IIt may seem paradoxical to write this in an opinion article. But it must be said: arguments alone have no significant effect on people's beliefs. And the implicit societal acceptance they make is to hinder other forms of political thinking and more effective.
I am a researcher who studies the intersection of psychology and politics, and my work has led me more and more to believe that understanding our culture in the way political persuasion works badly. In the era of Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the rise of the far right, the commentators were constantly on the problems of false news, polarization and more. But they especially looked for in bad places – and were too focused on words.
Take “debates”. They are a central element of most electoral campaigns around the world, considered so influential that they are often governed by strict rules concerning the coverage and balance of the media. However, evidence suggests that monitoring debates has no impact on opinions. In 2019 Researchers have analyzed 56 television debates in 22 elections in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Europe from 1952 to 2016. The study followed nearly 100,000 respondents to see if the debates have helped voters undecided or decided to turn on or change their minds. They found no evidence that they did. In 2012, a journalist carried out another analysis on the question of whether the debates influenced the electoral results. As he said: “The effects of debates on any votes are probably light and, in most cases, actually zero.”
There are many reasons why the debate (and, in fact, the information donor and the argument in general) tend to be ineffective to change the political beliefs of people. Cognitive dissonance, a phenomenon that I studied in the context of my doctoral research, is one. It is often unconscious psychological discomfort that we feel in the face of contradictions in our own beliefs or actions, and it has been well documented. We can see cognitive dissonance and its effects at work when people “reason quickly” in a really trying to alleviate their discomfort with new information on highly detained beliefs. For example, before Trump was found guilty of various charges In 2024, only 17% of republican voters thought that criminals should be able to be presidents; directly after his conviction, This number increased to 58%. To reconcile two contradictory beliefs (which the presidents should not do X, and that Trump should be president), a huge number of republican voters have simply changed their minds on the first. In fact, republican voters moved their point of view on more or less everything that Trump had been condemned: less estimated that it was immoral to have sex with a porn star, to pay someone to remain silent about a link or to falsify a commercial file. This effect is not limited to Trump voters either: research suggests that we all rationalize in this way, in order to maintain the beliefs that allow us to function as we have been. Or, ironically, to change some of our beliefs in response to new information, but often only so as not to have to sacrifice other strongly detained beliefs.
But it is not only psychological phenomena such as cognitive dissonance which make debates and arguments relatively ineffective. Like I Put in my bookThe most important reason why words do not change minds is that two other factors have much more influence: our social relationships; and our own actions and experiences.
A sea of ​​evidence shows that our friends have the power to change our beliefs and our behavior – not by chatting with us, but simply by being with us or showing us new ways of living. Studies on Social contact theory Show that when people are installed in conditions to become friends and collaborate, they become less harmful to the identity groups to which their new friends belong. This phenomenon probably explains many of the progress of homosexuals in recent decades: as people have come out, their friends have changed their point of view on homosexuality, which has led to one of the fastest changes ever recorded in public opinion. In the same way, Research shows People are most likely to engage in a friendly climate action (such as installing a heat pump), if their friends do it – much more likely than if they receive cash rewards or other types of incentives. Our friends expand our area of ​​concern; They involve us in the world and strengthen the confidence that human beings seem to need to open up to new ideas. Their indirect influence reaches more than arguments, especially foreigners, could never. In other words: when it comes to persuasion, it is not the conversation, it is the relationship.
Our actions and experiences also have a deep effect, although often in a counter-intuitive way. For example, research shows that in otherwise similar conditions, women have turned away Have an abortion Become a little less in favor of abortion rights, while women who have been abortions become a little more in favor. We could expect that refused people become more passionate about access, but apparently not – probably because, in part because of cognitive dissonance, people tend to bring their beliefs to their actions, even if these actions are obliged. The influence of actions and experiences on belief systems is also obvious with regard to the climate crisis: Those who experience intense weather events linked to the climate are more likely to believe in climate change and to remedy it.
Compared to these influences, arguments alone have relatively little power. However, our institutions always have the form that words were sufficient. We are infrastructural, collectively trapped in the liberal belief that the policy mainly concerns the conversation, then the sporadic vote. What is necessary By anyone hopes to promote progressive ideas is not arguments, but an infrastructure that promotes new relationships and experiences. It might look like anything, a waiting area for parents to mix before school lets a work union escape from a public park. These forms of infrastructure allow people to connect and act new ways, build friendships and trust, and encourage actions that end up Allow people to change their political opinions.
All this suggests that we must also think differently about what it means to be a good policy thinker. To think of politics well, it is not an “independent” thought in the sense of thinking for yourself. Instead, to think carefully is to choose our friends wisely, in terms of diversity and reflection, so that we can learn and with them. Thinking well of politics also means being active in the world – trying new lifestyles, having a wide variety of experiences. Unfortunately, largely due to the inequality of income, this is more difficult than before. Sociological research shows that residents of countries like the United States and the United Kingdom more isolated And Less mobile that never before. The social fabric on which we necessarily rely to unravel our prejudices is narrowing. This is part of the reason why the extreme right is won: it is good to mobilize the relationships and actions of people in this ratatally world, while capitalizing on the material circumstances of worsening people. To solve this problem, progressives must resume wealth and power, so that everyone is supported in the widening of their life.
Not that I can persuade you simply by saying, of course. Instead, I challenge you to discover it in a more significant way: Make someone different, maybe someone deeply affected by a political problem. Or try a new way of living, something little to start. See if this does not change your political opinions, at least a little. Or maybe it will transform your understanding of politics itself.
