Dear Crucial Skills,
I have a question about FACTS. There has been increasing public debate over facts and, it seems, increased disregard for science. I’ve seen this at work and home. For example, my mother-in-law suggested that my wife and I buy a certain crib when our baby was born. When we showed her the crib had been proven to harm babies and was banned, she said, “Well that study is wrong.”
At work people continually speak of “learning styles” even though the initial study that forwarded the idea has been disproven. Again, facts and research will indicate one thing, but people will still rely on their gut feeling.
So, how do you hold a conversation with someone who refuses to acknowledge evidence related to the disagreement? I’m not referring to differences of opinions, but to disregarding facts or evidence. I can see how Seeking Mutual Purpose might help, but the debate over evidence still takes a lot of energy. Where should I start?
Signed,
Frustrated in Fact
Dear Frustrated,
When Covid-19 arrived in the United States in early 2020 and the country was awash in questions about its origins, a relative of mine was certain that the virus was not what officials said it was, wasn’t dangerous, and probably wasn’t even real.
I shared a different perspective, citing information that I believed was reliable, but she was firm in her stance.
“How could she!” I thought. Feeling indignant, I determined I would do what most of us do when another person is skeptical of what we deem to be facts: I would bludgeon her with more facts!
Being a writer, I decided to do this by letter. Just as militaries launch missiles a safe distance from their targets, I would send my missive from the safety of my home office.
I began the letter by expressing what I believed in my self-righteous stupor to be good intent: to keep her safe. Then I proceeded to school her in “The Philosophy of Logic,” “The Psychology of Belief,” and “Coincidence and Conspiracy.”
These and other subheadings eventually became chapter headings, complete with bulleted lists, hyperlinks, and citations. A week later, the letter exceeded 4,000 words. What began as a personal note had become a treatise in pedantry!
I read and reread the letter aloud, trying to imagine how she might receive it. I tweaked the words over and over, hoping to tame the screed. But no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t imagine her receiving it with anything other than total irritation.
Coincidentally, a random but wise remark from a coworker caused me to reconsider my approach. I concluded there was no logical argument I could make that would persuade my relative to my way of thinking, and I set the letter aside.
The way I wanted to handle that disagreement is perhaps best represented by a quote from Understanding Stupidity, by James F. Welles, who wrote, “We cannot really understand ourselves without understanding stupidity; and if we understand stupidity, we will understand ourselves.”
Notice that Welles does not say “We cannot really understand other people without understanding stupidity.” Yet when it comes to our disagreements, that’s always how we imagine it—it’s only others who are capable of being so stupid.
Ironically, it’s this tendency that allows us to appreciate the wisdom of Welles’s quote, for when we reflect on our own stupidity, we invariably recall the foolish ways we’ve handled disagreements. “Doh! Why did I say and do that? What was I thinking!”
In many ways, Crucial Conversations helps us better understand our stupidity. We learn about our reptilian brain, the stories we tell ourselves, the Fool‘s Choice, and having the wrong conversations (CPR).
I appreciate that a disagreement over facts seems to be exempt from the skills taught in the course, but it’s probably just triggering more of this “stupidity.” Because we associate facts with truth, when it appears to us that someone is willing to disregard them, we experience conflict. When we experience conflict, the reptilian brain lights up, we tell ourselves convenient stories, and we (often) foolishly resort to either silence of verbal violence.
Whattayado?
First, check your stories. You said your concerns were not related to differences of opinion but to facts, and I’d like to challenge that. As I see it, you believe in the scientific community and method, while those you mention in your question may not. In other words, your differences involve belief, or opinion. That means you have an opportunity to explore that difference. You may be knowledgeable of the scientific method, but perhaps you’re blind to the events of the other person’s life and their beliefs, the facts informing their perspective.
Check to see whether you feel indignant. If you feel some sense of disgust, you’ve most likely concluded the other person is ignorant and you’re not. While you may not be wrong in your assessment of the other person, you’ve probably overlooked your own fallibility. One lesson of Crucial Conversations and of life in general is that when we judge only others to be fools (villain story), we are more likely to act like a fool in our interactions with them.
You already alluded to another thing you can do—seek mutual purpose. You may need to explore motives to find some common ground, but it might be as simple as listening or suggesting an alternative. “I appreciate what you’re saying. I’ll keep that in mind as I do my shopping.” Or, “Thanks for your input. I don’t feel comfortable revising our lessons completely without more research and discussion, but how would you feel if we took such-and-such approach for now?”
Also, talk tentatively. Don’t misinterpret the alliteration—there’s no need to be timid. To forward your ideas tentatively simply means to make it clear they’re your perspective. Share the events or experiences that have led you to your conclusions.
I’m not saying you should avoid a discussion of facts if warranted. And if it’s a persistent source of conflict, it’s warranted. But even if you’re trying to settle a disagreement over what constitutes a fact, which is something I’ve been known to do, I think you’ll see better longterm outcomes if you use these skills.
About a week after I tucked that unfinished letter away, my relative and I decided to meet for coffee and openly discuss our beliefs about Covid. I felt very vulnerable. But instead of trying to teach her everything I think I know about logic and science, I listened to her viewpoint, and then I shared mine—as a viewpoint. “Based on my experiences, this is what I think.” That was far more effective than “Well, this is just how the world is.”
We didn’t see eye to eye, but we maintained our respect for each other, and we gained new appreciation for each other’s viewpoint, which is all I wanted in the first place. I only gained what I wanted by giving her what she wanted: someone to appreciate her perspective. In time our perspectives shifted, and in hindsight I can see it would have been futile to fight each other with facts.
I credit the outcome of that conversation to the ideas I’ve shared here, and the people who reminded me of them when I needed. I hope they are useful to you.
Ryan
PS. We’ve received numerous variations of your question over the years. I’ve linked a few replies here if you’d like to read what others have said.
The topic of Facts vs Opinion was so revealing during the unfolding of scientific knowledge in the professional health care arena during the COVID crisis. The inability to move and pivot as information was discovered handicapped all levels in health care. Be open to new information. Be open to change your mind in face of new information. Someone’s life could depend on it.
Great article, Ryan!
Facts are usually not the problem. It is the interpretation of the what the facts mean that starts the disagreement. Causation and correlation are tricky and often misunderstood. Add cognitive bias to the mix and you have people in intense arguments not about the facts, but what the facts mean. Many people approach discussions with the attitude that if I talk louder and pile on what I believe to be facts I “win.” The opposite should be the case. Enter every conversation with the humility to accept you could be wrong.
This article is very helpful and extremely readable. I love the “talk tentatively” to refer to perspective not timidity. I appreciate you starting with a potential mistaken approach and that you ended up recognizing (and achieving) mutual appreciation for one another’s viewpoint. I can feel myself detaching somewhat from my lizard brain’s intensity and I hope I can sustain that awareness more often. Thank you so much.
My favorite part of the story about you and your family member is that you still met up with her to talk. I can see myself setting aside my carefully-crafted letter and deciding to accept that she wouldn’t see reason, and not saying anything. Just kind-of settling in with my opinion that she isn’t AS rational and reasonable as I. All well and good until the topic arises again (with her or someone else) and my opinion comes gushing out in a way that harms the relationship.
I suppose the point is that I can’t expect someone to care about my perspective, experience and thoughts unless I genuinely care to hear theirs. And if it’s someone I’ll be seeing, more of, the relationship needs me to care.
What we believe sometimes to be “fact” are often not based on any rigorous scientific method but rather an expert opinion that we may have heard from our “expert” pediatrician or health care provider. These people are not “god” and their textbooks are not the “bible”. A key tenet about the scientific method is that you can question the results if they are not valid or reproducible, if they haven’t been gathered in a method that avoided bias, etc. Look at the long list of medical reversals (there is a whole book on them)… these should only fill health care providers with humility but I see a lot of arrogance instead. As a recipient of health care, I approach each interaction with humility and curiosity and a willingness to change my mind if there is good quality evidence (which you would be suprised is quite lacking in most spaces, especially all the safe sleep guidelines- there is a lovely recent interrogation of safe sleep in the Sensible Medicine substack). This is not to say the crib is “safe” or not, just that it may be not as “fact” to say its safe as we may imagine. I like that we approach conversation with humility and have some nuance in what we believe to be factual because it may not always be as such.
It’s impossible to convince anyone of anything that they don’t want to be convinced of. When people hear information that they LIKE, they generally accept it with little argument. If they hear information they DON’T like, they apply all their energy to finding any apparent flaw, weakness, or apparent exception – which can always be found, even in the most clear and well-settled science.
Critiquing the expert consensus feels even easier if the person is talking about a field of study in which they themselves do not have formal training as an expert, since the amount of information they are working with is so much smaller and they cannot see certain data as the outliers they are. Providing them with more evidence just causes them to dig their heels in deeper because it makes them feel threatened.
The key is that, most of the time, we don’t NEED to have a person believe what we believe. We just really WANT it – in the same way they really WANT their facts to be true. Ironically, letting go of the desire to change a person’s mind and just being curious about their reasons for seeing the world as they do (and curious about our own reasons for feeling so triggered by their obstinacy), is much more likely to make them receptive to ideas that they find unappealing.
In the meantime, we may have to adjust our boundaries with them so we can remain positive in our relationships and minimize our stress.
I am grateful to “Frustrated in Facts” for sending in this letter! I too, am often at a standstill when even the most basic of facts cannot be agreed upon. As humans, we easily become emotional, and then defensive, and then stuck…we can’t see any other view but our own and will defend it to the very end. Determining which facts are indeed “true” has become a complex mess these days, when so much misinformation is so easily and instantly available. It’s as if we have lost our ability to think critically, as a society. It is up to each of us individually to recognize this phenomenon and be aware of when it manifests within us.
Ryan, I think you missed the main concept here. “Facts” have become instantly disrespected and abolished if the fact doesn’t fit someone’s narrative. And this is where the mind becomes a pit of quicksand, that people cannot escape.
The covid example you used was a good one! The general public was hand-fed so much misinformation, especially in the beginning. It became a form of control, parks and schools were closed, and fear was used to paralyze and separate people in horrendous ways. Our children will be forever impacted by the terrible decisions and actions the government took, based on false “facts” they used as rhetoric.
There is a point in which, that feelings and opinions need to be set aside, and instead we acknowledge the true facts at hand. It’s necessary in order to make decisions – decisions that are based on real evidence and actual knowledge, and not emotions. Have the emotional intelligence to recognize that feelings are not what we can trust or depend on, as they are often subjective and misleading. It’s just the way us humans are!
I agree with what you have said Suzette and the most frustrating part was the media labeling anyone who even questioned and wanted to discuss a different viewpoint than the mainstream as conspiracists with the goal to shut them up and have no discussion. It is the tactic of today’s society that silences and humiliates intelligent individuals
I encourage everyone who has experienced the frustrations of Frustrated in Fact to really drill down as to why the disagreements in fact upsets them so much.
I think that the strength of the negative emotions arise not so much out of the disagreement about basic facts as from the consequences of disagreeing about the conclusions that arise from those facts.
For example, saying no to one’s mother in law can create strife, pointed comments, or silent treatments. Perhaps we fear fights with our spouse because of his or her loyalty to his or her mother, etc.
Or perhaps we fear doing something that is less than perfect or that causes unnecessary loss, or creates unnecessary suffering. In my socio-economic class here in New England, we are very much culturally conditioned to view imperfection with horror and as a moral wrong.
Naturally the above is not an exhaustive list, but two examples of the sorts of frustrations I have personally felt in disagreements, with my mother in law about politics, and with my family about a wide variety of issues.
For me, with age has come the wisdom to recognize that hurt feelings or familial conflict are inevitable – and not to be feared. Ditto with suboptimal outcomes.
It’s OK for people to be wrong. It’s OK for us to be wrong. It’s OK for us to muddle along, with what limited knowledge, time and resources we have, as we work our way through the trade-offs that are inherent to living.
I would encourage Frustrated in Fact to make peace with the fact that the people around him or her will be wrong about lots of things, and to forgive them for their transgressions, and to cultivate a benevolent approach towards navigating the resulting conflicts. I would also encourage the cultivation of the sort of humility that comes from the recognition that he or she – like every other human being on Earth – is almost certainly a believer in some ‘facts’ that are simply not so, and that he or she should thus be open to the idea that he or she is wrong.
Whenever I get too hung up my “facts” I try to remember this bit of wisdom:
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty