to cook okroshka with kvass or kefir, or maybe, on the contrary, questions that touch on the theme of life and death. Logicians will tell us that in arguing you need to use bright arguments. Like, those people who perceive everything with feelings will understand much better the metaphor of bright green grass that will be under your feet than the theses that the environment outside the city is better by such and such a percentage. It is also important to arrange the arguments in a certain sequence – strong and weak.

Our beliefs are based on what social psychologists would call attitudes or attitudes. They have different depths and regulate different behavior. The deepest installations are connected with our values. Value orientations are a stable formation within a person. A dialogue between an atheist and a believer can hardly take place precisely because the beliefs of the participants in the dispute are based on immutable values. More precisely, they can and will succeed in talking, but they will not be able to convince each other of something.

Polarization of points of view

As a social psychologist, of course, I am interested in what happens in a situation where a dialogue develops in a group. Back in the second half of the XNUMXth century, thanks to the efforts of the French social psychologist Serge Moscovici, a phenomenon called “polarization of points of view” became known. What is polarization? Aspiration to the poles of those points of view that are in opposition to each other. The point of view can be strengthened by the influence of the group. Society can contribute to the radicalization of opinion.

To make this clearer, let’s take an example – vaccination. Think of your acquaintances, friends or relatives. Most likely, among them you will find a sufficient number of both opponents and supporters of vaccination. Whom you are unlikely to find among them are people who would occupy an intermediate position.

This is how polarization works. The simplest level of explanation of this phenomenon lies in the fact that after some kind of bright information impact, it is comfortable for a person to take a certain position. Note that the less interesting a topic is for you, the more vague your opinion on it. The absence of a bright position is explained not only by the fact that you care little about the problem. It means that it has little to do with the values ​​​​of the life of your group. The second reason why polarization can happen is that a person, as Aristotle defined, is a social animal, it is important for us to feel like a part of a group. In this sense, being one of the groups is either “for” or “against”, cozy, warm and reliable. The third reason is related to the psychological structure of the group – as a rule, leaders are the first to voice a bright point of view, and then associates adjoin them. Being close to the leader is an advantageous position. Therefore, the presence of one pole automatically provides for the second. And so we can talk about gradual radicalization within the group.

Social networks – the space of echo chambers

Now we can mainly observe the wealth of discussions of varying degrees of censorship on social networks, where a whole thread of comments grows under the current post. As a rule, people at best respond to the comment above, and sometimes they simply argue with themselves, with an imaginary opponent, and then track how many likes the comment got. Do they have the task of convincing the opponent? Most likely, they understand that they are unlikely to succeed. Maybe they came there with a desire to listen to different points of view? Also no. One way or another, the space of social networks is the so-called “space of echo chambers”.

Polarization flourishes there. You think that in order to weaken it, it is necessary to convey your point of view honestly, with an open visor and bright arguments, and the opponent will change his point of view. This is an absolute myth. In fact, another American study from the early 2000s proved that discussing a problem in a group tripled the degree of polarization. Instead of changing their point of view, people, on the contrary, radicalized their own. This may have different reasons. First, these are defense mechanisms: “If I give up my point of view, then I’m wrong.” Secondly, you need to take into account situations when an opinion is expressed in the presence of those for whom you are an authority, or those in front of whom you want to show off.

Why does social media only exacerbate the polarization effect? Seeming anonymity creates the illusion of irresponsibility, radicalism. A person is ready, sitting in front of a cozy screen of a smartphone or computer, to write any nasty and cruelty.

Availability heuristic

In addition, there is also the classic social media algorithm, which also helps us to polarize our own point of view. The news feed is self-adjusting, and we see the content that, according to the algorithm, is closer to us. In classical social psychology of the XNUMXth century, this was called the “availability heuristic.” Simply put, there are points of view around me that are accessible to me, and I proceed from the fact that these are the majority, because my friends, relatives and neighbors think so. And the fact that I belong only to a certain stratum of society is not taken into account, and what surrounds me is easily transferred to the entire sample. Therefore, when we scroll through the feed, it begins to seem that the whole world thinks the same way as we do. This further enhances the polarization.

Reverse Method

Maybe if you constantly demonstrate opposing beliefs to a person, talk about it with arguments, he will be able to overcome polarization and give up his point of view? In 2018 in the United States, prominent supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties, following certain accounts in certain media, were invited to participate in the following experiment. For a designated period of time, they had to unsubscribe from all their favorite politicians and subscribe to representatives with the opposite point of view. They even got paid for it. The task of the researchers was to see how the point of view of the subjects would become less radical and move towards a more compromise position. But, as you can already guess, the attitudes have not only not changed, but have become even more radicalized. So the next time you write a comment and think that the person taking the opposite position will be convinced, keep in mind – he will take an even stronger position. And thereby strengthen your point of view.

“Devil’s Advocate”

It turns out that no one can be convinced of anything? And if there is a group around – is it generally a disastrous thing? Of course, if a person is ready to listen and hear, then he can and should be persuaded. In the end, truth is really born in a dispute. But if we are dealing with a situation where opinions in a society, in a group, in a family are extremely polarized, there has been some kind of information impact that has divided everyone into friends and foes, what should we do? How to maintain a competent socio-psychological climate?

This problem has three levels of solution. The most wrong thing is to try to convey your thoughts and hope to convince your opponent by this. This is something you shouldn’t do. Not the most productive, but at the same time quite effective from the point of view of science, is ignoring the topic on which there is polarization. This does not allow us to move forward in the conflict of points of view, but it makes it possible to maintain a psychologically respectful climate.

But if I want to hear and understand the opposite point of view, how can I let it in, because it is so wrong? Social psychologists, logicians, trainers who teach public speaking have an exercise called the “devil’s advocate”. Try to imagine yourself taking the opposite view. This is not very easy to do. Especially if your point of view is polarized. Imagine that you are thinking in exactly the opposite way. What arguments would you use to defend your position? What theses would you put forward? This is a great way to try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes. And then there is a chance that in conditions of extreme polarization, you will become a little more open to the opposite point of view. And maybe hear your counterpart.

In January 2021, a high-profile law banning abortions was passed in Poland. People took to the demonstrations. Society was sharply polarized. And then Polish social psychologists conducted a curious study. They tried to get to the bottom of the value bases that underlie both movements. The beautiful fact they discovered was that at the heart of both opponents and supporters of abortion, there was one common value – human life. Only some of this value logically reached the point that abortion should be banned, and others to allow them. In an ideal situation, the opponents could come to some third solution. This is the most difficult, but at the same time the most effective way to eliminate polarization.