Why can't the evidence change what we think?

On many occasions we have found ourselves in situations in which someone refused to accept a clear evidence. Even ourselves, being honest, we have refused to change our minds about something even knowing that there are contrary evidence. In these situations we cannot avoid asking ourselves, Why can't the evidence change what we think? 

Content

• Everyday situations
• Why can't the evidence change what we think? What is behind all this?
• Social conformism
• Clinging to the self
• The "I" and the impermanence
• The self and expectations
• Leon Festinger and cognitive dissonance
• Albert Bandura and moral separation
  • Bibliography

Everyday situations

What better way to start the topic illustrating it with situations that we have all lived in our day to day. Recently I kept a small debate watching a football match. The team of which we are followers scored a goal, but was canceled by the referee because the ball left the field before the goal. My partner maintained that the ball had not come out, however, my position was that it had come out and therefore the goal was not valid.

When they showed the repetition it was clear that the ball had completely come out. Before my surprise, my partner defended that the ball had not come completely. Just then I thought, what can lead to a person to defend what evidence contradicts? Why, despite clearly seeing that the ball was out, he kept defending that?

This common case is frequently repeated in the world of football, in which some deny clear evidence. A foul can be more discussed, but there are clear aggressions that depending on the team are seen as obvious aggressions or as simple sets of the game.

Why can't the evidence change what we think? What is behind all this?

What indicates this clear example? That we observe reality through our filters. We do not observe what really happens out there. But we observe a stimulus, we process it, adapt it to our way of thinking and emit an answer. And not only that, but on many occasions we are not only conditioned by our experience, but We want to be right despite the opposite evidence.

But the answer to the question "Why can't the evidence change what we think?"It requires a much more thorough analysis. An analysis that escapes into the deepest of our being, in Our identity. On the one hand we will address the most social part with the Solomon Asch experiment and we will see how we can deny clear evidence for social pressure. However, it will be in the approach to the concept of "I" from the Buddhist psychology where we will deepen until the quid of the matter arrives.

Social conformism

In 1951 the psychologist Solomon Asch carried out a series of experiments that would not leave anyone indifferent. Let's put ourselves in a situation. A room. A group of people between 7 and 9 people sitting at a table. An experimenter. A screen with two slides. On the slide on the left you can see a vertical line of a specific length. On the slide on the right, three vertical lines (a, b, c) are seen with different lengths. Participants should say which of the three vertical lines measures the same as the sample line of the left slide.

The differences between lines were clear to not give any margin of error. However, everyone assured as correct a line that clearly not medium the same. How could this be? What was happening? It turns out that all those who were sitting, except one, were accomplices of the experimenter. They should say an erroneous response and observe what happened when the turn of the "victim" arrived. Would you say the same answer as most or say the correct answer?

"The tendency to compliance in our society is so strong that young people reasonably intelligent and well -intentioned are willing to call white black. This is a reason for concern. Ask questions about our forms of education and about the values ​​that guide our behavior ". -Asch-

36.8% of the "victims" subjects said that the correct answer was the incorrect. In normal conditions only 1% failed. This abysmal rise in errors shed light on the theory of social conformism in which, without a doubt, there is an underlying social pressure.

This experiment shows us how Despite having evidence in front, social pressure can modify our response. At this point we entered another important aspect since here the social pressure could be lived and therefore was erred in the response. But what happens if we transfer it to a day to day?

Clinging to the self

The Buddhist psychology It gives us a very deep and interesting vision about why evidence fails to change what we think. And the answer to this unknown would be the "clinging to the self".

Since we are born they baptize us with a name. Little by little we begin to form an identity. First our parents influence us, our family, the cultural environment in which we live. Subsequently the friends of the school, the teachers, the partners of the institute, etc.

We spend our lives surrounded by people and information that influence our way of thinking and acting. It is not the same to be born in the Spain of the 40s as to be born in the same country in 2000. The way of seeing the life of one person and the other will be very different. It will even be the same to be born in the same year but in different countries.

Each person, by their experience, for their culture, for their environment, for their concerns a way of being, that is, a "me" has been gradually form. But what happens? From Buddhist psychology, this "I" is nothing more than the sum of all those conditioning that we have been receiving since childhood. Therefore, it is nothing more than a construction and as such it is subject in return. The key aspect, according to Buddhism, is that we are not willing to give off the "I".

The "I" and the impermanence

This "I" gives us an alleged fixed and invariable identity that defines us as individuals, however, nothing is fixed or permanent so that the "I" would also be subject to changes. Here the Buddhist concept of "comes into playimpermanence", is that Nothing remains and everything changes. Everything is constantly changing even if we do not perceive it.

Some changes are more obvious, but others not so much. Because everything is in continuous change, the "I" too, but we cling to a static and immutable identity. Within this identity there are beliefs, thoughts, ideas, etc.

So that, The fact that something contradicts what we have been thinking about a lifetime endangers our "I", our identity, so we prefer to deny the evidence before "breaking" the concept (or a small part) that we have of ourselves.

Think that we can stop being many people are afraid. Consciously or unconsciously produces rejection since we can feel that our "I" is blurring and we are being another person. In this way, it is easy to answer why evidence fails to change what we think. How many times have we heard the famous phrase "I am like this"? It is nothing more than an affirmation about a way of being unique and immutable.

We have also heard many times phrases like "I don't care what science says, this is so and point". What hides behind this assertion is an affirmation in the ideas that form the "I". Because ... what would happen if what I have been thinking about my life is not as I thought? Many people would feel that something collapses inside. "I can't be my whole life ...".

The self and expectations

Lama Rinchen, a Buddhist teacher, says that those with a mind closed to change are more likely to suffer existential crises from time to time. These crises are the result of contrast so great that it has been created over the years between our idea of ​​"me" and the reality that surrounds us. Thus, there is a crisis that makes them change the "I".

Most students when the race end up imagine within about ten years exercising their profession. To this is usually added economic stability, a car, a house, even a family. Each projects their future as they would like.

However, in most cases, this is not fulfilled and we have to adapt to reality. It is here where many suffer their crises since there is an incoherence between expectations and what really happens. How much more we cling to our expectations, the greater the suffering.

On the other hand, he defends that those with a mind aware of continuous change, do not need so much time to modify their "I". But it occurs gradually while changing circumstances. In this way, when they observe evidence, instead of closing it, they observe it and integrate it into their "I". In this case it would be the student who gradually adapts to the circumstances of life and modifies its objectives as the years go by and more or less opportunities arise.

Leon Festinger and cognitive dissonance

In 1957 the psychologist Leon Festinger used the concept of cognitive dissonance to define the effort made by an individual to establish a state of coherence with himself.

"People tend to maintain coherence and consistency between actions and thoughts. When this is not the case, people experience a state of cognitive dissonance ". -Festinger-

The clearest example is those who even knowing that tobacco is detrimental continue to smoking. Nobody wants to endanger their health but are usually justified with phrases such as: "What to live if you can't enjoy life". Despite the evidence of the tobacco-chancer relationship, smokers They adapt their thoughts to a behavior in contrast to having good health.

Behind the adaptation to a behavior in dissonance with our thoughts hides the self -deception. Someone may be sure that he will never be unfaithful, however, if one day it will collide it against his deepest beliefs. What will happen? Possibly he begins to blame his partner: "It was no longer the same".

Albert Bandura and moral separation

Albert Bandura proposed in 2002 the theory of Moral separation To justify behaviors despite cognitive dissonance. This moral separation consists of disable feelings of guilt And it can be based on one or more of the following mechanisms:

1. Justification of the immoral act. It consists of the cognitive reconstruction of the immoral act so that the act justifies a greater achievement. An example could be torture an alleged terrorist. The immoral actor of torture could be justified to avoid future attacks. The comparison also comes into play. The smoker can compare his behavior with a worse: "I just smoke, others do worse things".
2. Denial and rejection of individual responsibility. The person who has committed the immoral act ensures that his intention was not damaged to anyone. They also tend to blame external conditions and ensure that they were "pushed" to act in the way they did. On the other hand, we also find those that are justified by saying that their action is unimportant within those who perform an immoral action. For example, a person can throw a can to the ground ensuring that "nothing happens through a can, there are people who contaminate much more".
3. Denial and rejection of negative consequences. The person assures that he has not directly harmed anyone. For example, if someone enters our house, the thief can justify himself thinking that the insurance will return the amount of the stolen.
4. Denial and rejection of the victim. It consists of blaming the victim: "He/she has caused me". Dehumanization also comes into play, in which the victim is degraded in such a way.

We have been able to verify that the question "why does the evidence not manage to change what we think?", has not gone unnoticed among scholars of human behavior. From Buddhist psychology to modern psychology they have established their theories to explain this phenomenon.

As we have been able to read, The theories of Festinger and Bandura in the background consist of not damaging the image we have of the "I". When we internalize that everything is constantly subject to change we can accept those evidence and make them our. And we will know that our identity does not run any risk, on the contrary, we will enriched ourselves more and more.

Bibliography

• Bandura, a. (2002). Selective moral disangegement in the exercise of moral agency.
• Festinger, l. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101-119.