The argument in brief
The question
Can I argue against my own beliefs well enough to find out where they are wrong?
The claim
We hold automatic beliefs that we deploy without thinking and defend against countering information. Noticing them and asking “when is this not true?” opens them to nuance and lets us change our minds. Confidence: A practical recommendation from my own observation. No studies are cited.
The evidence
  • My own observation of how people respond to hot topics in conversation and in replies on Twitter.
  • A contrived example about the colour of the sky, used to illustrate how quickly we dismiss countering information.
  • My experience of watching debates between flat-earthers and scientists, where I have not seen either side open up to being wrong.
  • No studies or data.
The best counter
Automatic beliefs are often right, and constantly questioning them is costly. “The truth lies in the middle” can also mislead: some questions have a clear answer, and splitting the difference is its own error.
What would change my mind
Evidence that deliberately asking “when is this not true?” leaves people no better calibrated, or simply more stubborn, than not asking it.
Open gaps
1 gap. Statements I haven't verified yet. Each is marked in the text.

The questionCan I argue against my own beliefs, without emotion taking over, well enough to find out where they are wrong?Without realising it, we exhibit an automatic set of beliefs that we use to interact with the outside world. It could be your default beliefs on big issues like politics or climate change. Or it could be smaller beliefs such as whether pineapple should go on pizza or if Android is better than iPhone.

Our brain is a masterful machine that can enact these beliefs without us being consciously aware. We need that for survival.Gap · needs evidenceThis is my understanding of how the mind works; I haven't checked it against the research on automatic and deliberate thinking. If a belief that a lion will eat us happens to be true, stopping to think and evaluate it before concluding that running away is indeed the better option would be suboptimal for the survival of the human species.

This machine is also what can work against us. As we live in such an increasingly complex world, where only partial viewpoints are visible at any one time, we are quick to draw conclusions and have an automatic response. Mention “self-driving cars” to some people and before you can finish the sentence you have heard a continuous stream of reasons why it’s the worst thing, dangerous, and a problem for anyone and everyone.

An assumptionI am assuming that a fast, scripted reply is a sign of an unexamined belief. Someone may answer quickly because they have already thought it through many times.Claima personal observation, not testedWe all do this. We all have our inner scripts of our beliefs ready to deploy at any moment. Don’t believe me? Then pay attention to the replies on Twitter about “hot topics” and you’ll see someone’s belief system reply without a second thought.

Notice your automatic responses

Start paying attention to when you speak before thinking. See if you can spot the moments where you’ve enacted your core belief without any conscious intervention. Pay attention to how other people respond. Do they dig in and try to counter your belief? Or do they agree because you have aligning beliefs on the subject?

Also pay attention to how other people deploy their automatic beliefs in discussions with you. How do you react? Do you counter their argument, or passively agree to avoid confrontation?

What if you were wrong all along?

Now imagine that there was a belief you had that was actually wrong. You just didn’t know it. You didn’t have the ability to be aware it was wrong.

We have these beliefs all the time. It could be beliefs about our sense of self-worth, whether your boss thinks you’re not ready for a promotion, or whether other people have it better than you.

Can you objectively, and without emotion overwhelming your thought process, start to argue against your own belief? Can you do it in a way that tries to identify a new perspective or find information that you couldn’t see before? Can you hold a seemingly contradictory idea in your head at the same time?

The truth lies somewhere in the middle

We like to see the world in terms of absolutes. Doing so helps us align our thinking to our internal belief system. Our emotions can’t be half upset, or half excited. Our ego can’t really comprehend being half right and half wrong.

Ask a person what colour the sky is and they will most likely say blue. Then you say “it’s not blue, it’s red”. They won’t believe you. Then you show them a photo of a sunset with the red illuminating the skyline. They will say that doesn’t count, because it’s actually the sun’s colour you’re seeing.

A contrived example for sure, but it illustrates that when we believe something, we’re quick to dismiss countering information. Why? It doesn’t align with our belief system.

A competing explanation“The middle” isn’t always where the truth is. Some questions have a clear answer, and treating every disagreement as two halves to be averaged is its own mistake. The sky example works because the answer depends on when you look, not because both sides are half right.The truth is usually not at any extreme point. The sky is black at night, blue in the daytime, yellow when the sun is at the horizon, green when the northern lights are showing. There’s always more nuance to any discussion that we often miss, because we want to be right.

Challenge your own beliefs

So the question now, with this understanding in mind, is this: can you start to ask more interesting questions about your own beliefs, questions that help you understand more, that could ultimately threaten your belief and allow you to change your mind?

LimitsThis is a habit I recommend, not a method I have tested. I can’t say how often it changes a mind, or whether it works as well on beliefs tied to identity as on everyday ones.To do so effectively you need to have an open mind, but also think critically. If a statement is presented as a point of fact on which new understanding is to be built, ask yourself Claima practical recommendation from my own experience“when is this not true?” This should help you consider whether there’s more nuance to the subject, or confirm that your original thinking was right.

What you get at the end is the ability to think critically, hold yourself when discussing hot topics with others, and be open to having your mind changed. That’s how we grow.

Flat earth and the globe

As a guilty pleasure, I love watching videos where flat-earthers and scientists discuss their positions on whether the earth is flat or a globe. I watch these with less of a desire to confirm my own belief (a globe, if you’re curious) than to understand how they accommodate the viewpoints of the other side. Spoiler: they don’t.

What would change my mind?Seeing people who regularly ask “when is this not true?” turn out no better calibrated, or simply more stubborn, than people who don’t. Or a debate like these where one side did open up to being wrong, which would tell me the format isn’t the whole problem.I am yet to see an example where either the flat-earther or the glober opens up their mind to be wrong in order to understand deeper. I wonder if that is because they are inherently scared that doing so would distort their narrative or belief. Or it could be as simple as they have an agenda and what they say isn’t really a true representation of what they believe.

Take this type of discourse and apply it to many other topics and you’ll soon realise that people are the same. It’s just the topic of conversation that changes.

The ah-ha moment

First, start to observe when you have innate beliefs that determine your viewpoint on certain topics. Then start to ask “when is this not true?”. This should open up your mind to consider new information and enhance your understanding.

When is this not true?

Books behind this essay

Not sources for any claim here. These are books I have finished that shaped how I think about this question. Where I rely on evidence, it is cited in the text.

The whole shelf