Facts are the cornerstone of reality. At least it was so before. Starting with the Epoch of Enlightenment, philosophers and scientists in search of truths preferred objective facts, not experiment. But in the era of fake news, political disagreements, increased social tensions and disinformation stream, many people no longer seem reliable people. Because of the strange ambiguity of the perception of "facts", their use to support their own belief is no longer a faithful strategy, the authors of a new study are considered. The results have shown that people believe in the truth of both facts and personal experience in nonoral disagreements; However, in moral disagreements, subjective experiences seem more true (that is, less dubious) than objective facts. It turns out that the results of a new study not only demonstrate how to overcome moral disagreements, but also show how intuition can knock us off the true path.
Facts and personal experience
The habit of relying on the facts to change the opinion of the opponent has a long story, the roots of which will go down to the era of enlightenment and promotion of rational thinking based on truth and logic. Sometime to base their arguments on facts was considered a reasonable way to conquer respect for others and win over opponents during the debate. Today, rationality itself was not necessarily out of fashion, but it becomes more and more difficult to use the facts to win the debates or conquer respect for others, write the authors published in the PNAS magazine.
Although it may seem a paradox, the path to rationality and respect in political debates or disputes may be to share their own subjective experiences instead of objective facts. All because it is most likely to seem to man with the opposite point of view of the truth.
But if you really want to change someone's opinion on a serious topic, there is something else that it is worth telling your companion: "This is your own personal experience." According to the social psychologist and the leading author of the new study by Emily Cuban from the University of Koblenz-Landau in Germany, political opponents respect the moral beliefs, especially when they are supported by personal experience. "Ensuring the perception of truth within the framework of moral disagreements is better achieved by sharing subjective experience, and not by providing facts," Kubin writes.
If you are interested in science and technology news, subscribe to our news telegram channel. There you will find the announcements of the latest news of our site!
Such a conclusion researchers came after 15 separate experiments, during which the team measured and compared whether the facts based on the facts or experiences of moral or political points of view are more rational for participants. In experiments on such issues as a weapon control, coal and abortion, with the participation of thousands of subjects, as well as an analysis of more than 300,000 comments on YouTube video, the researchers found that the arguments expressing the appropriate personal experience won the strategies Founded on facts.
"Since personal experiences are perceived as more reliable information than the facts, they create the visibility of rationality in opponents, which, in turn, increases respect," explain the authors. "We assume that this is because personal experience is not questionable; suffering from first killes may be relatively immune to doubt. "
Among the personal experiences of history in which people share their experience or suffering, they received more respect from the listeners. It turns out that everything you need is to offer you to see you as a rational, feeling human being, "said Senior Researcher and Social Psychiatrist Kurt Gray from the University of North Carolina in an interview. "What people need to do is to talk, which reveal their vulnerability."
See also: How often do you doubt your own beliefs?
This does not mean that the facts are completely useless, as researchers recognize that the most productive conversations between people with opposite points of view may include a combination of both personal experience and facts. In fact, some researchers warn that this is not a situation "or-or-or", and often more than one tactic is required to change someone's opinion. "We assume that personal experience can be used at the beginning of the conversation, to first build a foundation of mutual respect, - the authors write, and then the facts can be represented as the conversation proceeds to specific political issues."
Ultimately, although the researchers recognize that the results obtained still leave questions on which there is no answer, they note that their results can highlight a scalable mechanism that will help to overcome moral differences in the fact that, unfortunately, it became a very fragmented society. "DEPARTMENTS". "We hope that people will be able to accept the results obtained and, I hope, lead more respectful conversations in the era of extreme polarization," they write scientists.