91av

WHEN was the last time someone managed to change your mind using reasoned
argument? I’m talking here about a volte-face over some important issue that you
held a deep conviction about, not whether to have chocolate or strawberry ice
cream.

Thinking back to all the late-night arguments I have had about politics,
euthanasia or whether Brian Clough should have managed the England football
team, I can’t recall anyone ever saying to me: “Hey, you know, thinking about
it, your arguments are plainly better than mine. You’re right and I’m wrong, so
I’m going to change my mind.” Admittedly, I don’t recall ever saying anything
remotely like that myself.

But late-night bigots aren’t the only ones who ignore reason in defence of
their own point of view. Scientists are among the most obstinate clingers to the
wreckage of failing ideas. Indeed, it’s rare for scientific theories to be
unambiguously refuted: science typically only abandons unpromising ideas when
the scientists peddling them die. What, then, is the point of reasoned argument?
You might sway the uncommitted, but preaching to the opposition is usually
fruitless.

Unconvinced? I know I won’t convert entrenched dissenters, but let me offer
evidence of scientists’ prejudice. Jay Koehler, a psychologist at the University
of Texas, asked two groups of scientists to rate a paper reporting a study of
extrasensory perception according to the quality of its methodology. One group
was sympathetic to the possibility of ESP while the other group was sceptical.
The academic background of all the participants was strong: most held PhDs and
had published in the field. Half of each group reviewed a report of an
experiment that found evidence for ESP, and the other half reviewed an identical
report—except that it found no evidence for ESP.

Koehler discovered that both sceptics and believers rated reports that backed
their prior beliefs significantly more favourably than studies that didn’t.

Politicians are also deeply reluctant to change their minds. Worse still,
when they do change their point of view they try desperately hard to conceal the
fact—which accounts for journalists’ habit of pouncing on the slightest
change of emphasis in any position. Far from being responsive to argument,
politicians consider it highly embarrassing to show flexibility and will avoid
the much-maligned U-turn at all costs.

Alternatively, maybe the brain is just being lazy. Psychologist Peter Wason
discovered that we have enormous difficulty understanding certain sentences that
contradict common sense, such as “No head injury is too trivial to be ignored.”
Although this states that you should ignore all head injuries, however trivial,
most people insist it means the opposite. Sometimes our brains reinterpret
awkward realities to fit easy suppositions.

I discussed all this with a friend who disagreed. She insisted that people
aren’t particularly reluctant to change their minds. We ended up arguing. Our
conversation ended abruptly when I pointed out that she could win the argument
by admitting that she was wrong and I was right.