How To Change Your Mind (Ep PDF

How to Change Your Mind (Ep. 379 Rebroadcast) - Freakonomics about:reader?url=http://freakonomics.com/podcast/change-your-mind-re...
freakonomics.com
How to Change Your Mind (Ep. 379

Rebroadcast) - Freakonomics
by Stephen J. Dubner Produced by Matt Hickey
36-46 minutos
If you aren’t listening to a certain style of music by the time you’re in

your late 20’s, there’s a 95 percent chance you’re never going to.
(Photo: Magni/Pexels)
There are a lot of barriers to changing your mind: ego,

overconfidence, inertia — and cost. Politicians who flip-flop get
mocked; family and friends who cross tribal borders are shunned.
But shouldn’t we be encouraging people to change their minds?
And how can we get better at it ourselves?
Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or

elsewhere. Below is a transcript of the episode, edited for
readability. For more information on the people and ideas in the
episode, see the links at the bottom of this post.
1 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
* * *
If you live in America, where we celebrate Thanksgiving, there’s a

good chance you found yourself breaking bread this week with
family members you may not see that often. And who may not see
the world at all as you see it. So we thought it might be helpful to
replay an episode from our archive called “How to Change Your
Mind.” It’s also useful even without Thanksgiving, so even if you
don’t live in America, that’s okay too. By the way, nearly one-third of
our listeners are outside the U.S. It’s a nice feeling to know we
travel so well — so wherever you are, thanks for listening.
* * *
Here’s an interesting fact: legislators in several Republican-

controlled states are pushing to eliminate the death penalty. Why is
that interesting? Because most Republicans have typically been in
favor of the death penalty. They’ve said it’s a deterrent against the
most horrific crimes and a fitting penalty when such crimes do
occur. But a lot of Republicans have come to believe the death
penalty does not deter crime — which happens to be an argument
we offered evidence for in Freakonomics. They also say the lengthy
legal appeals on death-penalty cases are too costly for taxpayers.
Some Republicans also cite moral concerns with the death penalty.
And so: a lot of them have changed their minds. We’ve all changed
our minds at some point, about something. Maybe you were a cat
person and became a dog person. Maybe you decided the place
you lived, or the person you loved, or the religion you followed —
that they weren’t working for you any more. But changing your mind
is rarely easy; and it’s not something you set out to do. Although if
you’re like most people, you would very much like other people to
change their minds. To think more like you. Because as you see it,
2 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
it’s impossible for the world to progress, to improve, unless some

people are willing to change their minds. But like I said, it won’t be
easy. Because changing your mind means admitting, on some
level, that you used to be wrong. It can be seen as an act of
weakness, even heresy. Today on Freakonomics Radio: how to
change minds, or at least try to.
Steve SLOMAN: Well, there’s no silver bullet.
But can’t you just present some compelling facts?
Francis FUKUYAMA: This model where people just take facts and
draw conclusions is completely wrong.
The incentives are also tricky.
Julia SHVETS: If they were to change their tune, everybody would

see them as a loser.
* * *
Stephen J. DUBNER: Tell me something that you believed to be

true for a long time until you found out you were wrong.
Robert SAPOLSKY: The list is endless. I used to be a very serious

pianist, and I was one of the snot-nosed classical ones who was
appalled by nightmares of Ethel Merman and trombones blasting in
the background and who knows what else. And then the wonderful
person I married turned out to be a musical-theater fanatic. And in
fact, my wife is a musical-theater director.
DUBNER: So it wasn’t just a case of you accommodating out of

love and familial attachment. Your actual preferences changed?
SAPOLSKY: Oh, I thrill at the excitement of seeing a bunch of

barely-remembering-their-lines high-school students stumbling their
3 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
way through Music Man or — actually, that’s not true, I still loathe
Music Man. But I actually have come to like musicals a whole lot.
She and I have done 19 of them now together, she’s directed I’ve
been sort of the rehearsal pianist.
DUBNER: Oh boy, you really went — you crossed the border then,
fully.
SAPOLSKY: Yes. Yes.
Who is this guy, and why should we care that he’s changed his
mind?
SAPOLSKY: I’m Robert Sapolsky. I’m a professor of neuroscience

at Stanford University, and I’m kind of half-neurobiologist, half-
primatologist. For about 30 years, I’ve divided my time between
your basic rat-lab neurons growing in petri dishes and then
studying populations of wild baboons in the Serengeti in East
Africa.
DUBNER: So considering that I’m not a neuroscientist — in fact,

pretty much as far from it as could be — I do have a sense that the
brain and the mind may be two separate things, but I’d love you to
comment on the relationship between the two.
SAPOLSKY: I am completely of the school that mind is entirely the

manifestation of brain. So when there’s a change in mind, there’s
got to be a neurobiological underpinning.
Sapolsky, as he noted earlier, has changed his own mind quite a

lot. He started early.
SAPOLSKY: I was raised as an Orthodox Jew in a major

neighborhood specializing in that, in Brooklyn. And somewhere
when I was about 14, something changed. And that change
4 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
probably involved updating every molecule in my body, in that I sort

of realized: this is nonsense, there’s no God, there’s no free will,
there is no purpose. And I have not been capable of a shred of
religiosity or spirituality ever since.
DUBNER: And was there a familial schism then?
SAPOLSKY: Oh, I was one of those terribly nerdy, scholarly,

passive- aggressive kids where I never said a word about it to my
highly religious and demanding father. And he went to his grave
having no idea.
DUBNER: No kidding. How old were you when he died?
SAPOLSKY: In my thirties.
DUBNER: So had you come home and gone to Yom Kippur with
him and faked it, or how did that work?
SAPOLSKY: Yeah. Yeah. And not just for the High Holy Days. I’m
home for three days visiting and he’s not going to change, he
doesn’t need this sort of headache or heartache at this point, so
whatever. It just would have been very hurtful to someone of
enormous importance to me.
One thing Sapolsky noticed about mind-changing is that it’s easier

when you’re younger.
SAPOLSKY: Just noticing the general phenomenon that we get

less open to novelty as we get older.
So he worked up a survey to look at people’s preferences in food,

music, and so on.
SAPOLSKY: What you wind up seeing is basically if you are not

listening to a certain style of music by the time you’re 28 or so, 95
5 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
percent chance you’re never going to. By age 35, if you’re not
eating sushi, 95 percent chance you never will. In other words,
these windows of openness to novelty close. But then as a
biologist, the thing that floored me is, you take a lab rat and you
look at when in its life it’s willing to try a novel type of food — and
it’s the exact same curve! The equivalent of 10-year-old lab rats
hate broccoli as much as 10-year-old humans do. And late
adolescence, early adulthood, there’s this sudden craving for
novelty. And that’s when primates pick up and leave their home
troops and transfer into new ones. And then by the time you’re a
middle-aged adult rat, you’re never going to try anything new for
the rest of your life. It’s the exact same curve, which fascinated me.
DUBNER: Did it make you say, “My goodness, I’m biologically

programmed to never want to try any new music, food, experience
again, and therefore I’m going to push through that.” Or did you
accept your fate?
SAPOLSKY: It had no impact on me whatsoever. I’m one of those

scientist-professor types who’s capable of lecturing on a subject
and paying no attention to what I’m saying. Like I’ve spent my
whole life studying about the adverse effects of stress on your
health and your psyche. And I’m the most frazzled, stressed person
around. I’ve gleaned absolutely nothing useful from any of my life
work.
There are a lot of reasons why it may be easier to change your

mind when you’re younger. It could be the fact that your brain is
simply more plastic then — something scientists assumed for a
long time but now are starting to question. Or it could be that your
positions are less entrenched, so it’s less costly to change them. Or
it could be that the stakes are lower: the fate of the world doesn’t
6 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
hinge on whether you are pro-broccoli or anti-broccoli. But as life

goes on:
VOICEOVER: Now there’s nothing wrong with a little indecision.
As the stakes rise.
VOICEOVER: As long as your job doesn’t involve any

responsibility.
Changing your mind can get more costly.
VOICEOVER: John Kerry has changed his mind on all these

important issues.
When Massachusetts Senator John Kerry ran for President against

the incumbent, George W. Bush, in 2004, Kerry’s campaign began
to crater after it was shown that he’d changed his position — or at
least his votes in the Senate — on a number of issues.
VOICEOVER: If you thought you could trust him, you might want to
change your mind too.
FUKUYAMA: So I think that’s the way politics itself works.
That’s Francis Fukuyama. He’s a political scientist at Stanford.
FUKUYAMA: My work really centers on research and practice

about political institutions.
In 1992, Fukuyama wrote a book that became a sensation. It was

called The End of History and the Last Man.
FUKUYAMA: In the late 1980s, as I was following events in the

Soviet Union, I said well, to the extent that there is an end of
history, it’s going to look like liberal democracy tied to a market
economy.
7 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
In other words: democracy had essentially won. Not just the Cold
War, but the future. And yet: a lot of the recent political momentum
is going in the other direction: toward populism and
authoritarianism, with a backlash against globalism.
DUBNER: So to what degree do you think your argument was

wrong, or at least premature? How confident are you that what
we’re seeing now is just a backlash and not actually a reversal or
an entirely new strain?
FUKUYAMA: I am still reasonably confident. You know, the way I

have formulated my hypothesis right from the beginning was that
you needed to show not just that there was unhappiness with
liberal democracy, but you needed to posit some other form of
social organization that was superior, or that was somehow going
to displace liberal democracy in the way that communism asserted
that it would displace liberal democracy ultimately. And if you look
around the world right now, there are competing systems that are
not liberal or democratic. So the Chinese have one, Saudi Arabia
and Iran have their versions of it. But I actually don’t think that any
of those alternative models are likely to become universal in the
way that liberal democracy has become, in a fairly impressive way,
the default form of government for very many countries around the
world.
So Fukuyama has not changed his mind about his most famous
assertion — although he is open to it.
FUKUYAMA: If in 30 years, China’s bigger than the United States,

richer, continues to be stable, continues to be growing faster, then I
have to say well, maybe that is the alternative model.
But he did change his mind on something else. It goes back to that
8 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
Bush-Kerry era, and the Iraq War.
VOICEOVER: In which direction would John Kerry lead? Kerry

voted for the Iraq war, opposed it, supported it, and now opposes it
again.
At the time, Fukuyama was well-established as a prominent political

thinker. In addition to writing a landmark book, he’s done two stints
in the State Department. So his views on the Iraq War were taken
seriously.
FUKUYAMA: I signed onto a letter a couple of years before the war

saying that the United States ought to take military action.
He wasn’t opposed to the U.S. desire to intervene and topple a

dictator — in this case, Saddam Hussein.
FUKUYAMA: That’s happened in the past and it’s had good effects.
But as the invasion drew near, Fukuyama did have a concern.
FUKUYAMA: My main concern was whether the United States was

ready to actually stay in Iraq and convert it into a stable, decent
country. And the United States has not had a really great record in
doing this, in Central America and Vietnam and so forth. And in the
months prior to the war, I began to get increasingly worried that we
weren’t prepared to actually stick it out. But even I was astonished
at how bad the planning had been, and how faulty the assumptions
were, that we were going to be greeted as liberators and that there
would be a rapid transition just like in Eastern Europe to something
that looked like democracy. In retrospect, I wish I had taken a much
clearer stand against it before the war actually happened.
The U.S. invaded Iraq in March of 2003.
FUKUYAMA: I was at a dinner at the American Enterprise
9 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
Institute in February of 2004.
The A.E.I. is a conservative think tank in D.C.
FUKUYAMA: Dick Cheney was the featured speaker and

everybody in the room was cheering like this was the biggest
success for American foreign policy, that they could imagine. And I
just looked around at the people at my table and I said, “Why are
these people clapping?” Because clearly this thing is turning into a
huge fiasco. And that’s the moment that I decided these people are
really nuts. I mean, they’re so invested in seeing this as a success
that they can’t see this reality that’s just growing right in front of
their eyes. And to this day — I mean it does seem strange to me
that a lot of the people that were strong supporters of the war, even
today, are not willing to admit that that was a mistake.
DUBNER: The investment that you’re describing, how would you

characterize it? Was it more personal, do you think, or more
political? Was the thinking more emotional or logical, and using
logic to find facts that supported the underlying argument?
FUKUYAMA: Well, it’s both. I mean, there has been a lot of

research in social psychology lately. Like, this model where people
just take facts and draw conclusions from them and then base their
opinions on that is completely wrong. I mean that’s just not the way
people think. They start out with an emotional commitment to a
certain idea, and then they use their formidable cognitive powers to
organize facts to support what they want to believe anyhow. So the
partisan affiliation comes first and then the reasoning process by
which you justify it comes second. And unfortunately, affects all of
us. We tend to see the world and cherry-pick facts that support our
version of the world, and it takes a really big external shock that
10 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
just clearly proves you wrong.
DUBNER: So I understand that even though you were seen as

having defected from or abandoned the neoconservative
movement, primarily over the Iraq war, that you were not met so
warmly by the left, where you moved to. You said in 2006, “I’ve
gotten many e-mails that said in effect, well you’re trying to
apologize but you’ve got blood on your hands. We don’t accept
your apology.”
FUKUYAMA: Yeah, it’s interesting, you’re seeing a similar process

with a lot of other neocons right now. The neocons as a group have
been the core of the never-Trump conservative movement, all of
whom had been big supporters of the Iraq war and of George W.
Bush, have really turned against Trump in a big way. And there are
a lot of people that are not willing to accept them, they say, “It’s too
late.” Exactly those words, “You have blood on your hands.” And I
think that that is an unduly rigid position. Because in that case, no
one should ever change their mind. They should never be hit on the
head with reality and then realize that they’ve got a different
position that they should take.
When we talk about changing your mind, we need to acknowledge

that every situation is, of course, different. Let’s say someone in
your family holds a position that you find odious. Why do you find it
odious? Maybe you think they’re ignoring the facts. But can’t people
hold different positions based on the same facts? Maybe you feel
their position lacks moral reasoning. But who said morality is one-
size fits all? Or maybe — just maybe — they hold the opposite
position simply because it is the opposite.
SHVETS: Suppose a person has some idea about something
11 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
which doesn’t correspond to reality. It may be that they derive

pleasure from having this idea in itself.
That’s Julia Shvets. She’s an economist at Christ’s College,

Cambridge.
SHVETS: I study people’s decisions empirically in order to

understand better what drives people.
And in the case of someone deriving pleasure from an idea that you
disagree with:
SHVETS: In that case, you have to ask yourself whether it’s

actually to their benefit for them to be changing their mind.
This idea, that we can be so invested in our beliefs even if we

suspect they are wrong — Shvets has found evidence of this in her
research.
SHVETS: The incorrect vision of the world may actually deliver

some benefits to them.
And she’s found this effect not just in models or lab studies but out
in the real world, where people are constantly making decisions
about their work, their families, their lives.
SHVETS: It seems to be a very important question whether the

beliefs we hold about the outside world are somehow connected to
these beliefs about ourselves. When there is a link between these
beliefs, it’s not so clear that we should be changing our minds, and
what are the costs and benefits of this.
Consider, for instance, an expert who has dedicated their career to

a certain policy or line of thinking. What happens in the face of new
information? Do you seriously reconsider your long-held position,
and go against the tide you’ve been swimming in?
12 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
FUKUYAMA: A lot of times you just feel uncomfortable if you say

things that disrupt a consensus. And you just don’t want to do it.
Francis Fukuyama is recalling his change of mind on the Iraq war.
FUKUYAMA: A lot of my friends were very, very heavily on the

other side. And I lost a lot of them, I haven’t spoken to several of
these friends since then.
SHVETS: There are two separate questions, whether the person

should change their mind and what the effects are for him, and then
what the effects are of this for other people.
There’s another factor that Julia Shvets sees as contributing to our

reluctance to change our mind: confidence. Or, more accurately,
overconfidence — our own belief that we are right, even in the
absence of evidence. Just how much unearned confidence is
floating around out there? Consider a recent study by Shvets and
some colleagues that surveyed over 200 managers at a British
restaurant chain. They averaged more than two years on the job
and their compensation was strongly tied to a performance bonus. I
mention the bonus because it’s related to the survey that Shvets
administered.The managers were asked to recall their past
performance and to predict their future performance. Presumably,
they should have had a pretty good grasp of their standing.
SHVETS: What we found is that only about 35 percent of managers

were accurate about the quintile of the performance distribution
they were falling into.
In other words:barely a third of them were able to correctly say

whether they fell in the top 20 percent of all managers, or the
bottom 20 percent, or another 20-percent block somewhere in the
middle.
13 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
SHVETS: And 47 percent of managers were overconfident about it.
And these were people who had detailed feedback about their
performance every quarter. Which is a lot more than most
employees get.
SHVETS: So the next question we asked is: how is it possible that

people remain so overconfident when they have so much
information?
This is where memory comes into play, or maybe you’d call it

optimism — or delusion.
SHVETS: People who did worse in the previous competition tended

to remember slightly better outcomes. People seem to be
exaggerating their own past performance in their head when this
performance is bad. So what we conclude from this is that people
use memory selectively. They remember good outcomes and they
tend to forget bad ones.
So maybe it’s not so much that people refuse to change their minds
— or refuse to “update their priors,” as economists like to say.
Maybe they just have self-enhancing selective memories.
SHVETS: The data we observe are consistent with them making a

choice to suppress some past information.
But there’s also the possibility that people who’ve been at

something for a while, who may consider themselves expert, simply
don’t believe that non-experts have information worth paying
attention to.
FUKUYAMA: So I was in the State Department, in the policy

planning staff, in 1989.
Francis Fukuyama again.
14 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
FUKUYAMA: And in May of 1989, after there had been this turmoil
in Hungary and Poland, I drafted a memo to my boss, Dennis Ross,
who was the director of the office that sent it on to Jim Baker, who
was the Secretary of State, saying we ought to start thinking about
German unification, because it didn’t make sense to me that you
could have all this turmoil right around East Germany and East
Germany not being affected. The German experts in the State
Department went ballistic at this. You know, they said, “This is
never going to happen. And this was said at the end of October.
The Berlin wall fell on November 11th. And so I think that the
people that were the closest to this situation — so I was not a
German expert at all but it just seemed to me logical. But I think it’s
true that if you are an expert, you really do have a big investment in
seeing the world in a certain way, whereas if you’re an amateur like
me you can say whatever you think.
As you can see, there are a lot of reasons why a given person
might be reluctant to change their mind about a given thing. Ego,
selective memory, overconfidence, the cost of losing family or
friends. But let’s say you remain committed to changing minds —
your own or someone else’s. How do you get that done? The secret
may lie not in a grand theoretical framework, but in small, mundane
objects:
SLOMAN: Toilets and zippers and ballpoint pens.
* * *
Think of something you have a really strong opinion about. Maybe

the best ways to address climate change. The perils of income
inequality. How to balance privacy and security. Now think about
why you have such a strong opinion. How well do you think could
15 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
you explain your position?
SLOMAN: If you’re forced to give an explanation, you have to really

understand, and you have to confront the fact that you might not
understand. Whereas when you give reasons, then you do what
people do around the Thanksgiving dinner table. They talk about
their feelings about it, what they like, what they don’t like.
That’s Steven Sloman.
SLOMAN: I’m a professor of cognitive, linguistic, and psychological

sciences at Brown University.
DUBNER: And that means, in a nutshell, that you try to understand

what?
SLOMAN: I try to understand how people think.
DUBNER: Easy question first: How do you get someone to change

their mind?
SLOMAN: Well, first of all, there’s no silver bullet. It’s really hard.
But if you’re going to try, the first thing you should do is try to get
them to change their own minds. And you do that by simply asking
them to assume your perspective and explain why you might be
right. If you can get people to step outside themselves and think
about the issue — not even necessarily from your perspective, but
from an objective perspective, from one that is detached from their
own interests — people learn a lot. So, given how hard it is for
people to assume other people’s perspectives, you can see why I
started my answer by saying it’s very hard.
One experiment Sloman has done is asking people to explain —

not reason, as he pointed out, but to actually explain, at the nuts-
and-bolts level — how something works.
16 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
SLOMAN: People don’t really like to engage in the kind of

mechanistic analysis required for a causal explanation.
That’s true not only for big, thorny issues like climate change or
income inequality, but even for things like:
SLOMAN: Toilets and zippers and ballpoint pens.
Unless you are a plumber or you make zippers or ballpoint pens,

you probably can’t explain these very well. Even though, before you
were asked the question, you would have thought you could. This
gap, between what you know and what you think you know is
called, naturally, the “illusion of explanatory depth.”
SLOMAN: So, the illusion of explanatory depth was first

demonstrated by a couple of psychologists named Rozenblit and
Keil. And they asked people how well they understood how these
things worked, and people gave a number between 1 and 7. And
then they said, “Okay, how does it work? Explain in as much detail
as you can how it works.” And people struggled and struggled and
realized they couldn’t. And so when they were again asked how
well they understood, their judgments tended to be lower. In other
words, people themselves admitted that they had been living in this
illusion, that they understood how these things worked, when, in
fact, they don’t.
Where does this illusion come from?
SLOMAN: We think the source of the illusion is that people fail to

distinguish what they know from what others know. We’re
constantly depending on other people, and the actual processing
that goes on is distributed among people in our community.
In other words, someone knows how a toilet works: the plumber.
17 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
And you know the plumber; or, even if you don’t know the plumber,
you know how to find a plumber.
SLOMAN: It’s as if the sense of understanding is contagious. When

other people understand, you feel like you understand.
You can see how the illusion of explanatory depth could be helpful
in some scenarios — you don’t need to know everything for
yourself, as long as you know someone who knows someone who
knows something. But you could also imagine scenarios in which
the illusion could be problematic.
SLOMAN: So we’ve shown that that’s also true in the political

domain.
Sloman and his collaborator Philip Fernbach basically repeated the

Rozenblit and Keil experiment, but instead of toilets and zippers,
they asked people about climate change and gun control.
SLOMAN: We gave people political policies. We said, “How well do

you understand them?” and “Please explain them.”
Unsurprisingly, most people were not able to explain climate-

change policies in much detail. But here’s what’s interesting. The
level of confidence in their understanding of issues, which
participants were asked to report at the start of the experiment, was
drastically reduced after they tried, and failed, to demonstrate their
understanding.
SLOMAN: In other words, asking people to explain depolarized the

group.
Now, was this a case of simply slowing down and thinking the issue
through? Could it be that we’re often inflexible in our thinking simply
because we come to conclusions too quickly? Apparently not.
18 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
SLOMAN: If instead of saying, “Explain how the policy works,” if

what we said to them was, “Give us all the reasons you have for
your view on this policy,” then we didn’t get that effect at all. That
didn’t reduce people’s sense of understanding; it didn’t reduce their
hubris.
DUBNER: The ability to change your mind — would you say that’s
really important as a human?
SLOMAN: I see the mind as something that’s shared with other

people. I think the mind is actually something that exists within a
community and not within a skull. And so, when you’re changing
your mind you’re doing one of two things: you’re either dissociating
yourself from your community — and that’s really hard and not
necessarily good for you — or you have to change the mind of the
entire community. And is that important? Well, the closer we are to
truth, the more likely we are to succeed as individuals, as a
species. But it’s hard.
DUBNER: Do you think that most of us hold the beliefs that we do

because the people around us hold those beliefs, or do you think
we’re more likely to assemble people around us based on the
beliefs that they and we hold?
SLOMAN: The former is more often true. That is, we believe what
we do because the people around us believe what they do. This is
the way humanity evolved. We depend on other people. And it’s not
simply a matter of getting us to think more independently. I actually
think that this is one of the major problems with the kinds of
solutions people are talking about today for our current political
problems. I don’t think the solution is give people the information
they need.
19 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
Matthew JACKSON: More information can be good if it’s very well-

filtered and curated, but that’s not easy to do in an unbiased way.
That’s Matthew Jackson, an economist at Stanford. (Yes, I realize

this episode is leaning heavily on Stanford professors.) Anyway,
Matthew Jackson studies social and economic networks.
JACKSON: So, in particular, how the structure of social interactions

affects people’s behaviors. Anything from how our opinions form to
whether we decide to vote for a certain candidate.
Here’s something Jackson has changed his mind about:
JACKSON: One thing I used to think was that people, if you gave
them the same kinds of information, they would make decisions the
same way. They might have different experiences in their past,
different influences. But somehow the fundamental ways in which
they think about things and process things is the same.
That, however, is not what the data say.
JACKSON: The more you look at data, and in particular, the more
you look at experiments where people are faced with facts or
information, you realize that some people are very single-minded.
In one experiment, Jackson also asked people about climate

change. He had everyone read the same batch of abstracts from
scientific articles.
JACKSON: We asked people their opinions before they went in to

the study, and you could see that people looking at exactly the
same article would interpret it very differently depending on what
their initial position was.
So again, information isn’t necessarily the solution. In fact,

information can be weaponized.
20 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
JACKSON: There was a group of about a quarter to a third of the

subjects who actually became more polarized, who interpreted the
information heavily in the direction of their priors, and actually
ended up with more extreme positions after the experiment than
before.
We’ve talked about this phenomenon before on the show — that

well-educated people who consume a lot of information tend to hold
disproportionately extreme views, apparently because they’re really
good at seeking out information that confirms their priors. And
ignoring information that might run counter.
JACKSON: One aspect of people seeing exactly the same

information and coming away with different conclusions is how we
interpret and store information in our brains. It’s very easy to sort of
snippet things into small little pieces that we can remember. “Oh,
this was for or against.”
SLOMAN: We don’t like breaking things down in detail. We just —

most of us like to have a superficial understanding.
Steven Sloman again.
SLOMAN: Why do you think Obamacare is good or bad, whatever

you think about it? Now, the fact is, most people have very little to
say about that. Most people just have a couple of slogans. They
have the Republican slogan, they have the Democratic slogan; but
they don’t actually know about Obamacare, because after all, it’s a
20,000-page document.
SLOMAN: I like to say even Obama doesn’t understand

Obamacare.
But even if Obama does understand Obamacare, there’s the
21 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
question of whether his understanding is unduly circumscribed by

the people around him.
JACKSON: People tend to associate with other people who are

very similar to themselves. So we end up talking to people most of
the time who have very similar past experiences and similar views
of the world, and we tend to underestimate that. People don’t
realize how isolated their world is. You know, people wake up after
an election and are quite surprised that anybody could have
elected a candidate that has a different view than them.
So one antidote to inflexible thinking is simply balance.
JACKSON: In worlds where our network is well-balanced and we’re

actually eventually incorporating everybody’s viewpoint, the system
works extremely well.
Unfortunately, a great many of us are quite bad at creating diverse,

well-balanced networks. And there’s a reason for this — a reason
we struggle to listen to opposing voices and, therefore, have a hard
time changing our minds.
SAPOLSKY: We are basically hardwired to divide the world into us

and thems. And to not like the thems a whole lot.
That, again, is the half-neurobiologist, half-primatologist Robert

Sapolsky, who’s changed his own mind many times.
SAPOLSKY: The domain that I’m most interested in these days is

that change thing of turning thems into us-es — and how do we do
that? And what the studies tend to show is: take somebody else’s
perspective; try to go through what somebody else’s
rationalizations are; individuate somebody, break them out of being
an automatic them. And think about do they like the same pets that
22 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
you do? Do they love their kids? Look at a picture of them singing
lullabies to their children. Look at a picture of them enjoying the
same food that you do. Contact — and this has been floating
around for decades as a theory — give people, thems, enough
contact with each other and they turn into us-es and it turns out
contact works under very specialized circumstances. You’ve got to
spend a bunch of time with thems. And us-es and thems need to be
in equal numbers and in a neutral setting and you’ve got to have a
shared sort of goal. I mean, all of these work to at least some
degree. The peoples we hated in the past are allies now. There are
outgroups that spent centuries being persecuted where we don’t
even know what the word refers to anymore. And in all those
cases, there’s something resembling biological pathways that help
thems stop being so objectionable.
DUBNER: So before this conversation, if you had asked me what

are the primary barriers that keep someone in a given situation
from changing their mind, I would have certainly opted for the social
and economic explanations. But it sounds as though you’re saying
a larger share would go to the physiological and biological reasons,
is that right?
SAPOLSKY: Well, the really irritating thing I would say is that the
two are one and the same. We are nothing more or less than the
sum of our biology. Every time you learn something, from
something profound to something idiotic, something changes in
your brain. Every time you have a sensory experience, your brain is
constantly rewiring in major ways.
This idea — that the brain continues to change, physiologically,

throughout our lives — this is yet another idea that Sapolsky
himself had to change his mind about.
23 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
SAPOLSKY: Yeah, this is an aspect my field where I have missed

the boat every step of the way. When I started off, this dogma had
been in place for like 1,000 years’ worth of intro to neuroscience
classes, which is: the adult brain doesn’t make new neurons. This
is the basic premise of all the miserable, untreatable neurological
diseases out there. And starting in the 60s, there was a one lone
prophet named Joe Altman whose career was basically ruined
because he was about 30 years ahead of the curve. And then in
the late 80s, early 90s, some technique got a lot more sensitive and
was able to show adult neurogenesis in the brain like crazy. And it
became the hottest subject in the field. And I kept saying, “Ah, nah,
that’s not a real phenomenon.” So I was — like really blew it on that
one. It turns out that there’s a little pocket, a little population of stem
cells, sitting in the hippocampus making new neurons. And what
was even better was it made them at all the logical times — in
response to learning, stimulation, exercise. And a ton of work
showed that these new neurons actually are useful, and they are
critical for new types of learning. So that ushered in this whole new
world and then this beautiful new edifice of revisionism came
potentially crashing down about a year ago. An extremely important
and well-done paper that wound up in the journal Nature showed
that despite the clear presence of tons of neurogenesis in rodent
brains throughout the lifetime, in monkey brains, there was a lot of
reason to think that not a lot of the same occurred in the human
brain. And that a lot of the prior evidence for it was pretty
circumstantial. And as you might expect, the specialists in the field
have been stabbing each other over this one ever since. And it’s
not clear what the resolution is.
It doesn’t get much more meta than that: a bunch of scientists
24 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
changing their minds, and trying to change others’ minds, about

whether the brain changes when we change our minds. Robert
Sapolsky’s own research, about us-es and thems, led to one more
change of mind, for Sapolsky.
SAPOLSKY: I would say the biggest thing that came out of that is I
am in every fiber of my soul a profound pessimist, and sitting and
obsessing for three, four years on what we know about the
biological roots of humans being rotten to each other and humans
being kind to each other, there’s actually a fair amount of room for
optimism.
DUBNER: So your belief was that humans are disproportionately

cruel to each other. That was the old belief, and the new belief is
that that is not necessarily the case?
SAPOLSKY: It’s — well, we’re pretty lousy to each other. But the
basic paradox of humans is simultaneously we are the most
miserably violent species on this planet, and we are the most
cooperative. We do stuff which from the standards of evolution and
cooperation, game theory, all of that, would make stickleback fish
just flabbergasted at how cooperative, how altruistic we are, how
often we can do that for strangers. Each one of us, depending on
the context can be awful, can be wonderful, or ambiguously
somewhere in between.
* * *
Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner

Productions. This episode was produced by Matt Hickey. Our staff
also includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Zack Lapinski, Harry
Huggins, Daphne Chen and Corinne Wallace. Our intern is Ben
Shaiman. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune,” by the Hitchhikers; all
25 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16
the other music was composed by Luis Guerra.You can subscribe

to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this
episode:
SOURCES
Robert Sapolsky, author and professor of neuroscience at Stanford

University.
Francis Fukuyama, author and political scientist at Stanford

University.
Julia Shvets, economist at Christ’s College, Cambridge.
Steven Sloman, professor of cognitive, linguistic, and psychological

sciences at Brown University.
Matthew Jackson, economist at Stanford.
RESOURCES
“Persistent Overconfidence and Biased Memory: Evidence from

Managers,” by David Huffman, Collin Raymond and Julia Shvets
(2019).
“The Misunderstood Limits of Folk Science: an Illusion of

Explanatory Depth,” by Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil (Cognitive
Science, 2002).
EXTRA
The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama.
26 of 26 01/12/2019 18:16

How To Change Your Mind (Ep PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How To Change Your Mind (Ep PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How to Change Your Mind (Ep. 379 Rebroadcast) - Freakonomics about:reader?url=http://freakonomics.com/podcast/change-your-mind-re...

How to Change Your Mind (Ep. 379

If you aren’t listening to a certain style of music by the time you’re in

There are a lot of barriers to changing your mind: ego,

Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or

If you live in America, where we celebrate Thanksgiving, there’s a

Here’s an interesting fact: legislators in several Republican-

it’s impossible for the world to progress, to improve, unless some

Steve SLOMAN: Well, there’s no silver bullet.

But can’t you just present some compelling facts?

The incentives are also tricky.

Julia SHVETS: If they were to change their tune, everybody would

Stephen J. DUBNER: Tell me something that you believed to be

Robert SAPOLSKY: The list is endless. I used to be a very serious

DUBNER: So it wasn’t just a case of you accommodating out of

SAPOLSKY: Oh, I thrill at the excitement of seeing a bunch of

SAPOLSKY: Yes. Yes.

SAPOLSKY: I’m Robert Sapolsky. I’m a professor of neuroscience

DUBNER: So considering that I’m not a neuroscientist — in fact,

SAPOLSKY: I am completely of the school that mind is entirely the

Sapolsky, as he noted earlier, has changed his own mind quite a

SAPOLSKY: I was raised as an Orthodox Jew in a major

probably involved updating every molecule in my body, in that I sort

DUBNER: And was there a familial schism then?

SAPOLSKY: Oh, I was one of those terribly nerdy, scholarly,

DUBNER: No kidding. How old were you when he died?

One thing Sapolsky noticed about mind-changing is that it’s easier

SAPOLSKY: Just noticing the general phenomenon that we get

So he worked up a survey to look at people’s preferences in food,

SAPOLSKY: What you wind up seeing is basically if you are not

DUBNER: Did it make you say, “My goodness, I’m biologically

SAPOLSKY: It had no impact on me whatsoever. I’m one of those

There are a lot of reasons why it may be easier to change your

hinge on whether you are pro-broccoli or anti-broccoli. But as life

VOICEOVER: Now there’s nothing wrong with a little indecision.

As the stakes rise.

VOICEOVER: As long as your job doesn’t involve any

Changing your mind can get more costly.

VOICEOVER: John Kerry has changed his mind on all these

When Massachusetts Senator John Kerry ran for President against

FUKUYAMA: So I think that’s the way politics itself works.

That’s Francis Fukuyama. He’s a political scientist at Stanford.

FUKUYAMA: My work really centers on research and practice

In 1992, Fukuyama wrote a book that became a sensation. It was

FUKUYAMA: In the late 1980s, as I was following events in the

DUBNER: So to what degree do you think your argument was

FUKUYAMA: I am still reasonably confident. You know, the way I

FUKUYAMA: If in 30 years, China’s bigger than the United States,

Bush-Kerry era, and the Iraq War.

VOICEOVER: In which direction would John Kerry lead? Kerry

At the time, Fukuyama was well-established as a prominent political

FUKUYAMA: I signed onto a letter a couple of years before the war

He wasn’t opposed to the U.S. desire to intervene and topple a

But as the invasion drew near, Fukuyama did have a concern.

FUKUYAMA: My main concern was whether the United States was

The U.S. invaded Iraq in March of 2003.

FUKUYAMA: I was at a dinner at the American Enterprise

Institute in February of 2004.

The A.E.I. is a conservative think tank in D.C.

FUKUYAMA: Dick Cheney was the featured speaker and

DUBNER: The investment that you’re describing, how would you

FUKUYAMA: Well, it’s both. I mean, there has been a lot of

just clearly proves you wrong.