Have you ever been in a debate with someone who disagrees with you, only to leave and realize that, despite saying a lot, your respective views remain unchanged?
A debate is one of four types of conversations, according to conflict consultant David Angel, who defines it as a competitive two-way conversation. The purpose of a debate is to convince the other person your point of view is more correct than theirs.
The importance of debate hinges on the assumption that as humans, we can adjust our minds to believe rational things. However, our ability to change our minds, even when we are so obviously incorrect, may be much weaker than we are willing to admit.
For much of history, it was assumed that human decision-making was relatively straightforward. We are presented with a set of premises and, using our ability to reason, make the best decision.
However, this idea of decision-making began to run into problems with the rise of cognitive science in the 1970s, when people began to realize just how flawed our thinking truly is.
In reality, our ability to reason our way to the correct decision is not meant to lead us to an honest conclusion, but rather to increase our collective comfortability in a group.
Elizabeth Kolbert wrote in a New Yorker article: “Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.”
This means debate, which is a conversation that inherently disengages from collective group thought in order to pursue truth with a capital ‘T,’ runs counter to our natural human behavior. In fact, debate might not even be possible at all.
Debates are meant to hold no punches, but new research suggests that when our strongly held beliefs are challenged, the areas of our brain responsible for self-identity and negative emotions are activated.
This means our beliefs exist as a part of ourselves. When they are challenged, we perceive it as an attack on our own personal identity. Understandably, this makes us upset.
Not-so-understandably, this phenomenon makes it nearly impossible to reject a belief, no matter how wrong it may be.
If beliefs are stuck as is, then clearly our way of debating is flawed. It is rather bleak to think that, despite being presented with persuasive arguments, we continue to stand our — faulty — logical ground. In that case, debates would be rendered not only useless but, in fact, dangerous.
Fortunately, though our minds may be extremely stubborn, not all hope is lost.
Given that our beliefs tend to be clouded in what we consider our identity, it can be hard to recognize a thought. However, if we find ourselves in a situation where our beliefs are being challenged, we can separate ourselves from our thoughts by stopping to think about what exists outside of us and what exists as part of us.
For example, if it feels as though someone is attacking you, take a step back and think about why you believe they are attacking you.
Saying your haircut is bad and your eye color is ugly? That’s an attack on your identity. Saying your disbelief in climate change is wrong? That’s an attack on your belief, which you have wrongly associated with your identity.
This metacognitive strategy of constantly checking your thoughts to understand more about them is extremely important for reasonable thinking, but is also extremely difficult to keep up consistently. Luckily, we may also be able to change our beliefs in an easier, albeit longer, way.
Rarely do our thoughts and beliefs change at one specific time or because of one specific event. Instead, our beliefs change gradually and subconsciously, not because of our specific desire to change, but rather because of many, many different experiences.
So, what does this mean for the nature of human debate? Are we doomed to always believe what we believe, or can we hope to change?
Well, if you have read anything I’ve written so far, you’ll know that the answer is — as it almost always is — yes and no. And a lot of both.
Our thoughts may not change immediately as the result of a debate, and we may leave many debates feeling worse than before. However, through constant exposure to differing ideas and personal techniques in thought, we can hope to live with reasonable and honest beliefs.
