Both
Chuck and I are safely back home and each diving into the next segment of our
lives. In our time in Athens and Madrid, we were able to contribute to the work
of the GEM personnel as they fulfill their calling in the service of the
Gospel. We taught interactive training techniques and introduced them to the
concept of interactive narrative. We explored a range of communication skills
in practical and applied ways. Chuck was able to perform several different
pieces, which not only illustrated the power of storytelling, but also
ministered to those present.
During our final dinner in Athens, one of the
interns we had been working with sought us out to let us know he had that very
day used the storytelling skills we had been working on and was very excited
about what had happened as a result. At the closing de-brief in Madrid, one of the
key leaders in the new immigrant missions project expressed both excitement and
gratitude for our contributions. There was much discussion of plans for the
future, continuing to expand in these skills.
God is good.
You can
imagine the smile on my face, when, upon returning to the US, I noticed the article
in the New York Times Magazine which I have pasted in below. This is what we’re
on about.
Thank you all so much for
your prayers and support! As soon as we have the photos from the video/photo
crew we’ll put together a report for all interested parties.
Grace be with
you all!
- David
The New York Times Magazine // August
15, 2012
The Mind of a Flip-Flopper
By
MAGGIE KOERTH-BAKER
Forget for a minute everything you
know about politics. Barack Obama now openly supports gay marriage. Mitt Romney
now opposes roughly the same kind of health care reform he fought for as
governor of Massachusetts. What if they weren’t two politicians calculating how
to win an election but instead just two guys who changed their minds? They
didn’t “flip-flop”; they experienced, as social scientists say, an attitude
change, the way any of us do when we become a vegetarian or befriend a neighbor
we used to hate or even just choose to buy a new brand of toothpaste.
Scientists have been studying
attitudes and preferences for more than a century; those topics are bound to
the origins of social psychology itself. Some of the earliest research, like
William Thomas and Florian Znaniecki’s five-volume set, “The Polish Peasant
in Europe and America,” published in 1918, revolved around the attitudes of
immigrants: how they lived, what their neighbors thought of them, how they
changed as they became Americans.
In the last decade, psychologists
have focused increasing attention on moral attitudes. Jonathan Haidt, professor
of psychology at the Stern School of Business at New York University and author
of “The Righteous Mind,” told me that researchers have been especially
interested in the way emotions and attitudes interact. Moral attitudes are
especially difficult to change, Haidt said, because the emotions attached to
those preferences largely define who we are. “Certain beliefs are so important
for a society or group that they become part of how you prove your identity,”
he said. “It’s as though we circle around these ideas. It’s how we become one.”
We tend to side with people who
share our identity — even when the facts disagree — and calling someone a
flip-flopper is a way of calling them morally suspect, as if those who change
their minds are in some way being unfaithful to their group. This is nonsense,
of course. People change their minds all the time, even about very important
matters. It’s just hard to do when the stakes are high. That’s why marshaling
data and making rational arguments won’t work. Whether you’re changing your own
mind or someone else’s, the key is emotional, persuasive storytelling.
In 2006, researchers from Ohio State
University and Colorado State University demonstrated that a well-written TV
drama can change the political opinions of college students. They split 178
students into two groups. One watched a crime show that told a persuasive story
about the value of the death penalty. The other group watched a different,
unrelated drama. Afterward, both groups were interviewed about their personal
beliefs and their opinions on the death penalty. The students who watched the
crime show were more likely to support the death penalty. In fact, support for
the death penalty was about the same whether those students self-identified as
liberal or conservative. That wasn’t true among the students who watched the
other show. There, political ideology strongly predicted their opinions on the
death penalty.
Timothy Wilson is a psychology
professor at the University of Virginia and the author of the book “Redirect,”
about how we change our minds and behavior. Stories are more powerful than
data, Wilson says, because they allow individuals to identify emotionally with
ideas and people they might otherwise see as “outsiders.” Wilson says
researchers speculate that children who grew up seeing friendly gay people on
TV will be more likely to support gay marriage as adults, regardless of other
political affiliations and religious beliefs. Once you care about a character,
Wilson says, you can find a way to fit them into your identity.
Our identities, of course, are also
stories we tell ourselves about ourselves. In some cases — if we want to think
of ourselves as thoughtful and open-minded — we can adopt identities that
actually encourage flip-flopping. This is why juries function, and it’s
what places pressure on scientists to form opinions based on reliable data. In
2009, the Oregon Legislature mandated the creation of the Oregon Citizens’
Initiative Review, panels made up of random residents assigned to review
and assess ballot initiatives in “citizens’ statements.” The panelists know
they’re expected to base their opinions on hard evidence, and this expectation
becomes part of their temporary identity.
Under those conditions, says John
Gastil, professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State, facts
suddenly matter. He points to Measure 73, a widely popular mandatory sentencing
initiative, which the citizens’ panel voted against, 21 to 3. The panelists
felt obligated to consider the measure more carefully than they otherwise would
have, Gastil says, so they noted the high costs and thought about people who
might be unfairly punished. Only a minority of voters knew the panel existed,
so the measure still passed — though by a smaller margin than expected. In a
study he performed on the public response to Measure 73, Gastil found that the
panel’s opinion significantly changed the minds of those people who read its
findings. “You got a shift from two-thirds in favor to two-thirds against just
by reading the report,” Gastil says.
Simply having to articulate why you
believe what you do can also end up changing your attitude. Timothy Wilson and
his colleagues showed posters to people and asked some of them to explain why
they liked or disliked the images. Then they allowed every participant to take
one poster home. The people who had to explain their preferences chose the
poster they most easily justified liking. But when they were called a week
later, those same people were least satisfied with their decision. “They talked
themselves into choosing something they really didn’t like that much,” Wilson
says, noting that if you have to explain your preferences, you’re likely to
adopt an attitude that makes sense to your interlocutor, even if it conflicts
with your emotions.
Even when we do change our
minds, we often convince ourselves that we haven’t. Wilson points to the work
of Michael Ross, professor emeritus of social psychology at the University of
Waterloo in Canada. Since the 1970s, Ross has been studying autobiographies and
has found that authors largely distort their pasts, depending on what point of
their story they want to emphasize. The end result, it always turns out, was
where they were heading all along.
All of this can help explain how a
couple of politicians might change their minds but feel they haven’t actually
changed their beliefs. Obama has said conversations with his daughters about
friends of theirs with gay parents affected his thinking. Romney has had to
spend a lot of time explaining his beliefs and past decisions to groups of very
conservative voters, who weren’t inclined to accept him as part of their tribe,
and perhaps that process has genuinely led him to question his thinking on
health care. Of course, both men could just be pandering for votes.
We change our minds for utilitarian
reasons, too. Especially pragmatic thinkers will consider whether an idea is
feasible before they adopt it, says Michael Slater, professor of communication
and behavioral sciences at Ohio State University.
But even in Washington,
understanding the power of stories could go a long ways toward bridging gaps
that only get bigger when we expect those who disagree to rationally accept
data and evidence. “We fight it out by throwing arguments at each other and are
upset when they have no effect,” Haidt says. “It makes us accuse our opponents
of bad faith and ulterior motives. But the truth is that our minds just aren’t
set up to be changed by mere evidence and argument presented by a ‘stranger.’ ”
Maggie Koerth-Baker is science editor at BoingBoing.net
and the author of “Before the Lights Go Out,” on the future of energy
production and consumption.
