Do you think people are rational decision‑makers?
That is: you put facts in front of them about problems and solutions, have a reasoned debate, persuade them of a different point of view, then they change their position and their behaviour.
If so, you have to let go of that idea.
Seriously. Do you want to make progress? That set of assumptions, conscious or unconscious, will keep you stuck for years.
It’s what we were doing in the environmental movement in the 1990s. Back then we didn’t know any different. Psychology and marketing weren’t mass-accessible in the way they are now.
Here’s the thing. Humans have the capacity to be rational decision-making creatures. But for most of us, most of the time, we’re not. We run on habits, worldviews, prejudices, emotions.
If you’re a person biased toward rational problem-solving, like I am and many of my friends in environmental groups were, this is confusing and frustrating. But no less true.
You still see it all the time. People have presented arguments to a government, company or individual and encountered what seems to be a stubborn refusal to shift. They’re treating it as a debating society, and wondering why it didn’t work.
From that frame of reference the main explanation available is that the other side has not understood – either because they’re stupid or because you haven’t explained it properly. So you try again (and again).
But if you step back you can see that what’s really going on is messy psychology at work, and plugging away in rational explainer mode will never succeed.
I’m not saying you should stop opposing bad things and presenting arguments. It’s important to have that out there where people can see it. It’s important that people doing bad things don’t get it all their own way, and that people inclined to question can see they’re not alone.
But in most cases winning a debate is not the point where friction is stopping you moving forward.
That is rooted in people’s conditioning, personal identity, tribal connections, how they’re used to things being done, what they value, how they suppress those values to fit in socially, and all that sort of stuff.
Welcome to the frontier of the 21st century.
Want to read more? This post became the first section of my book Planet of the Bubble People.
Hi Tim,
the frontier of the 21st century is an interesting one, isn’t it?
I actually do not think that people are rational decision makers. I believe that people are emotional decision makers.
I find it a wise remark from you, saying that winning a debate is not the point. We are conditioned into being right or wrong, winning or losing. It’s becoming more obvious now – that the way we think democracy works, where the vote of the majority determines which way to go – that it is marginalizing those people with an opposed opinion and causing instability; which in the long term negatively influences sustainability.
I enjoyed your thoughts in this post!
Best regards,
Katrin
Thanks Katrin! In fact I don’t think people are emotional decision-makers either. I think most of us, most of the time, react based on habit and then strongly defend what we’ve said and done. The ‘Planet of the Bubble People’ book explores that.
Change and progress don’t come from reasoned debate but from shifting worldviews.
Related to this post – an article I wrote for Open Democracy, If you want change, learn when to argue and when to stop.
The problem to me is that many decision makers often do not make a decision that results in long term benefits to the majority, but rather short term benefits for themselves and those close to them. Or they make decisions based on economic benefits (same as short term) instead of worrying about the impacts on the environment (long term). That is why rational arguments do not work with them.