Evidence persuades by instilling new beliefs as well as by confirming beliefs already held. Ideally, there should be no contradiction––newly acquired evidence should be consistent with longstanding convictions held by everyone. But what if the two conflict? What if the evidence seeks to establish a conclusion that runs contrary to widely-accepted norms?
Psychologists have long studied the concept of “motivated reasoning”––the adherence to a belief in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence: “The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.” This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect stat
es associated with threat to or attainment of motives.””[1]
Examples are easily found. Take the typical car accident. It is well established that a relatively slow-speed rear-end impact can cause permanent pain and significant disability. Many, however, might be inclined to believe the contrary––that a minor impact can only give rise to relatively minor injuries. The question becomes: how to overcome this?
A number of techniques are available. One technique is to argue from “specific” evidence––that a particular fact or set of facts distinguishes the case from what normally would be
expected. But there’s another technique as well––arguing from “unknown” evidence. This would include pointing out through a qualified witness that there’s an extensive yet little-known body of medical literature which supports the conclusion that low-speed impacts can in fact cause permanent harm.
A good rule of thumb is to consider motivated reasoning to be pretty much omnipresent. To change a belief includes changing the way people think about a problem. If the same thought processes are brought to bear too often the same conclusions are reached. A shift in perspective, a new way of seeing, a variation in emphasis––these can help enable new outlooks. Thus, the first task: to show how so that others are empowered to reach the conclusion on their own
[1] Wikipedia, Motivated Reasoning, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
