If They’re Wrong, Ask Them More…
Suppose you have an opinion about something and it turns out to be false. Did you actually have an opinion or were you just wrong. Do opinions have to be true to be valid?
It’s a bit confusing. Some opinions are just about our preferences. “I like this TV show.” “I don’t like that color on that house.” The authority on whether those are actual opinions is you.
Lets set those types of opinions aside and talk about issues about which two people might agree or disagree.
For these issue, the premise is that the opinion must be true for the opinion to be valid. Why? Well there’s an underlying assumption on my part that we all search for the truth. If you’re comfortable believing in falsehoods, then this discussion is not for you. If you really want to know the truth and get others on board with that truth, then read on.
Lets assume that an issue verifiable and that whatever is being argued could be found to be either true or false. If two people hold opposite opinions, then they don’t actually disagree. One is holding a real opinion. The other is just wrong about the subject. This is more than just semantics. It accurately represents the reality of the situation, whether the arguers know the truth or not.
Why is understanding this so important? If we understand that for our opinion to be valid it must also be true, then we will strive to search for the truth. On the other hand, many people believe they are “entitled to have an opinion” regardless of what other people think. This is inaccurate. They can certainly believe things which are false, but they don’t have an opinion about these things — they are just wrong. It is this distinction that keep the search for truth alive. Those that don’t understand this often stop at having the opinion.
If you have an opinion, you must constantly verify that it’s true. Most people find this exhausting because they misunderstand what it means to hold an opinion. They shirk the responsibility of holding an opinion, thinking that once they’ve decided to have it their job is done. They find it exhausting because they don’t believe that having an opinion is hard work. It is. It has always been. Being wrong is “fall off the truck” simple. Opinions aren’t so easy.
With complex subjects like health care, the topic can be so big, so complex, that there is plenty of room to hold multiple, simultaneously opposing, and yet still valid opinions.
American politics is ripe with such problems and it’s done us a disservice to argue over them. We’ve forgotten what it means to hold real opinions and the nation has moved closer to rhetorical opinions than to verifiable opinions. We should discuss the former and agree on the later. We tend to do neither.
If you have the opinion that the moon is built out of legos it’s not actually an opinion. You’re just wrong.
I believe it is this concept that has made it so difficult for American’s to agree on anything.
Why is this so important?
The concept above means that you must actually work and struggle to ensure that your opinion also true. Notice I said true. What I see a lot of people do is just look for confirmation. “Is this what others in my group also think?” “Have I read or head anything else that expresses this same opinion?” That’s what’s known as confirmation bias, AKA — the enemy of truth.
This concept means that the stronger your opinion is the stronger you have to rip it apart and dig for the truth. This understanding carries with it profound implications.
If you find yourself arguing with someone that you think is full of shit, the single most effective thing you can ask that person to do is to explain their position. You’re instinct will probably be to argue with them. Trust me, I know. No one is worse about this than me. I am, ignorant though I may be, the consummate arguer. However, my arguing has done little for the false opinions of my opponents (or my own). To actually reach a shared understanding you need a different approach.
If you suspect that the person you’re talking to is holding an invalid opinion and that what they are talking about is “just wrong,” then the thing you must do is ask them questions. It’s so freaking hard to do. My nature, the very fiber of my being, says to say, “Yeah, but that’s bullshit. Can’t you see — dumb-ass — that things are this way, not that way?”
I would love it if this worked. But never once in the history of mankind (possible exaggeration) has a human been convinced of anything by calling them a dumb-ass. It’s so frustrating because people are indeed dumb-asses!
The thing about asking questions is that it forces the other person to verbalize the ideas behind their position. If the opinion is false (not true) then it has a good chance of coming out.
The temptation when asking these questions is to pounce on the first dumb-ass, false, thing and say, “See, because of this thing you just said, you’re opinion must be false.” Don’t do this. In the words of general Ackbar, “It’s a trap!”
When they say something that you can believe you can prove to be false, rather than attacking that thing directly, ask a question about that thing. “Okay, you said you think this? Can you explain more about that detail to me?” By requesting that they dig in even deeper you increase the likelihood that they will discover the flaw rather than you pointing it out.
I cannot stress enough how much YOU need to get THEM to say the thing which is incorrect.
People cannot hear what you say. I know I have a special wavelength that is biologically ignored by women and managers but it doesn’t matter. Most people can’t hear what you say. I’ve had several long discussions about gun control on Facebook where the person I was arguing with finally resorted to name calling and saying that I was a dumb-ass asshole because of my opinions.
Why am certainly a dumb-ass asshole, I then asked each of these people to point me to where in the conversation I had stated what my position on gun control. In each case I had never actually said. Currently, it seems to be that if you hold the same opinion about guns as the NRA, then you also act like the NRA. That is to say that when you talk about you just assume that everyone else is a communist conspirator that wants to take your guns, kill your kids, and then take a big steaming dump on the constitution. It’s really become crazy.
Each of those conversations came to an abrupt halt when I asked the question, “Where did I state my position on gun control?” They had heard an opinion which I had never expressed.
Of course, Facebook is the wrong place to talk about such a hot-button topic. I’m simply using this example to illustrate both how people absolutely hear you saying things you don’t and how asking questions changes the nature of the conversation.
The research shows that arguing with someone reinforces their beliefs. Asking them questions about there beliefs appears to be one of the only tools to potentially change invalid opinions (false beliefs).
The technique of getting someone to answer questions about their opinion is not without it’s challenges.
Asking them questions forces them to confront the limits of their understanding about the issue. It’s very likely to cause anger. People will feel backed into a corner by the questions, or more precisely, by their inability to answer the questions.
Another challenge is they will evade your questions. They will know, or sense, that they can’t defend their position. Trust me, being able to defend a position has never been a prerequisite for holding one. This will usually result in them attacking you, or storming out of the conversation. If they attack you, it’s a good opportunity to explain your position. But as soon as possible switch back to questions about their false belief.
Lastly, if you do forget to ask questions are start arguing, the science shows that you will do two things. First, you will reinforce their opinion — wrong as it is. Second, they will trust you a little less making next time even harder. No, you have to give the question strategy the full weight of your ability. It’s one of the only strategies that can reveal the truth.