Can Idiotic Opinions Be Changed?

By Mika Horelli, BRUSSELS

Logical arguments often fail to change opinions contrary to what one might expect. This phenomenon stems from the complex workings of the human mind and how we form and maintain our beliefs. As a journalist, I observe the world and its events, striving to understand the causes and effects of various phenomena. (I confess, I've always been a terrible chess player, which perhaps indicates my difficulty in anticipating where each move will lead.) While I certainly have my views on various issues, it is a good day for someone to change my opinion by presenting their case with sufficiently convincing facts.

Ideally, we should learn something new daily, often adjusting our perceptions to better align with the latest verified information. It's tempting to think that a good argument can change anyone's mind. If facts are presented clearly and logically, shouldn't the other party understand the core issue and realise the truth? But in reality, this rarely happens. Political, moral, and personal views are often set in stone, unyielding even in the face of irrefutable evidence.

The human mind isn't built solely on logical reasoning. Although we're capable of rational thought, it's not our primary way of processing the world. Psychologists have found that most decisions are intuitive and based on emotions. We often form opinions based on quick, instinctive reactions and then seek justifications to support the decision we've already made.

This phenomenon is called motivated reasoning. It means that when we encounter information, we don't evaluate it neutrally but based on how well it fits our existing beliefs. If the information supports our view, we accept it easily. If it contradicts us, we look for reasons to reject it.

In my youth, when I worked at an advertising agency in Helsinki, one of my clients was Volvo. Their main message was to market the brand as an exceptionally safe car. The chassis had more steel, the brakes were more advanced than many competitors, and the side mirrors had heating to automatically evaporate ice and water - many small details. An older colleague explained that these rational reasons were secondary to Volvo's need to first charm potential buyers. Once an emotional connection was created with some purely emotional appeal, those safety features were necessary for buyers to justify purchasing a more expensive car at home. The wife (yes, it was usually the man who was car shopping) wasn't told about the status Volvo brought, but specifically about safety.

Historical examples demonstrate how accepting new information can lead to success while clinging to old opinions can lead to catastrophe. For instance, in the mid-19th century, Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that hand washing significantly reduced mortality in maternity wards. His colleagues considered the demand for hygiene foolish because it challenged established medical practices and their professional pride. It wasn't until decades later that research by Louis Pasteur and others proved the existence of microorganisms and the benefits of hygiene. The rejection of Semmelweis's ideas and his colleagues' stubbornness cost millions of lives.

On the other hand, despite facing enormous opposition when published in 1859, the scientific community eventually accepted Charles Darwin's theory of evolution because it offered a superior explanation for biological diversity. The scientific world was ultimately ready to change its views.

Opinions are not isolated thoughts for us—they are part of who we are. They relate to the groups we belong to, the values we hold dear, and the worldview upon which we've built our understanding of reality. When someone challenges our opinions, it doesn't feel like a mere disagreement but an attack on our identity.

This phenomenon is particularly evident in politics. If a person is committed to a particular political ideology, logical counterarguments rarely change their stance—on the contrary, they may reinforce their original view. This is called the backfire effect: when people are presented with evidence that challenges their beliefs, they may cling even more tightly to their original opinion.

If logical arguments don't work, it doesn't mean opinions can never be changed. The key is understanding that direct debate rarely works - instead, influence happens slowly and indirectly. Changing an opinion first requires listening and showing understanding. Building trust is essential, as people are more likely to change their minds if they feel their conversation partner is on their side, not against them.

Merely presenting facts is usually insufficient; emotions and stories have a more substantial impact than cold statistics. A single story can be more effective than a host of research results. People also don't like being told directly what they should think, so leaving room for insight is often more effective than direct debate.

Changing opinions is a complex process that requires time, understanding, and empathy. It also requires a willingness to question one's beliefs and be open to new perspectives. This doesn't mean we should abandon our values and beliefs in the face of every counterargument, but rather that we should be ready to examine them critically and modify them when necessary.

This challenge is particularly evident in political decision-making. Policymakers should be ready to change their positions in light of new information but must also balance their voters' expectations with long-term societal needs. This requires courage and the ability to communicate the rationale for decisions clearly and honestly.

We're moving in the opposite direction in the current political reality. Donald Trump has garnered an incomprehensible number of followers who admire this liar for creating a world where there's not even an attempt to seek the truth.

Subscribe to my blog if you want to read more on this topic.