Overconfidence about Ability to Persuade Others
People tend to be overconfident that rational dialogue will resolve disagreements, but when persuasion fails, they attribute bias to others while remaining blind to their own biases, leading to less charitable interpretations of opposing views.
THE IDEA
Overconfidence about Ability to Persuade Others
As naive realists, our initial interpretation of disagreements is apt to be relatively charitable. We are inclined to assume that the other party has not yet been exposed to the “way things are,” or has not yet been privy to the “real” facts and considerations. Indeed, we may even be so charitable as to concede that the other party may be privy to additional facts and considerations that might actually change our own views. In either case, this charitable interpretation of disagreement leads us to be confident – indeed, over confident – that rational, open-minded dialog, in which information is freely exchanged, will lead to agreement or at least to an appreciable narrowing of disagreement. This optimism is likely to be short-lived, however, especially in the social and political arena. Repeated attempts at dialog with those on the other side make it quite clear that they rarely yield to our attempts to enlighten them, and that they rarely present new facts and arguments that persuade us to change our minds.
Given this state of affairs, less charitable interpretations of disagreement become inevitable, especially when our adversaries are persistent and outspoken and the issue is consequential. We conclude that our adversaries are biased by self-interest, ideology, or some other distorting top-down influence. We assume that these biases distort either their construal of relevant information or their capacity to proceed rationally and cogently from facts to conclusions. We feel that while we have proceeded in a logical bottom-up manner, from the available facts to reasonable construals and beliefs, those who hold opposing beliefs have done just the opposite (i.e., they have proceeded in top-down fashion, from preexisting motives and beliefs to biased interpretation). Indeed, a close examination of matters serves to sustain rather than allay such suspicions. We note that the rich favor lower taxes while the poor favor a higher minimum wage. We see the religious zealot interpret scientific evidence with injurious prejudice and an eye to the scriptures, while the atheist dismisses personal testimony about the power of prayer. What we fail to detect is the congruity between our own views and interests and the way we interpret evidence.
When to use it
Engaging in political discussions where both sides are entrenched
Mediating workplace conflicts between team members with opposing views
Attempting to convince family members about a scientific or social issue
Debating policy decisions in a public forum or on social media
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Political Debate
In a heated political debate, each side enters believing that presenting more facts and logical arguments will convince the other. After repeated failures, each side accuses the other of being biased by ideology or self-interest, while failing to recognize their own selective interpretation of evidence.
Workplace Disagreement
A manager is confident that a clear memo about a new policy will persuade employees to adopt it. When employees resist, the manager concludes they are resistant to change or self-interested, without considering how the memo itself might be biased toward the manager's perspective.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a recent disagreement where you were confident you could persuade the other person. What assumptions did you make about their openness to evidence?
When have you attributed bias to an opponent while overlooking your own biases in interpreting the same evidence?
How might your own interests or background shape the way you view a contentious issue, and why might that be invisible to you?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Heuristics and Biases The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman)