Credits: Social Media
The reason you won’t always win a debate by speaking the truth, from a psychologist
New research has helped to show just how important a sense of personal pride can be, even during the most trivial of debates.
If you ever feel like youre talking to a brick wall when enjoying a spirited debate with some of your more stubborn friends, try not to take it personally. According to research on the psychology of arguing, most people are likely to stick to their guns, regardless of the accuracy of the information they are being presented with essentially out of personal pride. As the US election creeps closer and we tune in to the presidential debates on TV, voters on each side of the fence argue on matters that mean the most to them.
Why you wont always win even if youre right
A research paper published by The British Psychological Society has outlined a key reason as to why some people will simply not just admit that they are wrong even when it is abundantly clear that they are.
The paper, which was originally written by psychological researcher Gregory Trevors, contends that when new information presented in an argument or debate threatens the recipients sense of identity , the receiver is less likely to come around to an alternative way of thinking.
In other words, it can be exceptionally difficult to dislodge a pre-existing thought from somebodys head particularly if the new information provokes negative emotion in the recipient, as they may feel undermined or angered by the dismantling of a notion they were previously attached to and held to be true.
As such, some people may remain in denial and may in fact double down in the light of new information, so as to avoid reconfiguring their personal identity in reaction to the new arguments being made.
- WHAT’S YOUR SCORE? Take this at-home IQ test to see if you’re as ‘smart as Donald Trump’
A psychological assessment of personal identity
In order to test this hypothesis, Trevors used the subject of genetically modified foods a concept often surrounded by misinformation.
The researcher tested 120 students on their knowledge and attitudes towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their beliefs in relation to dietary purity aka how they felt about eating processed/unnatural foods.
The students were then presented with information about GMOs worded with the intention of challenging negative beliefs on the matter.
According to a report on the study: Those with higher scores in dietary purity rated themselves as experiencing more negative emotions while reading the text, and in a later follow-up task, they more often criticized GMOs.
Crucially, at the end of the study these participants were actually more likely to be anti-GMO than a control group who were given scientific information that didn’t challenge beliefs: in other words, the attempt to change minds with factual information had backfired.
How to win an argument, according to psychology
If youre wondering how to take this information and apply it to your everyday interactions, clinical psychologist Alex Fradera says that it is important to remember just how much of a deciding factor negative emotion can be during an argument.
If you find yourself trying to convince someone of something, try not to make arguments that directly contradict someones core beliefs.
Furthermore, try not to deliberately provoke negative emotion in your counterpart as this is often when people begin to double down on their original beliefs.
Rather, as Fradera puts it, employ a stealth bomber approach and try to present your opponent with raw information, rather than outwardly calling them out for being incorrect.
That way, they can digest the information in their own time and form their own beliefs, rather than have their personal identity directly contradicted.
- WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Trump’s ‘unhealthy diets’ could give him an advantage with voters, doc says
