How to Change Someone's Mind

How to Change Someone's Mind: People Prefer Conflicting Thoughts Much More Than an "Absence of a Paradigm" By Dan Abrams Contrary to a simplistic understanding of psychology's concept of "Cognitive Dissonance", I think most humans prefer to have multiple conflicting thoughts than to have an absence of a paradigm. That's why in order to change someone's mind you must first give them ideas they agree with, that they don't think conflict with their existing paradigm, and build upon them until the new paradigm is stronger than the old (which is thus discarded). Not that this should be an excuse for poor behavior, but remember that nearly everyone is a hypocrite on some level. No human is 100.00% consistent for his entire lifetime. That's because no one "gets it right" right from the start. Life is complicated and all rules have exceptions. Our understanding of the world evolves over time because we're always evaluating our beliefs relative to our interaction with the world. A baby learns one of its first "heuristics" is that when it is hungry to put food in its mouth. Its understanding of what "food" is may be based on the experience of putting anything within reach in its mouth. As its parents give it more freedom the baby learns that not everything that is within reach is necessarily food. His heuristic for satisfying hunger changes accordingly. Employing the useful analogy of a brain being like a computer, think of your environment constantly giving you input that your brain attempts to process. Information that supports or affirms existing software is saved and fortifies it against change. Falsifying evidence tends to shatter existing software but life is so complex that you can't throw out software without having something to replace it. Consider trying to do a modern financial analysis using only the first version of "Lotus 1-2-3". Sure, the current version of Microsoft Excel would be much more effective but unless/until you have it properly installed you shouldn't toss out your Lotus 1-2-3 because Photoshop won't help you do math. Similarly, the brain won't toss out previously used paradigms (regardless how objectively flawed or ineffective) unless/until it has something it regards as better. Consequently, when trying to change someone's mind: DO NOT START BY TELLING THEM ALL ABOUT HOW WRONG THEY ARE. Regardless of your evidence, it won't be as effective as another strategy I outline here: 1) Identify what they actually believe. (Don't jump to conclusions and don't make errors in understanding). 2) Articulate your existing areas of agreement. (This earns you credibility). 3) Introduce ideas/paradigms/input/software that support your position while simultaneously being acceptable to the person's mind you are attempting to change. Ideally, this new input will be so immaculately compatible that they will not only incorporate it but also attribute greater credibility to you (because they think you are fortifying their old paradigm). 4) Extend in small/slow, logical, "bullet-proof" steps the ramifications of these new ideas and how they necessarily lead to different proximate conclusions (but save that last "leap" conclusion for a little later). 5) Now, you may introduce your counter-arguments to his old paradigm. It is here where your criticisms will be most effective. (That's because now he has other, better, software installed. And the criticisms are telling him to get rid of the old/bad software.) 6) Finally, make your last "leap" from the newly established paradigms to your, better, conclusion. Now he can conclusively accept this "change of mind" and discard the old, worse, paradigm. I think all of this has a physiological/evolutionary biological basis. This person's synapses have been encoded in a certain way in the past and that persons very existence is some evidence (but not necessarily "proof") that those synapses in that architecture are, on some level, adaptive to the environment (if for no other reason than if they were completely counter-effectual the person would be dead). Until you help him build new synaptic architecture the brain won't voluntarily destroy its own architecture. But if you build up a bunch of new synapses that function more efficiently then the brain will nourish & fortify those areas while letting the less effective architecture atrophy or at least lie fallow. Anyway, many of you have heard me talk about versions of this theory for many years but if you now know it to be derivative (or worse yet, a complete ripoff/"simultaneous creation") please let me know ASAP. I pride myself on my creativity and originality but I'm realistic enough to attempt to be humble and request better information (if you have it - as I'm quite sure some must in this case). Thanks!