psychological study - "To change attitudes, don't argue — agree, extremely"

[Mal7]

This from the Los Angeles Times.

"To change attitudes, don't argue — agree, extremely" by Julia Rosen.

_http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-paradoxical-thinking-20140715-story.html

This seems related to the idea that being presented with information that conflicts with what we already believe is actually painful (or something similar), and can just lead to the shutting-down of our more rational thinking processes.

“We truly believe that in most intractable conflicts, the real problems are not the real issues,” said Eran Halperin, a psychologist at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in Israel and an author of the study. In reality, he said, both sides know what needs to be done; however, there are many “psychological barriers that prevent societies from identifying opportunities for peace.”

To see if tightly held attitudes could be pried loose, the scientists looked to one of the most polarizing issues on the planet, the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that flared again violently last week. People on both sides hold strong beliefs that make compromise difficult, as years of failed negotiations have proved.

The scientists, led by Halperin’s graduate students Boaz Hameiri and Roni Porat, recruited over 150 Israelis and exposed half of them to video clips that related the conflict with Palestinians back to values that many Israelis hold dear. The other half watched neutral TV commercials and served as a control.

But instead of pointing out how the conflict stood at odds with Israeli values — a common approach in persuasion — the experimental videos illustrated how the conflict was consistent with many participants’ beliefs, taken to their extreme limit.

“For example, the fact that they are the most moral society in the world is one of the most basic beliefs of Israeli society,” Halperin said. So when the researchers showed participants a video that claimed Israel should continue the conflict so that its citizens could continue to feel moral, people reacted angrily.

“You take people’s most basic beliefs and turn them into something that is absurd,” Halperin said. “For an outsider, it can sound like a joke, but for them, you are playing with their most fundamental belief.”

Although participants did not enjoy watching the clips, after numerous rounds of exposure over a period of months leading up to the 2013 Israeli elections, participants’ attitudes softened considerably; they reported almost a 30% increase in their willingness to reevaluate their position compared with participants in the control group and took a more neutral stance on common political narratives like the idea that Palestinians bear responsibility for continuing the conflict. This shift persisted even a year after the study concluded.

In addition, when the election rolled around, more people exposed to the so-called paradoxical thinking experiment reported voting for moderate parties — those that favor conciliatory measures like evacuating some Israeli settlements in the West Bank — suggesting the intervention led not just to changed attitudes, but also to changed behavior.

Traditional approaches for dislodging strongly held attitudes have proved stubbornly ineffective; numerous studies have shown that confronting people with information that challenges their beliefs often has no effect at all, or even strengthens their initial position.

But in this study paradoxical thinking seemed to encourage some people to privately reevaluate their strongly held beliefs or political narratives, authors said. It may succeed precisely because it sneaks though the psychological security system that protects our deepest beliefs from inconsistent information without tripping the alarm.

 

[Laura]

I'm glad you found this study; this is an approach I have advocated for years in certain interactions. It's like dealing with children; if you don't go head to head with them, they learn faster.

 

[whitecoast]

Interesting study! It sort of seems to suggest the mechanism for a reverse reverse blockade: instead of adopting the extreme opposite position, you just extremify their own position to bypass amygdaloid security while still introducing the contradictory absurdity to the neocortical regions. I wonder if the reverse blockade is designed to neutralize the truth-is-somewhere-in-the-middle moderates while the paradoxical blockade is better suited for the True Believers.

Just more evidence for how naive the natural psychological worldview is.

 

[MichaelM]

Colbert Report anyone?
Though maybe the satirical nature of Colbert's character is still not taken enough to the extreme since some people he supposedly represents do agree with him on the point he makes on the show and the absurdity of it just flies over their head.

http://www.sott.net/article/182693-Confirmation-Bias-Steven-Colbert-is-whoever-you-want-him-to-be

Or maybe because Colbert appears to be so agreeable whichever camp you're on, the absurdity in the message gets through?

 

[Windmill knight]

Very interesting Mal7, thanks for sharing!

 

[obyvatel]

Interesting study. Here is the rest of the article.

The scientists say the method needs further validation in the lab, and they noted several glaring issues that made applying it to real-world situations difficult.

For one, there was the “motivation problem”: How do you get people to watch videos they find disturbing? Outside of a lab setting, nothing would force people to sit through more than one or two clips, which probably wouldn’t produce the same effects found in the study, Halperin said.


There is also a risk of backfire — some people in the study took the videos at face value, assimilating the extreme messages into their personal beliefs. And, of course, nothing would stop governments or organizations from employing the same technique to promote their own agendas.

In fact, because the people who receive the paradoxical information know nothing about its intended purpose — an integral component to the method’s very success — the approach treads into ethically questionable territory.

“We are not supposed to fool participants,” said Gavriel Salomon, a psychologist at the University of Haifa who was not involved in the study. “But the paradoxical approach is still open to ethical debate.”

Halperin, however, sees paradoxical thinking as a potentially valuable tool for promoting peace.

“You can say it’s a kind of propaganda,” Halperin said, “I just see it differently. We all agree that reducing violence and promoting peace is a good cause.”

Looks good in the lab setting for serious conflicts - but as stated above, people are not motivated to see/hear things that they do not like especially over a sustained time which is what was required to effect the changes.

It's like dealing with children; if you don't go head to head with them, they learn faster.

Indeed this works well for children. This thread discusses a way of achieving this.

 

[Mikey]

Thanks for sharing, Mal7, it is a very interesting study. Especially this part:

But instead of pointing out how the conflict stood at odds with Israeli values — a common approach in persuasion — the experimental videos illustrated how the conflict was consistent with many participants’ beliefs, taken to their extreme limit.

“For example, the fact that they are the most moral society in the world is one of the most basic beliefs of Israeli society,” Halperin said. So when the researchers showed participants a video that claimed Israel should continue the conflict so that its citizens could continue to feel moral, people reacted angrily.

 

[Mal7]

The LA Times article also links to the original article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 111, No. 30 (July 29 1014), although this is behind a paywall except for the abstract.

_http://www.pnas.org/content/111/30/10996

"Paradoxical thinking as a new avenue of intervention to promote peace"

by Boaz Hameiria, Roni Poratc, Daniel Bar-Tald, Atara Bielerb, and Eran Halperinb.

Significance

The premise of most interventions that aim to promote peacemaking is that information that is inconsistent with held beliefs causes tension, which may motivate alternative information seeking. However, individuals—especially during conflict—use different defenses to preserve their societal beliefs. Therefore, we developed a new paradoxical thinking intervention that provides consistent—though extreme—information, with the intention of raising a sense of absurdity but not defenses. We examined our hypotheses in a longitudinal field experiment and found that participants who were exposed to the intervention expressed more conciliatory attitudes regarding the conflict, even 1 y after the intervention, which also manifested in their voting (self-report measure) to more dovish parties in the Israeli 2013 elections.


Abstract

In societies involved in an intractable conflict, there are strong socio-psychological barriers that contribute to the continuation and intractability of the conflict. Based on a unique field study conducted in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, we offer a new avenue to overcome these barriers by exposing participants to a long-term paradoxical intervention campaign expressing extreme ideas that are congruent with the shared ethos of conflict. Results show that the intervention, although counterintuitive, led participants to express more conciliatory attitudes regarding the conflict, particularly among participants with center and right political orientation. Most importantly, the intervention even influenced participants' actual voting patterns in the 2013 Israeli general elections: Participants who were exposed to the paradoxical intervention, which took place in proximity to the general elections, reported that they tended to vote more for dovish parties, which advocate a peaceful resolution to the conflict. These effects were long lasting, as the participants in the intervention condition expressed more conciliatory attitudes when they were reassessed 1 y after the intervention. Based on these results, we propose a new layer to the general theory of persuasion based on the concept of paradoxical thinking.

 

[Minas Tirith]

Over a decade ago, living in a shared apartment, one of my flatmates did a similar thing to me, I think. He had always given me a hard time about my crappy diet (and from my own today's perspective he was completely right). It's so long ago that I don't really remember what he exactly said, but the way he did it was very similar to what is described above.

I do remember how I felt, though, and conjuring it up now, there was definitely something like "conscience" involved (interesting since the C's mention "awakened conscience" in their last session). Here is what Ouspensky says about "conscience":

Conscience helps a man to realize what is good and what is bad in his own conduct. Conscience
unites the emotions. We can experience on the same day a great many contradictory emotions, both pleasant and unpleasant, on the same subject, either one after another or even simultaneously, and we do not notice the contradictions because of the absence of conscience.
Buffers are what prevent one 'I' or one personality from seeing another, but in a state of conscience a man cannot help seeing all these contradictions. He will remember that he said one thing in the morning, another thing in the afternoon and yet another in the evening, but in ordinary life he will not remember, or — if he does — he will insist that he does not know what is good and what is bad. The way to conscience is
through destroying buffers, and buffers can be destroyed through self-remembering and through not identifying.

From "Conscience"

Maybe through absurdly confirming and agreeing to one position a kind of imbalance is created, which leads to a kind of mechanism that makes sure that all other possible positions are brought into the equation, too. If only for a short moment one realizes all "the emotions united". And if one is exposed to this on a constant basis, equilibrium is re-instated.

Looks good in the lab setting for serious conflicts - but as stated above, people are not motivated to see/hear things that they do not like especially over a sustained time which is what was required to effect the changes.

At that time I didn't change my diet, though I have to admit that this time marked the point when I started to think about it.

On another note, in the wrong hands, this technique can be used as manipulation. My flatmate studied NLP at that time, so I wonder if it might be a technique from their toolbox?

Fwiw, M.T.

 

[byronagetz]

It's a good study. Argue, either its for the betterment of the second person create a negative impact. While acceptance of someone's points for a small junk of time is the good policy to bring it on board.

 

[Meg]

Hi byronagetz,

Seeing as this is your first post on the forum, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief intro about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc. There are some introductions there you can read to get an idea.

Welcome to the Forum! :)

 

[Inquorate]

Finally, is this something one can use to battle belief also?


-------------------------------------
Belief Systems and the Power Of Authority

By Julian Wash

Rattleberry Pie

"Today I would like to return to your awareness an aspect of the Human condition that adheres to the abstract nature of belief. Beliefs come in many shapes and sizes and yet all share something in common— they’re elusive and intangible.

Although we cannot “touch” a belief, it certainly has a way of touching us. Our belief modifies the way we think, how we act and feel. I take my tinfoil hat off to those who invented this system of social order so many moons ago. What a concept indeed. Imagine sitting around a stone-age conference table discussing this idea. I surely would have laughed it off. “You mean you can get people to accept something as truth even if it’s not real? C’mon man. I tell you what’s real— something called fire! Now that’s something you can believe in!”

Oh my, how I would have missed the boat. Not only did the concept grow legs, it sprouted wings. Turns out everyone wants to believe in something. For one thing it’s kind of fun. What would Christmas be like without Santa Clause? For another it makes us feel special somehow. But how does one find truth in a belief? The answer is really quite simple. We pretend.

In the following paragraphs I’ll take a somewhat playful (if not cynical) look at some of the hermetically-sealed belief systems that dominate in our lives. There’s a circuitous path one must navigate that divides our place of knowing from a world of make-believe. This trail can get a little precarious and downright slippery at times. So let’s saddle up our loyal mustangs and see where they take us. These majestic creatures are sure-footed, certain and most graceful in their stride. More than that, I sense they may know something we have forgotten.

Born to Run

This I can tell you about the mustang— they were born to run and we were born to ride. Where the trail ends, a new one begins and the sights and sounds are something to behold. The rider learns the way of the horse and the horse the way of the rider. It’s a relationship of balance and harmony. There’s a transfer of energy from one entity to another as our thoughts begin to roam free with wild abandon and the mustang gently restrains in courtesy of the saddle. On this journey, it’s not where you go— but where it takes you.

We are freedom-loving beings. You, me and the people we never meet or see because they live an ocean away. At the deepest level we are all free spirits. To this end we are not unlike the mustang. But I sense there’s a trifle few who would suggest we’re not deserving of this freedom. I believe they gain very much from the belief structures we submit to. And so we are encouraged to believe in those ideas and concepts that place cuffs on our hands and feet. We unlock our mind and hand another the key. Not because we’re foolish, but because we are trusting.

One may believe it is warm outside or that the words of another are true. But belief takes a giant leap forward when invested in an outside ideology or institution. These beliefs must be taught and learned. Can you see how someone might be stirred remotely by the belief system they follow? It’s here where we find the chasm between the spiritual and the believers. The spiritual mind seeks truth and spends many, many lonely nights pondering and wondering. It’s not enough for a lesson to be taught and handed to them— it must be felt at the very core of their being.

External influences are everywhere. We’ve all been conditioned into “believing” that we’re just a tiny speck in the macrocosm. Okay, to them I say— try removing that “speck” and see what happens. You’ll find it leaves a hole in this macrocosm, a tear in the ethereal fabric of all that is and will ever be. The tear would surely be the center of attention for all to notice. There is nothing insignificant about that.

And we must “believe” freedom is not free, they say. That’s not what the mustang tells me. And we must “believe” in a fabricated religion or face consternation or eternal damnation. We must “believe” in our teachers and the concepts of higher education. Most of all, the belief-makers want us to believe in all things outside ourselves. That’s the true societal doctrine. We must believe that without our loyal adherence to those synthetic constructs that mold us, we are very small and insignificant. Indeed, join the Army and be part of something bigger than yourself— or so they will tell you. But I will tell you again and again— there is nothing “bigger” than the beautiful, singular you.

The Concept of Religion

The late rock legend John Lennon perhaps said it best. In his song aptly titled, “God” he states “God is a concept by which we measure our pain.” Exactly what was meant by this verse is of course a matter of interpretation. But referring to God as a “concept” is what I find particularly intriguing. Lennon goes on to mention many ideologies and icons he doesn’t “believe” in. Even The Beatles made the list. Near the end of the track he writes, “I just believe in me… and that reality.” These are profoundly insightful words from someone who clearly understood the illusions that blind and bind us. When we believe in something outside ourselves we subordinate to the authority of that belief. Somebody is in control of that belief system and it’s not you.

“So you see I have come to doubt all that I once held as true.” These are the powerful words of Paul Simon from “Kathy’s Song.” Simon goes on to say “I stand alone without beliefs— the only truth I know is you.” The songwriters of yesterday came to our poetic and philosophical rescue. Music was perhaps the last conduit for elevating the masses into a higher consciousness. We’ve since moved on to a different sound and a different message. It would seem the philosophy belongs to a bygone era of the children of World War II and the veterans of Vietnam. The music I hear today is often brooding and complex or unmercifully adolescent. It too provides a snapshot of where we are today, but offers little antidote or resolution. The new sound seems to concede to the idea that we’re already screwed. They might be right.

In the most fundamental sense, as long as we believe in an external authority then we knowingly or unknowingly yield to those who govern it. This gives power to an entity outside of you. As in the case of a religious structure, we find not only individual power but the collective power of millions. Why does this concern me? Do we trust the wisdom of those who command this power and influence? We know there is an ongoing concern about religious improprieties. Collusion with nefarious governments, horrendous inquisitions, child rape and murder and a whole host of other unspeakable atrocities should offer one some pause and reservation. Personally, I will have nothing to do with institutions that serve as agents for Divine intervention. If there is a devil— in such a house you would find him. My thoughts belong to me. I’ve not been assigned my way of thinking.

Education and Government

Institutionalized education teaches us how to be compliant. Do not think for a moment that there is any real purpose beyond this. I once had a grade school teacher candidly admit, “You’re all empty minds needing to be filled.” Yes there is rudimentary instruction that loosely qualifies as teaching. But the real goal is to indoctrinate and enforce submission and turn the populace into working bees. There are many gifted children who ultimately fall out of this system because they have issues with compliance. I have nothing but disdain for modern education. Those who ultimately earn an advanced degree will be well-seasoned and attuned to the conformity and compliance of this institution. These are the same people who are ultimately chosen to effect major policy changes in society.

To what extent should we believe? Devices such as propaganda have long been used by government to influence the masses. People “believe” in what they’re told because they have submitted to this external authority. This power is so persuasive it can encourage people to enlist in the armed services. They are told they’re the defenders of “freedom” and yet they must give up much of their own freedom in order to serve in this capacity.

Dynamics of Belief

What I believe may not be what you believe and I am okay with that. In fact, I’m grateful for it. We are entitled to believe in what we want, but we should understand that beliefs are not the same as truth. Beliefs are malleable and can change over time. Truth is universal and will withstand the ages. The problem seems to be that many hold belief in the same light as truth. How did this happen?

Once surrendered to an external belief system, we’re honor-bound to serve it. In the simplest sense, that means if you call yourself a Mormon, then you must also say goodbye to coffee. That would surely spell my demise as I drink the stuff as if my life depended on it. So be it. My belief permits it. I abstain from meat— the Mormon does not. I would advise this ideology to not lecture me on matters of morality. If perhaps they are open to true enlightenment, I would suggest they close their book and open their mind. If they do, they will see how their structure is not unlike the others. Like all faiths, they preach peace and love as they march their children to war. There is such hypocrisy and deceit behind the velvet pulpits of shame.

Spirituality is also a belief system albeit a personal one. This means you’re the authority of it. You are not relinquishing your power to another. It does not suggest your belief is the right one or the only one. It does however suggest that you have found a belief that serves your needs—and that’s powerful indeed. You live with an inner-knowing and an inner-peace. You can separate yourself from the spectacle that surrounds you. From this vantage, all the rumblings of the world play out on stage. You may feel like one of the actors at times, but the spiritually aware are more attuned as observers. They may feel captivated and moved by the story, but they know it’s just a show.

Final Thought

My reality did not come pre-wrapped in a package with a pretty bow on it. I was not captured by a flowering sermon or summoned by a Bible-pumping preacher pimping fear. I fought long and hard for the truth and the philosophy I live by. I had to first unlearn what had been sewn into my young psyche at such an impressionable age. Not an easy task by any measure. I had to forgive and forget the Catholic teachings and extricate myself from the labyrinth that held me. I had feelings of guilt which were not unlike the pain of divorce. I learned to let go.

I believe in you and I believe in me. Much beyond that is a real reach in my world. What we call belief is merely a presumption, opinion or an understanding. On the other hand, the word “truth” suggests a state of knowing, a resonance in harmony at the very core of who and what we are. And yet we use these words freely and interchangeably.

Ah, alas, I see we’re back. There were a couple of slippery parts there— but your mustang held on and stayed true to course. When the rider bonds with their horse, there’s a synergy that benefits both. You really had nothing to fear as the path withered and narrowed into a new trail of your own making.

The moon is high now, the sage silvery and sweet, but the shadow from a Saguaro conjures the image of a wounded man. And I think to myself, if only he could see the light on the other side. If only.

-Until next time"

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

Thanks for sharing, Mal7, it is a very interesting study. Especially this part:

But instead of pointing out how the conflict stood at odds with Israeli values — a common approach in persuasion — the experimental videos illustrated how the conflict was consistent with many participants’ beliefs, taken to their extreme limit.

“For example, the fact that they are the most moral society in the world is one of the most basic beliefs of Israeli society,” Halperin said. So when the researchers showed participants a video that claimed Israel should continue the conflict so that its citizens could continue to feel moral, people reacted angrily.

Yes, very interesting. Thank you, Mal7.

Once surrendered to an external belief system, we’re honor-bound to serve it. In the simplest sense, that means if you call yourself a Mormon, then you must also say goodbye to coffee. That would surely spell my demise as I drink the stuff as if my life depended on it. So be it. My belief permits it. I abstain from meat— the Mormon does not. I would advise this ideology to not lecture me on matters of morality. If perhaps they are open to true enlightenment, I would suggest they close their book and open their mind. If they do, they will see how their structure is not unlike the others. Like all faiths, they preach peace and love as they march their children to war. There is such hypocrisy and deceit behind the velvet pulpits of shame.

Yes, and perhaps the author could do the same experiment to realize that the meat can be beneficial for him and coffee, harmful. Paradoxically that might have an impact on the possibility for "true enlightenment". It is there where his defense of the individual may stumble. Although he writes of objective truth vs. belief, a network is needed because our ignorance is enormous, and true individuality can grow much more by working with people related for something larger than the ego.
Anyway, he says some interesting things. Thank you, Inquorate.