Speaker 1: Guess what, mango? What's that? Will all right, I've got
Speaker 1: a name for you. Have you ever heard of William Playfair?
Speaker 1: I don't think so, but I do like that name. Playfair. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is a good name. That's all I had to
Speaker 1: say about it. Just was a fun name. But actually
Speaker 1: it's an interesting name because in this case, playing Fair
Speaker 1: is not exactly what the world did for this guy.
Speaker 1: So William was a Scottish man who pretty much invented
Speaker 1: modern day infographics. You think about things like pie charts,
Speaker 1: the bar graph, the line graph, all of those things.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's pretty crazy to think that we actually
Speaker 1: know who invented the bar graph for the pineff. It's
Speaker 1: like knowing who invented the parallelogram or something. Well, why
Speaker 1: didn't the world treat him well? Well, because they were
Speaker 1: so stubborn. You see, prior to William coming along, you
Speaker 1: had intellectuals who felt that information should always be presented
Speaker 1: in writing and that trying to present information as pictures
Speaker 1: was just dumbing it down and maybe even useless. So,
Speaker 1: you know, just going back and and think about what
Speaker 1: this guy's life was like. When when William was young,
Speaker 1: he did a lot of work for his mathematician brother.
Speaker 1: He'd help him record data, and over time he started
Speaker 1: playing with this idea of putting data into a graphical format.
Speaker 1: And William credits his brother with teaching him how to
Speaker 1: do this, so he says of him, John taught me
Speaker 1: to know that whatever can be expressed in numbers may
Speaker 1: be represented in lines. And so you fast forward a
Speaker 1: decade or so and he ends up apprenticing with James Watt,
Speaker 1: And yes, it's that James Watt who's steam engine disastin
Speaker 1: really changed the world. Yeah, and underwat supervision, William continued
Speaker 1: to hone this craft of data representation, so he parts
Speaker 1: ways with what floats around from odd job to odd job,
Speaker 1: and finally, in the late seventeen hundreds, he publishes something
Speaker 1: called the Commercial and Political Atlas, And what he does
Speaker 1: in this is he basically has this giant collection of
Speaker 1: bar and line charts that are illustrating pretty complex financial
Speaker 1: information about European countries. So you think people would give
Speaker 1: him some sort of credit for this, but it largely
Speaker 1: gets ignored. So he follows it a few years later
Speaker 1: with something called the Statistical Breviary, and he pretty much
Speaker 1: introduces the world to the pie chart. And I'm like you,
Speaker 1: I'm like, how did somebody actually invent this? But he
Speaker 1: is the one that came up with this. And again,
Speaker 1: you think people would realize how helpful these devices could be,
Speaker 1: but instead he was mocked. I mean even his old boss,
Speaker 1: James Watt. Here's how he described me. He first of all,
Speaker 1: he described the book as quote mere plummery and described
Speaker 1: William as a rascal. Yeah, and so you know, others
Speaker 1: dismissed his work and they said geometrical measurement has not
Speaker 1: any relation to money or to time, which is just absurd.
Speaker 1: But this is how people were responding to this. So
Speaker 1: you know, despite these contributions to the way we represent
Speaker 1: all this complex data today, William Playfair was pretty much
Speaker 1: ignored and died in poverty. That's sad. So why do
Speaker 1: you think he was just like dismissed like that. Why
Speaker 1: why couldn't they see how helpful these graphs and charts
Speaker 1: could be. Well, because people are stubborn, and once a mind,
Speaker 1: and especially a group's mind is made up, it's really
Speaker 1: difficult to change that way of thinking. So it took
Speaker 1: decades before people started to warm up to this idea
Speaker 1: of you know, information being represented in these ways, and
Speaker 1: now it's impossible to look at a magazine or a
Speaker 1: newspaper article without seeing infographics all over them. And you know,
Speaker 1: the story reminded us of just how difficult it can
Speaker 1: be to change someone's mind. So today that's what we're
Speaker 1: talking about, the science behind us, the science behind changing
Speaker 1: people's minds. So let's dive in. Hey, their podcast listeners,
Speaker 1: welcome to Part Time Genius. I'm Will Pearson and as
Speaker 1: always I'm joined by my good friend Manges Ticketer and
Speaker 1: on the other side of the soundproof glass, the only
Speaker 1: guy who still can't decide if he hears laurel or
Speaker 1: Yung and Mango. I don't want to say Tristan's ever
Speaker 1: done anything to annoy me, because he never has, but
Speaker 1: this has been the closest to it. I mean, seriously,
Speaker 1: he's probably listened to that clip a thousand times by now.
Speaker 1: But that's our friend and producer, Tristan McNeil. I know,
Speaker 1: I feel like the Internet moved on from this ages
Speaker 1: ago now Tristan, it's time for you to do the same.
Speaker 1: It definitely is. But we we've got a show to do.
Speaker 1: And so while Tristan changes his mind over there probably
Speaker 1: a dozen more times during this episode. Most of us
Speaker 1: actually have the exact opposite problem. I mean, our minds
Speaker 1: are made up about things and we won't change them
Speaker 1: for anything or anyone. And this is something we've experience
Speaker 1: all the time now, because, in case you haven't noticed,
Speaker 1: we live in this increasingly polarized world. Whether it's an
Speaker 1: unwillingness to compromise on political positions or even just these
Speaker 1: silly debates about whether the newest Star Wars movie retroactively
Speaker 1: ruined our childhoods, it seems like no one is willing
Speaker 1: to give an inch on their opinions, and that's no
Speaker 1: matter how many facts or reasoned arguments you throw at them.
Speaker 1: So with all this discord in mind, we actually thought
Speaker 1: it might be helpful to look into the science and
Speaker 1: the psychology of how people change their minds, as well
Speaker 1: as why we form such stubborn opinions in the first place.
Speaker 1: That's right, and I actually thought we could start with
Speaker 1: a bit of neuroscience, because as tough as it is
Speaker 1: to change someone else's mind, it turns out that it's
Speaker 1: just as hard to change your own, even about the
Speaker 1: little things. And that's because even a simple last minute
Speaker 1: decision like stepping left to avoid a puddle, that involves
Speaker 1: a complex system of communication between several brain regions, and
Speaker 1: that means that these split second decisions often come too
Speaker 1: late for our bodies to act on. Okay, So then
Speaker 1: in your example, someone decides to move left a second
Speaker 1: too late, so they end up walking through the puddle anyway, right,
Speaker 1: Except the time window is even shorter than that. So uh,
Speaker 1: this team of researchers at Johns Hopkins, they recently concluded
Speaker 1: that we have to change our minds within about a
Speaker 1: hundred milliseconds and making a decision, and that's in order
Speaker 1: for that new plan to be successful. So, as one
Speaker 1: of the researchers put it, if we change our mind
Speaker 1: about pressing the gas pedal even a few milliseconds after
Speaker 1: the original go message has been sent to our muscles,
Speaker 1: we simply can't stop. And this problem only worsens as
Speaker 1: we age because our neural communication tends to get slower
Speaker 1: and slower, which is one reason why it falls are
Speaker 1: so common among the elderly, like their decisions to alter
Speaker 1: course or even to cash themselves are simply made too
Speaker 1: slowly to be carried out, And so does this time
Speaker 1: limit apply strictly the decisions about physical movements like where
Speaker 1: to walk or the pedal to press or or is
Speaker 1: this also related to behavioral actions too, I mean, it
Speaker 1: definitely applies to both. In fact, one aim of the
Speaker 1: research I mentioned is to find ways to help people
Speaker 1: with drug addictions make a faster decision, and this is
Speaker 1: to ignore their pulses to use. So the idea is
Speaker 1: that the sooner a person can change their mind about
Speaker 1: a plan to use a drug, less likely they'll actually
Speaker 1: be to act upon that plan. That's interesting, and I
Speaker 1: guess it makes sense that time is such a big
Speaker 1: factor in whether these last minute decisions are successful. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's sort of how it goes with changing your mind
Speaker 1: in general, right, Like, it seems like the longer the
Speaker 1: person has held a certain opinion, the harder it is
Speaker 1: for them to reverse that position. And that's, of course,
Speaker 1: even if there's a lot of evidence that their view
Speaker 1: may be wrong. Yeah, that sounds right to me, because
Speaker 1: I mean, we do have facts and we have beliefs,
Speaker 1: and ideally everyone would recognize and readily admit the difference
Speaker 1: between those two things. But in practice, humans sent to
Speaker 1: argue on behalf of a third category which are the
Speaker 1: things we want to believe so badly that we treat
Speaker 1: them as if they were facts even though they're not.
Speaker 1: And that's where this confirmation bias comes in, and we
Speaker 1: start to trust sources that just support our own viewpoints,
Speaker 1: and that's over things that actually challenge our perceptions. Well,
Speaker 1: and this is really something that we're all guilty of
Speaker 1: and in some fashion, because as much as we like
Speaker 1: to pretend that we're always rational and fair, the truth
Speaker 1: is that each and every one of us has our
Speaker 1: own biases. So and obviously it's just part of human nature.
Speaker 1: There was actually this study about a decade ago that
Speaker 1: found that as young as three months old, humans already
Speaker 1: prefer the faces of those who share their skin color
Speaker 1: to the faces of those who don't. And then by
Speaker 1: the age of five, we're already conscious of the status
Speaker 1: of our families and our friends circles, including how they're
Speaker 1: viewed and treated in relation to other groups. So it
Speaker 1: really isn't a question of whether or not people have biases.
Speaker 1: It's more about the degree to which we let those
Speaker 1: biases influence the way we view and interact with the world.
Speaker 1: And studies have shown that if you can recognize your
Speaker 1: bias on certain issues, you'll likely be more open to
Speaker 1: changing your mind in light of any new evidence that
Speaker 1: may be presented. That's really interesting. So well, what do
Speaker 1: you think determine someone's willingness to change their minds? Then, well,
Speaker 1: I think it comes down largely to what we're changing
Speaker 1: our minds about, because if you think about it, we
Speaker 1: change our minds based on new information all the time,
Speaker 1: just in everyday life. I mean, you pick out something
Speaker 1: to wear one day, you think it's going to be
Speaker 1: a sunny day, you find that it's going to be raining,
Speaker 1: so you change your mind and your clothes, and it's
Speaker 1: no big deal. But you know, things aren't as easy
Speaker 1: when it comes to something much heavier, like something people
Speaker 1: consider deeply important or that may define them in some way.
Speaker 1: So with issues like that, it's almost like no news
Speaker 1: report or research study is going to change someone's mind
Speaker 1: because at the end of the day, I mean, people's
Speaker 1: misperceptions and false beliefs, they have less to do with
Speaker 1: political affiliation or I don't know, maybe like a lack
Speaker 1: of education, and much more to do with self identity,
Speaker 1: and you know, with how they view themselves through the
Speaker 1: lens of an issue that they care about. So I
Speaker 1: think a great example of that is with evolution and
Speaker 1: the Big Bang. Like a whole slew of studies have
Speaker 1: shown that belief or disbelief in those theories typically aligns
Speaker 1: with the person's religious and culturally. So if someone refuses
Speaker 1: to change their mind about evolution, it doesn't mean they're
Speaker 1: unfamiliar with the science. It's more that they see evolution
Speaker 1: as a threat to their ideology and, by extension, their identity,
Speaker 1: so changing their mind doesn't seem like a legitimate option. Well,
Speaker 1: of course, that makes it extremely tricky to change someone's
Speaker 1: mind about an issue like this, because I mean, how
Speaker 1: do you make a case for something like evolution to
Speaker 1: folks without making them feel like they're even their core
Speaker 1: beliefs are under attack. Yeah, I mean, tearing down someone's
Speaker 1: self identity definitely isn't the way to win them over.
Speaker 1: But I was reading about this biology professor. He's named
Speaker 1: Kenneth Miller, and he's made headway by highlighting the compatibility
Speaker 1: of science and religion. And this is compared to the alternate,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, harping on their apparent differences. So
Speaker 1: whenever he comes up against someone who's anti evolution. He
Speaker 1: points out connections between science and religion as a way
Speaker 1: of showing that both can co exist. For example, this
Speaker 1: is something I hadn't even heard before, but the Belgian
Speaker 1: scientist who laid out the math behind the Big Bang,
Speaker 1: he was actually a Catholic priest. Oh really, I've never
Speaker 1: heard that somehow, But I'm actually glad you're bringing up
Speaker 1: people's beliefs about science, because, aside from politics, that's probably
Speaker 1: the area where we push the hardest to change each
Speaker 1: other's minds. And that's whether it's about evolution, or climate change,
Speaker 1: or genetically modified foods or I mean, there are so
Speaker 1: many of these topics. And that's why I was surprised
Speaker 1: to learn that when it comes to policy issues, Americans
Speaker 1: actually trust science leaders more than they do leaders in
Speaker 1: other sectors, and of course that includes business and even government.
Speaker 1: Well I'm not so sure about that, because, like the
Speaker 1: last time I checked, there's still this chunk of the
Speaker 1: population who sware the Earth is flat. Well, this is
Speaker 1: according to a two thousand and sixteen study by the
Speaker 1: National Science Foundation, and apparently more respondents said they have
Speaker 1: quote a great deal of confidence in the knowledge and
Speaker 1: impartiality of scientists than they do in any other institution.
Speaker 1: That's with the exception of the military. That's really interesting.
Speaker 1: But if if people trust scientists so much, like, why
Speaker 1: are there so many flat earthers out there? Well, I
Speaker 1: think in general is the key phrase here, because most
Speaker 1: people likely do recognize that science is a pretty rigorous
Speaker 1: field and you know, has this long history of trying
Speaker 1: to deliver accurate results. But you know, I think the
Speaker 1: problem really starts when specific issues bump up against those
Speaker 1: ideological beliefs that we were talking about before. And actually,
Speaker 1: here's a quote from Scientific American that that gives a
Speaker 1: good example of this. And here's what it says. Our
Speaker 1: innate desire to be accurate conflicts with other motives, some
Speaker 1: of them unconscious. People hold beliefs to protect important values.
Speaker 1: For example, individuals who think of nature as sacred may
Speaker 1: perceive genetic modification as morally wrong, regardless of its safety
Speaker 1: or utility. People also whole beliefs that are rooted in
Speaker 1: their emotions. A flu pandemic that can cause widespread death
Speaker 1: among the innocent may cause feelings of fear and helplessness.
Speaker 1: The one way to cope with those emotions is to
Speaker 1: belittle warnings of a pandemic as impossible, which makes sense,
Speaker 1: but it's also kind of scary to think about because
Speaker 1: it shows just how bad we are at judging whether
Speaker 1: our views are rational or irrational. Like, even if our
Speaker 1: views are only based on bias or emotion, we can
Speaker 1: still find ways to dupe ourselves into thinking those beliefs
Speaker 1: are truly based on facts or reason. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you think about global warming, one or two descending scientists
Speaker 1: is all it really took to perpetuate the idea that
Speaker 1: climate science is controversial or still a matter of debate
Speaker 1: in the scientific community, and that kernel of doubt was
Speaker 1: enough to validate the belief that it's all a hoax
Speaker 1: and some other people's minds, even if they consider themselves
Speaker 1: science supporters in general, Yeah, you're right, And it's it's
Speaker 1: also kind of ironic when you think about it, because
Speaker 1: scientists are probably the most adept when it comes to
Speaker 1: changing their beliefs in light of new information that they
Speaker 1: may have, and I mean revising theories to match the
Speaker 1: current evidence. Is it's kind of their whole m o.
Speaker 1: So it's it's it's pretty sad when you have issues
Speaker 1: where there's near consensus among the scientific community, and yet
Speaker 1: they're still so easily dismissed by some people. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: to play devil's advocate, I do think some people just
Speaker 1: aren't aware of what scientists actually think about certain issues.
Speaker 1: Like a few years back, the Pew Research Center released
Speaker 1: this report where thirty seven percent of respondents said that
Speaker 1: they didn't think scientists agreed on climate change, while in
Speaker 1: reality of scientists say climate change is a serious problem.
Speaker 1: So in this case, the misinformation campaigned about how quote
Speaker 1: unsettled the issue is really seems to have worked, like
Speaker 1: people were convinced that the science was still uncertain and
Speaker 1: they didn't take the time to double check that claim themselves. Well, see,
Speaker 1: and to me that that says that although climate change
Speaker 1: is a scientific issue at its core, it's really become
Speaker 1: more of an ideological one for most of us. I mean,
Speaker 1: nowadays our belief for disbelief in global warming is really
Speaker 1: an expression of identity more than anything else, and it's
Speaker 1: a way of showing which groups we belong to. Alright, Well,
Speaker 1: I I do sense that we're heading into the realm
Speaker 1: of politics here. So before we open that particularly kind
Speaker 1: of worms, why don't we take a quick break. You're
Speaker 1: listening to part time genius and we're talking about the
Speaker 1: messy science of how to change another person's mind. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: so we mentioned how people tend to dig in their
Speaker 1: heels on issues they connect to their own identities, and
Speaker 1: as a result, they'll do any sort of mental gymnastics
Speaker 1: necessary to avoid changing their minds on the subject. But
Speaker 1: that makes a lot of sense with moral or religious considerations.
Speaker 1: But you said global warming is a matter of identity
Speaker 1: now too, So how does that work exactly? All right? Well,
Speaker 1: think about how so much of human identity is tied
Speaker 1: up with the groups that we form, whether that's family
Speaker 1: or friends, or you know, colleagues or even political parties.
Speaker 1: So the downside of having your individual identity wrapped up
Speaker 1: in groups is is that we do run that risk
Speaker 1: of giving into tribalism, you know, when those beliefs or
Speaker 1: values of those groups are under question. And actually, this
Speaker 1: is the same thing you'll see even with something as
Speaker 1: extreme as like cults, because that sense of belonging becomes
Speaker 1: so important that members will will actually ignore any information
Speaker 1: that threatens that feeling. And in the same way, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't want to lose membership, and the groups that
Speaker 1: are important to us. And so today, you know, you
Speaker 1: think about how important political parties are to a lot
Speaker 1: of people, and it's a stronger part of our identity
Speaker 1: than ever before. And for example, recent polls show that
Speaker 1: not only do die hard liberals and conservatives try to
Speaker 1: avoid spending time together whenever possible, they even feel unhappy
Speaker 1: if a family member is married to somebody else from
Speaker 1: across the aisle. So what you're saying is that the
Speaker 1: issue of climate change isn't strictly a scientific one anymore.
Speaker 1: It's become so politicized that it's basically a way to
Speaker 1: signal which political and social groups you belong to. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is, and you know, and people aren't likely to
Speaker 1: change their minds on something like that, and that's no
Speaker 1: matter what the science says, because you know, on some level,
Speaker 1: they don't want to jeopardize their standing with their group.
Speaker 1: And it's actually pretty fascinating how much group mentalities factor
Speaker 1: into all of our decision making. Well, that connection actually
Speaker 1: goes even deeper, because some scientists now believe that humans
Speaker 1: developed reason in the first place as this way to
Speaker 1: deal with the problems associated with living in groups, which
Speaker 1: is really interesting because we always assume that humans of all,
Speaker 1: reason is a way to solve these abstract puzzles or
Speaker 1: to like draw conclusions from evidence. But according to this
Speaker 1: pair of cognitive scientists named Hugo Mercy and Dance Berber,
Speaker 1: reason is really an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans
Speaker 1: have evolved for themselves, all right, So just to try
Speaker 1: to break that down, I mean, what what what kind
Speaker 1: of hyper social problems was reason actually meant to help
Speaker 1: with the main one is making sure you don't get
Speaker 1: taken advantage of by members of the group. So this
Speaker 1: makes sense if you think about it, because humans first
Speaker 1: lived together in small groups of hunter gatherers, where social
Speaker 1: standing was everything and each member of the group needed
Speaker 1: to pull their own weight. But inevitably you'd have some
Speaker 1: lazy people in the group, you know, the type. They
Speaker 1: always have an excuse for why they want to remain
Speaker 1: warm or safe in the cave while everyone else risks
Speaker 1: their neck to bring home dinner. I mean, those guys
Speaker 1: are the worst. But actually, hang on, So, if I
Speaker 1: understand you correctly, you're saying we developed reason mostly as
Speaker 1: a way to sniff out hucksters and kind of maintain
Speaker 1: our social standing exactly, And the reason was more a
Speaker 1: tool for winning arguments than it was a means for
Speaker 1: pursuing truth, and that's actually what gets us into trouble today.
Speaker 1: We still argue primarily to win a battle rather than
Speaker 1: to learn something new or changing another person's mind. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you just think about all arguments people get into
Speaker 1: on Twitter or Facebook and in the comment section of
Speaker 1: news sites, like, people might back up their viewpoints with
Speaker 1: stats or links, but no one is interested in learning
Speaker 1: from the other people there, and instead the conversation becomes
Speaker 1: this competition with like each side trying to score off
Speaker 1: the other, and all these fans of both sides just
Speaker 1: rallying to cheer them on in the form of likes,
Speaker 1: well and and that kind of interaction. It also shows
Speaker 1: how backwards our cultures approaches to facts and evidence. I mean,
Speaker 1: we like to think we use facts and logic as
Speaker 1: the basis for all of our beliefs, but in reality,
Speaker 1: it's often the other way around, where the belief comes first,
Speaker 1: and then we just pick and choose the facts and
Speaker 1: evidence to really reinforce those beliefs, and then wield them
Speaker 1: kind of like a sledgehammer, just to prove our points online.
Speaker 1: And you know, given how vast the Internet is now
Speaker 1: and how lousy it is with misinformation that seems credible
Speaker 1: at first glance. Finding that evidence for just about anything
Speaker 1: you believe is pretty easy these days. Yeah, and these
Speaker 1: really are the glory days of confirmation bias. But you know,
Speaker 1: the cheapening of facts isn't the only danger posed by
Speaker 1: arguing to win. Another more insidious threat is the way
Speaker 1: this mode of argument affects the way we view the
Speaker 1: questions we're debating. All right, so what do you what
Speaker 1: do you mean by that? Well, when people engage in
Speaker 1: combative arguments, the expectation is that someone will win and
Speaker 1: someone will lose. And like we've been saying, that's the
Speaker 1: whole point. But the implication there is that every issue
Speaker 1: will always have this clear cut, objective answer, like with
Speaker 1: a math problem or something, so there's no accounting for
Speaker 1: different views that still might be valid, and instead every issue,
Speaker 1: no matter how nuanced, is produced to these absolutes. And
Speaker 1: actually I came across the Salon article by a research
Speaker 1: team who studied the psychology of this argue to win mentality,
Speaker 1: and they had a nice summary of what's at stake here,
Speaker 1: so they right quote. The more we argue to win,
Speaker 1: the more we will feel that there is a single
Speaker 1: objectively correct answer and that all other answers are mistaken. Conversely,
Speaker 1: the more we argue to learn, the more we will
Speaker 1: feel that there's no single objective truth. Then different answers
Speaker 1: can be equally right. So the next time you're deciding
Speaker 1: how to enter into an argument on Facebook about the
Speaker 1: controversial question of the day, remember you're not just making
Speaker 1: a choice about how to interact with the person who
Speaker 1: holds the opposing view. You're also making a decision that
Speaker 1: will shape the way you and others think about whether
Speaker 1: the question itself has a correct answer. And I think
Speaker 1: that's pretty good advice, But you know, for my own
Speaker 1: peace of mind, I feel like I should point out
Speaker 1: here that there are times when facts and evidence can
Speaker 1: help change somebody's mind. And that's because there are plenty
Speaker 1: of people out there who maybe they're misinformed or mistaken
Speaker 1: about something, but but who don't cling to that false
Speaker 1: belief and treat it like a cornerstone of their identity.
Speaker 1: So in these cases, facts and reason can truly make
Speaker 1: a difference. So for our listeners out there, don't give
Speaker 1: up all hope on this kind of thing. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's a good point, but what about all those other times,
Speaker 1: like are really saying there's no way to change a
Speaker 1: person's mind once they're personally invested in a certain view. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not ready to concede that just yet, because, as
Speaker 1: it turns out, humanities hyper social nature that you've talked about,
Speaker 1: it might just be the key to changing a person's
Speaker 1: long held beliefs. But before we get into that, let's
Speaker 1: take a quick break. All right. So this whole episode,
Speaker 1: we've been talking about how difficult it is to change
Speaker 1: people's minds on these deeply personal or emotionally charged issues.
Speaker 1: And you know why, we mentioned how simply laying out
Speaker 1: the facts doesn't work in these cases. There is new
Speaker 1: research out of Penn State that suggests that doing so
Speaker 1: can be effective so long as you deliver the facts
Speaker 1: along with a heaping dose of peer pressure. So that's
Speaker 1: when it's come to like using peer pressure to get
Speaker 1: people to change their minds, which seems kind of shady
Speaker 1: to me. Yeah, it feels like we're going back to
Speaker 1: high school for this one. But but at least listen
Speaker 1: to how the study went. It was It was pretty interesting. First,
Speaker 1: the researchers gathered fifty eight volunteers from around the campus
Speaker 1: and had them offer their opinions on the firing of
Speaker 1: coach Joe Paterno. Of course, all remember that case, and
Speaker 1: you know, he was the head of the football program
Speaker 1: for years and then one of his long time assistance
Speaker 1: I was accused of these you know, sexual abuses, and
Speaker 1: you know, the thinking was that Paterno likely had knowledge
Speaker 1: of the incidents and unfortunately kept quiet. So the college
Speaker 1: covered its bass and decided to fire Paterno as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I remember it was seen as a pretty controversial move
Speaker 1: at the time, especially on campus. That's right. So what
Speaker 1: they did in this study was that, you know, the
Speaker 1: researchers pulled the participants on their opinions, and then they
Speaker 1: split them up, and the first thirty four people took
Speaker 1: part in these separate discussion sessions they called them, and
Speaker 1: they were paired with two to four research assistants who
Speaker 1: always took the opposing view of the volunteer. And before
Speaker 1: these discussions commenced, everyone had been given this fact sheet
Speaker 1: and a summary of the different arguments in Paterno's case.
Speaker 1: Then things got underway and they'd go back and forth
Speaker 1: about the case for something like thirty minutes, and these
Speaker 1: research assistants would offer counter argument after counter argument. No
Speaker 1: matter what the volunteer would say, they would always counter it.
Speaker 1: And so after that, the participants each filled out a
Speaker 1: ballot with their final opinion on Paternos firing, and the
Speaker 1: researchers could then use that to track whose opinion had
Speaker 1: shifted due to the discussion. Which is interesting, But what
Speaker 1: happened to those other twenties something participants. Well, they also
Speaker 1: read the same fact sheet and those case summaries, but
Speaker 1: they didn't have those discussion sessions like the other group did. Instead,
Speaker 1: they simply filled out the ballot with their final opinion.
Speaker 1: Now for that second group, the ones who had only
Speaker 1: read the materials, only eight percent of these people changed
Speaker 1: their minds about Paternals firing based on what they had read.
Speaker 1: But the people who took part in the discussions where
Speaker 1: they were outnumbered, a shocking thirty eight percent of those
Speaker 1: shifted their stance in response to that social pressure. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's pretty wild. But who's to say the people who
Speaker 1: changed their minds won't just change the back a few
Speaker 1: months later. In fact, how do we even know they
Speaker 1: really changed their minds in the first place, like they
Speaker 1: could have been lying just to please the researchers. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: those final ballots were anonymous, so I guess you could say,
Speaker 1: in theory, the participants wouldn't have felt the need to lie.
Speaker 1: But there's actually a similar study that dealt with his
Speaker 1: concern more directly, and it was this experiment out of
Speaker 1: Harvard back in two thousand eleven, and it basically found
Speaker 1: that men judge a woman is more attractive when they
Speaker 1: believe their peers also fine tore attractive. And so they
Speaker 1: reached this conclusion by having fourteen men rate the attractiveness
Speaker 1: of a hundred and eighty female faces on a scale
Speaker 1: from one to ten. Then half an hour later, the
Speaker 1: same men rated the faces again, but this time every
Speaker 1: face that they looked at was paired with a numerical rating. Now,
Speaker 1: these ratings displayed were completely random, but the participants were
Speaker 1: told that these were the averages of the scores given
Speaker 1: by their peers. And would you know at this bit
Speaker 1: of suggested peer pressure actually worked, So all of the
Speaker 1: men ended up rating the women that had higher rankings
Speaker 1: as more attractive than they had the first time around. Okay,
Speaker 1: so to tell me, how is that any more definitive
Speaker 1: than the last study, Like they could have still been
Speaker 1: lying just to seem like they had as good an
Speaker 1: eye for beauty as the other guys or something. Well,
Speaker 1: here's what's maybe the most interesting part of this. So
Speaker 1: those participants underwent m r I scans that effectively proved
Speaker 1: the men weren't lying. So the brain's pleasure centers lit
Speaker 1: up more strongly during that second round of rankings, which
Speaker 1: suggests that their opinions of the women's attractiveness actually did change.
Speaker 1: That's fascinating, But you know, I still feel a little
Speaker 1: conflicted about weaponizing peer pressure as a means of winning
Speaker 1: people to your side. But there might be something to
Speaker 1: the idea that people are more open minded in group
Speaker 1: settings or during personal interactions. Like I remember reading how
Speaker 1: back during World War Two, the US government tried to
Speaker 1: sell the public on the idea of eating organ meat
Speaker 1: because the thinking was that the choice or cuts of
Speaker 1: meat could then be saved to feed the troops. So
Speaker 1: they did research to find out the most effective ways
Speaker 1: to get people to make the switch, and it turned
Speaker 1: out that people who had a group discussion about the idea,
Speaker 1: they were actually five times more likely to go along
Speaker 1: with it than those who simply read about the merits
Speaker 1: of organ meat from a nutritionist. Yeah, it's a pretty
Speaker 1: significant difference. I mean, it's gross, but but it is interesting.
Speaker 1: But to be honest, I'm not sure how far peer
Speaker 1: pressure or personal interactions would get you when it comes
Speaker 1: to changing minds on like stuff that really matters. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're thinking in these scenarios, it's whether some person is
Speaker 1: attractive or whether to cook up some organ meat for dinner.
Speaker 1: But I think on heavier issues it feels like it'd
Speaker 1: be a little bit different. Yeah, I know what you mean,
Speaker 1: But I think the key might actually be to something
Speaker 1: we talked about in the last segment, this idea that
Speaker 1: people most readily accept facts that confirmed the beliefs they
Speaker 1: already hold. Alright, so how are you seeing that as
Speaker 1: a positive thing though? So one example of what I'm
Speaker 1: thinking about is the legality of gay marriage, and that's
Speaker 1: been the reality for years now, but the fight to
Speaker 1: get it to that point was incredibly long and challenging
Speaker 1: because in order to win the right to get married,
Speaker 1: gay people needed to get straight voters and politicians on
Speaker 1: their sides, and of course, historically speaking that's easier said
Speaker 1: than done. In fact, all through the early two thousands,
Speaker 1: same sex marriage activists lost one political battle after another
Speaker 1: and things really weren't looking rate and a big reason
Speaker 1: for this lack of success came down to messaging. Like
Speaker 1: the common arguments from activists at the time centered on
Speaker 1: the injustice of discrimination and how gay people should be
Speaker 1: entitled to the same rights and benefits as you know,
Speaker 1: straight people. But these kinds of legal and moral appeals
Speaker 1: pretty much fell on deaf ears and it quickly became
Speaker 1: apparent that the movement would need a new message, one
Speaker 1: that was less political and more universal. So what sort
Speaker 1: of strategy did they come up with? Well, there was
Speaker 1: one advocate group, in particular, Freedom to Marry, that really
Speaker 1: led the charge by analyzing data from hundreds of polls
Speaker 1: and focus groups. Then, after a year of pouring over
Speaker 1: this information, the team finally found the answers they were
Speaker 1: looking for in a single public opinion poll. So, according
Speaker 1: to the poll, when straight people were asked why they
Speaker 1: had gotten married, they said it was for a quote,
Speaker 1: love and commitment. But when these people were asked why
Speaker 1: they think gay people wanted to get married, the number
Speaker 1: one reason was for benefits. I mean, on the one hand,
Speaker 1: it's obviously a pretty ugly assumption to make about complete
Speaker 1: strangers that they're driven more by these selfish economic concerns
Speaker 1: than by the same wholesome motives that that you might possess.
Speaker 1: But I mean, it does sound like what you're saying
Speaker 1: is the movement was able to somehow use this thinking
Speaker 1: to their advantage anyway, that's right. So, in light of
Speaker 1: this discovery of the team at Freedom to Marry quickly
Speaker 1: launched this new nationwide campaign. It was called Why Marriage Matters,
Speaker 1: and rather than selling the idea on political or economic rounds,
Speaker 1: the campaign just focused on this universal idea that most
Speaker 1: people already believed in, which is that love and commitment matter.
Speaker 1: And little by little, this new message began to change
Speaker 1: people's minds. Some of the work was done remotely through
Speaker 1: TV or radio ads. There were even robocalls employed and
Speaker 1: media appearances, but the most effective method by far was
Speaker 1: these door to door visits from actual gain lesbian couples
Speaker 1: who hoped one day to get married, and when faced
Speaker 1: with real people expressing that same earnest desire they had,
Speaker 1: voters finally began to see themselves in the issue as
Speaker 1: well as the humanity of those that affected. And in time,
Speaker 1: those changed minds translated to votes in local elections and
Speaker 1: the state house victories helped build momentum for the eventual
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruling, and that's the one that made gay
Speaker 1: marriage legal. I mean, it is pretty remarkable, how you know,
Speaker 1: reframing this argument can make all the difference. And I
Speaker 1: see what you mean now about people using confirmation bias
Speaker 1: to their advantage. But you know, you think about it.
Speaker 1: Winning this campaign you describe essentially used reason and facts
Speaker 1: to confirm the core beliefs that these voters already held,
Speaker 1: and that was instead of trying to change those beliefs.
Speaker 1: It's it's pretty clever as a tactic, and it actually
Speaker 1: reminds me of what we talked about earlier with that
Speaker 1: biology professor who tries to build those bridges between religion
Speaker 1: and science. I mean, if we can manage to strip
Speaker 1: away the political and the social hang ups around an issue,
Speaker 1: we might find that we have more common ground than
Speaker 1: we originally thought. I mean, that's the hope. And the
Speaker 1: other thing to remember is that personal identity isn't static.
Speaker 1: All of us change and grow as we go through life,
Speaker 1: and as we accume life experiences, those inevitably altered the
Speaker 1: people we are, and as our self identity shifts, there's
Speaker 1: always the chance our beliefs and opinions will too, even
Speaker 1: the more deep seated ones that used to define us. Well,
Speaker 1: that's a great point. And actually I read this article
Speaker 1: by a writer named Jennifer Hulette, and she wrote about
Speaker 1: the potential of that kind of personal growth, and she
Speaker 1: has some pretty good advice on managing our mind changing
Speaker 1: expectations too, so I'll just go ahead and read it.
Speaker 1: So she writes, of course, you can't precisely control how
Speaker 1: people respond and evolve over time. It's a complex system,
Speaker 1: and your input is just one variable among many working
Speaker 1: to shape said system. All you can do is sow
Speaker 1: the seeds and hope some fine fallow ground. And since
Speaker 1: most of us can't see into a person's innermost thoughts,
Speaker 1: there's no way of knowing where that fallow ground may lie.
Speaker 1: Those seeds might not flourish for months or years. You
Speaker 1: might not see any outward change at all for a
Speaker 1: good long while. That doesn't mean your efforts are useless.
Speaker 1: People can change their minds and progress be made on
Speaker 1: a broad social scale don't despair just yet. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: is good advice, right, And you know, because I'm not
Speaker 1: sure we can top it, what do you say we
Speaker 1: leave it at that and just start the fact off? Well,
Speaker 1: I did have three or four points I wanted to make,
Speaker 1: but I sort of feel like you already made up
Speaker 1: your mind on this, so I can already hear the
Speaker 1: factor off using, so we might as well start. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: I told you peer pressure work. Okay, So I'm gonna
Speaker 1: start us off on a slightly different note and talk
Speaker 1: about not just changing our minds, but changing our brains. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, do you meditate? You know, I've always
Speaker 1: said I was going to start meditating, and I just
Speaker 1: haven't gotten around to it. So I think I'll start
Speaker 1: next week. I know I talked about it all the
Speaker 1: time too, but I was reading a couple of articles
Speaker 1: about the power of meditation, and specifically the serious compassion
Speaker 1: meditation that to bed and monks do and nor scientists
Speaker 1: have been studying them for years and have been prized
Speaker 1: by just how dramatic and effect this kind of meditation
Speaker 1: can have on their brains, and the studies have shown
Speaker 1: that monks experienced these huge increases in gamma wave activity
Speaker 1: at level they've never seen in other studies, And when
Speaker 1: their brains were scanned, they found that the region most
Speaker 1: affected during meditation was the left prefrontal cortex, which is
Speaker 1: where a positive emotion comes from, and then it was
Speaker 1: much much more active than the right prefrontal which is
Speaker 1: actually where more negative emotions like anxiety come from. So
Speaker 1: I think it's time for us to sign up for
Speaker 1: the meditation class. All right, let's do it. But but
Speaker 1: next week we we've got things to work on first.
Speaker 1: So but before we start meditating, I'm going to bring
Speaker 1: us back to changing people's minds, and this one in
Speaker 1: particular is about food. So have you ever heard people
Speaker 1: say that seafood and cheese should never be paired? Yeah? Definitely.
Speaker 1: Well there's this great Las Obscure article and it's looking
Speaker 1: at this topic and trying to find the origins of this.
Speaker 1: And the article starts off I talk about how even
Speaker 1: on things like the show Top Chef, you'll hear experts
Speaker 1: say all the time things like, you know, even though
Speaker 1: I don't like cheese and seafood together, this wasn't that bad.
Speaker 1: And it's like that's the ultimate compliment you can give
Speaker 1: that sort of pairing, which is just strange. And it
Speaker 1: turns out we have Italy to blame for this thinking.
Speaker 1: And it's actually kind of amazing how global events and
Speaker 1: national identities can play into something like this. So it
Speaker 1: had been the thinking among certain groups and Italy that
Speaker 1: these two food types should not be served together. And
Speaker 1: coming out of World War Two, you had a nation
Speaker 1: in Italy that was feeling the threat of globalization. They
Speaker 1: need to really cling to those national traditions and it's
Speaker 1: natural that you'd find certain things to dig in on.
Speaker 1: And food is obviously one of Italy's greatest exports because
Speaker 1: it feels like everybody loves Italian food, and this was
Speaker 1: the thing that they really stuck to and convinced much
Speaker 1: of American culture, especially that seafood and cheese should not
Speaker 1: be paired. So I've got a food related one as well.
Speaker 1: It's emasy to read about the high ends companies attempts
Speaker 1: to get Ketchup to catch on in Australia, like the
Speaker 1: company had been successful and Sony plays around the world,
Speaker 1: but in Australia American style, Ketchup only represents about three
Speaker 1: to four percent of the tomato sauce market. In fact,
Speaker 1: Hines even introduced this cookbook in the market there a
Speaker 1: couple of decades ago, just to try to get the
Speaker 1: public to understand how different ketchup is from like these
Speaker 1: other tomato sauces. But I think what I found most
Speaker 1: interesting is just how passionately some Australians are about this
Speaker 1: topic and how they almost see it as an invasion
Speaker 1: of their culture. And here are just a couple of quotes.
Speaker 1: A famous Australian entrepreneur named Dick Smith, whose company makes
Speaker 1: a competitive ketchup, said quote, they don't give us stuff
Speaker 1: about Australian culture or a way of life. They basically said,
Speaker 1: if we have one common label and call it ketchup
Speaker 1: around the world, that's the best way we can make money.
Speaker 1: And Scott cam who's a TV personality there, expressed concern
Speaker 1: that the word ketchup might be replacing tomato sauce. So
Speaker 1: here's what he said, what are we going to start
Speaker 1: walking down the sidewalk instead of a footpath? As Australian say,
Speaker 1: they're infiltrated to us. It's not our way of life.
Speaker 1: So it turns out the passionate response was pretty effective
Speaker 1: because just a few years ago Hines actually closed their
Speaker 1: Australian catchup factory, and this is seventy years after opening it.
Speaker 1: They finally just gave up and moved it to New Zealand.
Speaker 1: That is impressive. I'm also going to start using the
Speaker 1: phrase don't give us stuff about something. I kind of
Speaker 1: like that alright. Well, in a different direction. During their
Speaker 1: twenty three years working for Columbia Pictures, the three Stooges
Speaker 1: never once got a raise. In fact, they were severely underpaid.
Speaker 1: Apparently the head of the studio convinced them that they
Speaker 1: weren't very popular. I don't know how he managed to
Speaker 1: pull this off, and he almost made it seem like
Speaker 1: he was doing them a favor just to renew their
Speaker 1: contracts at the very last moment for the same price
Speaker 1: each year, which is obviously a horrible to do, but
Speaker 1: kind of remarkable that he pulled this off for twenty
Speaker 1: three years in a row. Wow. So this gentleman named
Speaker 1: Matthias Blow from Chicago actually convinced his wife to have
Speaker 1: her teeth pull because of our dental issues. And then
Speaker 1: he decided, without really asking her, not to get her dentures.
Speaker 1: He just thought it was cheaper for them to serve
Speaker 1: her soup every day rather than any food she could choose.
Speaker 1: I guess he was trying to save money or something.
Speaker 1: I don't get it. So she smartly took him to court,
Speaker 1: where the judge called it quote the meanest trick he'd
Speaker 1: ever heard, and he promptly ordered Mr Bloud to buy
Speaker 1: her two sets of teeth and a beefsteak every week.
Speaker 1: All right, well, I feel like we should try to
Speaker 1: end on a happier note. So in the nineteen fifties,
Speaker 1: fans used to go up to George Reeves, who played
Speaker 1: Superman at the time, and try to test his strength,
Speaker 1: and in fact, one time a young fan actually pulled
Speaker 1: a gun on him, but the quick thinking Reeves convinced
Speaker 1: the guy to hand it over to him on account
Speaker 1: that if he shot at Superman, the bullet would bounce
Speaker 1: off and likely hit and then a sent bystander. That's
Speaker 1: really interesting, And uh, I do like in a week
Speaker 1: that Batman and Catwoman are all the attention for getting married.
Speaker 1: You decided to end on a Superman fact, so I
Speaker 1: think you should get the prize this week. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: act like that was intentional, but I'll take it either way.
Speaker 1: I'm sure we've forgotten some great facts about the science
Speaker 1: behind changing someone's mind, or even just fun stories about
Speaker 1: the efforts to change people's mind. So we always love
Speaker 1: hearing those stories and those facts from you. I have
Speaker 1: to say, Mango, I was a little bit jealous hearing
Speaker 1: from a listener earlier this week that she was trying
Speaker 1: to convince a family member to name their child Mango,
Speaker 1: which just seemed crazy to me. But anyway, I think
Speaker 1: Will is a pretty good name too. But congratulations to
Speaker 1: you on that, and we'd love to hear from you. Guys.
Speaker 1: You can always email us part Time Genius at how
Speaker 1: stuff Works dot com or hit us up on Facebook
Speaker 1: or Twitter. But thanks so much for listening. Thanks again
Speaker 1: for listening. Part Time Genius is a production of How
Speaker 1: Stuff Works and wouldn't be possible without several brilliant people
Speaker 1: who do the important things we couldn't even begin to understand.
Speaker 1: CHRISTA McNeil does the editing thing. Noel Brown made the
Speaker 1: theme song and does the mixy MIXI sound thing. Jerry
Speaker 1: Rowland does the exact producer thing. Gay blues Yer is
Speaker 1: our lead researcher, with support from the Research Army, including
Speaker 1: Austin Thompson, Nolan Brown and Lucas Adams and Eve Jeff
Speaker 1: Cook gets the show to your ears. Good job, Eves.
Speaker 1: If you like what you heard, we hope you'll subscribe,
Speaker 1: And if you really really like what you've heard, maybe
Speaker 1: you could leave a good review for us. Do we
Speaker 1: do we forget Jason? Jason who