Psychology and behavioral economics

A friend asked me why I had bothered to engage at length on social media with a self-identified ‘vaccine skeptic’ who had posted his vigorous opposition to any vaccine mandates, supporting his position with demonstrably incorrect information and references to poorly done (and even retracted) studies. My friend felt that my efforts were destined to fail and therefore pointless. When I asked what he meant by failure, he said “You’ll never convince someone like that they are wrong.”

I often see or participate in conversations where two or more morally decent individuals,  acting in good faith,  make different decisions or hold different opinions when faced with moral/ethical choices. In his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religions, Jonathan Haidt offers a useful framework for understanding this. Cogitive psychologists have names this Moral Foundations Theory.

Haidt and colleagues posit that:

When people feel threatened, they are less likely to use careful, fact-based, rational thought and decision-making processes and tend to depend more on intuition, gut feelings, and 'vibes' to assess the situation and decide what to do. When one senses danger, prompt and immediate action is called for. This preference under threat for what Kahnemann and Tversky termed System 1 thinking over System 2 thinking has a good evolutionary survival benefit: when an unknown large animal with big teeth and claws suddenly appears, that is a lousy time to sit and think.

Each of us finds our own personal truth about what the world is like and how it works. All of us then tend to confuse our experience of reality with reality itself. (Sometimes referenced as the map versus the territory.) The narratives we create about our world and then operate from are good enough to have allowed our species to survive, but we all believe things that are comfortable and useful but not true. Extreme versions of this are the outlandish conspiracy theories: flat earth, 9/11 conspiracy, Covid vaccie makes peole magnetic.

It’s both possible and important to have good quality conversations with people with whom we disagree. There are some simple (but not easy) principles to keep in mind:

• Be sure your goal is to connect and understand - and not to change minds.  Listen to learn, not to prepare a rebuttal. People understand and use words and phrases in very different ways. Don't assume you understand what the other person means: "I want to be sure we are both talking about the same thing. Could you help me understand what you mean when you say 'X'?"

A recent short piece by Taylor Lorenz got me thinking. 

She describes being targeted online with hateful comments and overt threats as follows:

Most of my family and many of my closest friends call me a pessimist. I disagree. I believe I am a pro-active optimist, someone whose default is that things will work out in the end - but not automatically. Only if we do our part to ensure success.

When I challenge their characterization of me as a pessimist, the response is generally along the lines of: “You always assume the worst possible thing will probably occur.”  But I am not assuming that at all.

• Have a pleasant conversation.
• Find commonality.
• Ask, don't tell.
• Listen to learn.
• Stories and ideas, not facts.