Based on a chat with a good friend, I was thinking this:
Once you give a person the opportunity to discover something for themselves, it will be harder to convince them of anything else, even if the facts that are the basis of that “discovery” are exaggerated or wrong.
Once people have made their decision, it is as if they reinforce their facts as well. Not only their decision is their own, but to agree also the accepted facts.
Some additional and related thoughts:
- When people “discover” something themselves, it often feels more authentic and personal, reinforcing their confidence in the conclusion. Self-discovery engages critical thinking and ownership of the idea.
- Once a belief or decision is made, confirmation bias kicks in. People tend to seek, recall, or interpret information in a way that supports their prior beliefs. This makes it harder to introduce contrary evidence.
- The phenomenon of “believing in the facts that support our decisions” ties into cognitive dissonance reduction. If people accept a premise (even an exaggerated or false one), they – unconsciously – reinforce the value of those facts, to better align with their decision.
- Changing someone’s mind after they’ve made a “discovery” is challenging. It may require not only presenting new evidence but also addressing the emotional and cognitive investment in their initial conclusion.
Wait a minute… Forget what I said, let me rephrase! :-)
What happens when someone is given the time and space to discover something for themselves? Does that discovery feel more personal and authentic than simply being told?
Imagine someone reaches a conclusion based on what they believe they’ve uncovered. Even if the facts they base it on are exaggerated – or outright wrong – how easy do you think it would be to change their mind? Would they cling to their decision because it feels like their own?
Once I reach a decision, I think I reinforce the facts that support it, even unconsciously.. Is this why I often seek out information that aligns with what I already believe? Stuff I don’t concur with get less attention. This is likely related to the genetic fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic), right?
And what about the role of emotion? If someone’s belief isn’t just about logic but also tied to their sense of discovery, how much harder does that make it to introduce new evidence? How willing would you be to reconsider? Or is it easier to dismiss that what challenges your perspective?
When you think about these questions, what does it say about how we form beliefs and hold onto them? Could it be that the act of discovering something – right or wrong – shapes not just our decisions but also how we see the facts themselves?