We like to think that we are reasonable and base our beliefs on the evidence. When we come across information which demonstrates that we should change our minds, we are open to doing so. Or are we? Matthew Syed gives us some food for thought on this in his highly acclaimed book, Black Box Thinking.
He directs us to consider an experiment conducted at Stanford University by Charles Lord. Two groups of volunteers were recruited with differing views on capital punishment. One group was adamantlyin favour, seeing it as a genuine deterrent to crime. They felt strongly on the issue and were public supporters of the policy. The second group was firmly against it, horrified by the brutality of what they saw as “state-sanctioned murder”.
These groups were then shown two dossiers. Each was highly impressive and included well-researched evidence. The first dossier contained a collation of evidence which made the case in favour of capital punishment. The second collated only evidence against it. You could be forgiven for thinking that this contradictory evidence might lead the two groups to conclude that capital punishment was a complex subject with strong arguments on both sides. You might have expected them, while not changing their mind on the issue, to have a little more sympathy with the views of those on the other side of the argument. In fact, the opposite happened: they became more polarised.
When later asked about their attitudes, those in favour of capital punishment said they were impressed with the dossier citing evidence in line with their views. The opposite conclusions were drawn by those against capital punishment. Ironically, from reading precisely the same material, they became even more entrenched in their positions.
What this (and many other similar experiments) demonstrate is the way we filter information when it challenges our strongly held views or convictions. We use a series of manoeuvres to reframe what is inconvenient to our original position. We question the truth of the evidence, or the credentials of the people who discovered it, or their motives, or find some other reason to discredit them. As more information emerges to challenge our standpoint, we search for new justifications in ever more creative ways so as to become more entrenched in our prior view. This is a tendency called “cognitive dissonance”.
Syed cites a famous and worrying example of cognitive dissonance that took place in the lead-up to the Iraq War. On September 24, 2002, before the conflict, Tony Blair made a speech in which he emphatically stated: “Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction [WMD] programme is active, detailed and growing … he has existing plans for the use of weapons, which could be activated in 45 minutes.”
Over the subsequent 12 months the evidence, or lack of it, cast increasing doubt on this claim, but rather than halting the voices in favour of going to war, it strengthened the belief of those who believed that Iraq had a WMD programme. Even after the conflict was over, when it was proven beyond doubt that there was no WMD programme, this did not undermine Blair’s conviction that he had been right to go to war. Instead he reached for a new justification for the decision. “I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can’t, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam,” he said in a speech. “The world is a better place with Saddam in prison.”
It is not my intention to vilify Tony Blair, or anyone else who was involved in the decision to go to war in Iraq, but rather to demonstrate how the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance works. As always, when we feel tempted to judge others for their actions, we would do well to take a look in the mirror: all too often the reflection we see shows us the beam in our own eye.
Give it some thought. In our everyday lives, how prone are we to build the case for our lack of progress or achievement on evidence which directs the blame to the door of others? If our lifestyle is less than healthy in some aspects – say, in our diet – do we find the evidence to justify it? In our relationships, do we ever overlook the faults in the behaviour of people we like or, on the flipside, how quick are we to find fault with someone we do not like? We often see things in terms of binary choices, all good or all bad. The recent election was a case in point. Did we like Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn? For which did we build our case? The complexity of the arguments was lost to most people.
The first word of the rule of St Benedict is “Listen”, and listening is one of the most important aspects of our Benedictine culture. It means taking account of what we hear, taking on board the views of others, being able to see the world from their point of view. This kind of listening recognises diversity as a good thing.
I am not calling for the abolition of debating groups. Debate is healthy and it is important to test our beliefs and assumptions. Nor am I urging that you compromise your principles. They are essential. Our beliefs and principles are the points on the compass we use to navigate our lives but we must respect the opinions of others and remain open to modifying our views. I am against capital punishment, but that does not mean that the arguments of those who support it have no validity at all or, worse still, that because someone supports capital punishment that they have nothing valid to say about anything.
Ian Hislop made what I thought was an apposite point on Have I Got News for You recently. He said: “I don’t mind a hung Parliament where politicians have to deal with each other and come up with a compromise in the middle. I’m against thumping majorities because they tend to go round thumping people.”
It would be nice to think that, far from bringing instability and uncertainty, June’s election result might actually bring a bit more in the way of listening and consensus to our politics at this crucial time.
Andrew Hobbs is the deputy head master at Downside School in Somerset (downside.co.uk). This article is based on a speech he gave to pupils
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.