What Would You Give Up To Be Right?

Human beings are rational, right? That's what separates us from other mammals, our ability to make rational choices, right?

So why do people chose to cling to an opinion even after they are presented with verifiable but contradictory evidence?

An article by Lane Wallace in The Atlantic Magazine examines research by multiple social scientists which shows that people often employ "motivated reasoning." "Motivated reasoning" helps fend off any evidence which might prove strongly held beliefs are wrong.

Wallace describes this "motivated reasoning" as a response to "cognitive dissonance" -- discomfort caused by the presence of two irreconcilable ideas in the mind at once. She writes:

"One way of resolving the dissonance would be to change or alter the originally held opinion. But the researchers found that many people instead choose to change the conflicting evidence--selectively seeking out information or arguments that support their position while arguing around or ignoring any opposing evidence, even if that means using questionable or contorted logic."

We can see this type of motivated reasoning all around us in the current political climate -- the decision to reject ideas or opinions we might otherwise embrace when those ideas come from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

However, we don't have to wade into civic debate to see this concept at work. You can look around your own office, or the private chambers of your own mind to witness how hard it is to release old ideas.

Within the research, UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman observes "the brute fact [is] that people identify their opinions with themselves...to admit having been wrong is to have lost the argument, and (as Vince Lombardi said), every time you lose, you die a little." Kleiman adds: "there is no more destructive force in human affairs -- not greed, not hatred -- than the desire to have been right."

Another way of seeing this pattern is "It's my story and I'm sticking to it" approach. I've written about this presentation before in this blog; the embrace of a well-worn personal story even when it no longer serves you or your needs.

Kleiman describes the struggle this way:

"I would define a true intellectual as one who cares terribly about being right, and not at all about having been right."

As Wallace says "Easy to say, very hard to achieve."

The use of the words "true intellectual" make this internal struggle sound lofty and high-minded. And it is. But at the same time, this is the work that faces each of us; in our internal dialogues, with our families and friends, in the work place, and in our evaluation of the great issues of the day.

Are we willing to receive and consider knowledge that goes against what we think we already know?

What are you willing to give up to truly be right?