The argument in brief
- The question
- Why do people double down on being wrong even in the face of clear evidence, and do we do it too?
- The claim
- People double down against evidence because admitting a failure threatens how they see themselves, so the brain protects them by making them believe the lie. Evidence rarely changes a mind, so a better question is how to work with people who believe things that aren't true. Confidence: A personal view drawn from a book I read. I cite no studies and have not checked the book's cases against their originals.
- The evidence
- My reading of Black Box Thinking by Matthew Syed, which contrasts how aviation and other fields respond to failure.
- General ideas about the brain interpreting reality and memories changing over time, stated without sources.
- Examples of surgeons and prosecutors denying error, which I have not checked against specific cases.
- The best counter
- People may deny mistakes for practical reasons, such as legal liability, career risk or blame cultures, rather than because their brain hides the truth from them. Some people do change their minds when shown evidence.
- What would change my mind
- Evidence that people who deny their mistakes privately know they were wrong, or that presenting evidence usually does change minds when it is done well.
- Open gaps
- 3 gaps. Statements I haven't verified yet. Each is marked in the text.
The question: Why do people double down on being wrong even in the face of clear evidence, and do we do it too?At times we find ourselves pulling our hair out because someone will double down on being wrong even in the face of irrefutable evidence. Why is this? More importantly, do we do this?
What pilots do differently
In the book Black Box Thinking by Matthew Syed, he explores why pilots are more open to admitting their own failures than people in other fields, such as medicine, politics or the police.
A competing explanation: People may deny mistakes for practical reasons: lawsuits, careers, blame cultures that punish honesty. That would explain the same behaviour without the brain hiding the truth from anyone, and the two explanations can both be partly true.The answer comes down to a very simple premise. Claim, confidence:a personal view drawn from a book I read; not tested: Our brain is trying to protect ourselves by making us believe the lie.
An aeroplane carries a black box that aims to answer the question: what went wrong? This is in the event of a devastating crash where there are no survivors. When new learning happens, processes are fixed and widely shared across the industry. After all, if you’re a pilot, your life’s on the line. You have a vested interest in paying attention.
But now apply this to other professions such as surgeons, politicians and criminal investigators. Your life isn’t on the line, but your profession is. It actually goes deeper than that. Your conscience is on the line. If you screw up, admitting that you failed can have devastating effects on your self-esteem.
The brain interprets reality
An assumption: I am assuming the self-deception is genuine, that people really come to believe they were right, rather than knowing the truth and hiding it.Our brain is a fascinating organ. At its very simplest, it’s an organ that can hallucinate reality based on the inputs from our senses. I chose those words very carefully. It can hallucinate our reality. It’s not an accurate representation of reality, but an interpretation.
This means that events are encoded as memories, along with our feelings towards them. Two things can happen here. Unverified: Firstly, our memories can change over time and even imaginary situations can be recalled as though they are memories.Gap · needs evidence: I haven't cited research on memories changing over time or on imagined events being recalled as memories; this is my summary from general reading. Secondly, our brain can protect ourselves from believing certain “truths” and will create justifications to make it more convincing.
Surgeons and prosecutors
Limits: These are generalisations from my reading, not studies of how often surgeons or prosecutors deny error. Many admit their mistakes, and I name no specific case.So when Unverified: a surgeon denies any wrongdoing on the operating table, their brain is unable to entertain the idea that they were the cause of failure. They will justify this by seeking any other, often unprovable, idea of what caused it.Gap · needs evidence: I haven't tied this to a documented case or to the pages of the book it comes from.
Unverified: When a criminal prosecutor wrongly imprisons an innocent person, they will still believe they are right even if new DNA evidence proves their innocence.Gap · needs evidence: I haven't checked this against a documented case of a prosecutor maintaining guilt after a DNA exoneration. Even if this means the real criminal is out there. The idea of being wrong is too much to bear. So their brain will invent a belief that they are right.
What about us?
But what about us? Are we ready to admit our failings and face the truth? Or do we allow our brain to invent ways to protect ourselves? What would happen if we did admit we were wrong? Could we handle that?
A competing explanation: Some people do change their minds when shown evidence, especially when it comes from someone they trust and they aren’t made to lose face. “Rarely” is my impression, not something I have measured.I don’t seek to answer these questions, but to shine a light on the very behaviour we see play out on the world’s stage. We’re quick to judge, and slow to back down. Claim, confidence:a personal view from observation: We argue believing evidence will change someone’s mind. It rarely will.
The real truth is to admit this is a symptom of humanity. So rather than allow frustration to get in the way, ask a better question. Knowing that people believe things that aren’t true, how can you work with them to achieve a positive outcome?
The ah-ha moment
Any one of us can be caught believing a lie because our brain is trying to protect ourselves.
What would change my mind?: Evidence that people who deny their mistakes usually know privately that they were wrong, or that well-presented evidence usually does change minds.Today’s ah-ha moment is that any one of us can be caught believing a lie because our brain is trying to protect ourselves. It also helps us understand why others refute evidence and double down on their beliefs. This is a fact of life. It’s what you do next that is important.
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.
Black Box Thinking (opens audible.co.uk, external site)
Shaped how I think about why some fields learn from failure and others struggle to admit it; it is the book this piece draws on.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) (opens audible.co.uk, external site)
Shaped how I think about self-justification, and how hard it is to see it in ourselves.
The Scout Mindset (opens audible.co.uk, external site)
Shaped how I think about wanting to see what is true more than wanting to be right.
Never Split the Difference (opens audible.co.uk, external site)
Shaped how I think about working with someone's view of the world instead of trying to argue them out of it.
