Why is it so hard to change your mind?

Novelist Leo Tolstoy once remarked, “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

Until recently, I shared this belief. Extensive psychological research indicated that many individuals are highly resistant to changing their opinions, with little that can be done to alter their perspectives. This resistance, along with the rise of social media, was often cited as a factor in the growing political polarisation over the past two decades.

My perspective shifted upon discovering a new study offering hope. Stephanie Dolbier from the University of California, Los Angeles, and her colleagues reveal that psychologists have identified numerous techniques to foster open-mindedness, contingent on our ability to endure emotional discomfort.

Open-mindedness, like many psychological traits, varies among individuals. It can be assessed by gauging agreement with statements such as:

• People should consider evidence that contradicts their conclusions
• Faced with a puzzling question, we should explore multiple possible answers before deciding

And:

• Changing your mind is a sign of weakness

Those who strongly agree with the first two statements and disagree with the third are viewed as more open-minded, as opposed to those who cling to a single viewpoint without considering alternatives or revising their opinions based on new evidence.

The benefits of actively open-minded thinking are numerous. Philip Tetlock at the University of Pennsylvania and colleagues have demonstrated that it enhances the ability to anticipate geopolitical outcomes. In a two-year contest involving over 700 participants, it was revealed that top performers, termed “superforecasters,” were significantly more apt to adjust their views in light of new information compared to the average person. This mental flexibility also guards against irrational beliefs, such as conspiracy theories, which often stem from hasty conclusions about the world.

For many, however, practicing open-minded thinking is easier said than done. Admitting past errors can be embarrassing, leading us to cling to outdated opinions to save face. Moreover, our beliefs often intertwine with core aspects of our identity, like religion or political affiliation. Altering one belief can feel as if unraveling our entire sense of self, which is daunting.

To shield our ego, the brain engages in “motivated reasoning,” seeking justifications to reinforce core assumptions, even if based on fallacies or misinformation, or leading to confrontations with those who challenge us.

Maintaining an open mind requires considerable resilience to manage this discomfort, which might begin with enhanced emotional awareness. Dolbier and her team cite research from 2019 on “wise reasoning.” It suggests that those who articulate their emotions more precisely are better at considering diverse viewpoints than those who label moods simply as “good” or “bad.”

This makes sense. High emotional awareness might help me recognize that I am not angered by someone’s inability to see my perspective, but rather frustrated by my inability to communicate it effectively and fearful of appearing foolish. This insight could prompt me to reassess my stance and possibly change my mind. Perhaps the other person isn’t wrong; instead, my emotions might be clouding my judgment.

Emotional awareness might also clarify why mindfulness aids some in reasoning more logically. By focusing on their internal state, individuals can better identify and avoid knee-jerk reactions to others’ perspectives, leading to more balanced views.

If meditation is not appealing, role-playing might be a viable alternative. In one study, participants learned to respond to stressful events “like scientists, objectively and analytically.” This training led to more open-mindedness on divisive topics, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Notably, the benefits of this brief intervention were evident for at least five months following the initial experiment.

Another approach is to view disagreements within the broader scope of our lives. During heated discussions, we often lose sight of our multifaceted nature, feeling that our worth hinges on being right about one issue. By briefly reflecting on other personal qualities, such as loyalty, creativity, or humor, we can mitigate the perceived threat of differing opinions. However, this method only works if one is already aware of their potential bias, underscoring the importance of self-awareness.

Finally, reframing challenging emotions as opportunities for growth can be beneficial. Reminding people of their ability to enhance their cognitive skills can lead to more constructive responses to opposing views. With this mindset, mistakes become learning opportunities, making it easier to revise previous beliefs.

Dolbier and her colleagues stress that these techniques need further testing in diverse settings, and new methods may arise. Nonetheless, this research offers a starting point, and I plan to apply some of these strategies the next time my beliefs are questioned.

David Robson’s latest book is The Laws of Connection: 13 social strategies that will transform your life. If you have a question that you would like answered in his column, please send him a message at davidrobson.me/contact.