People Are Pretty Terrible At Understanding How Their Minds Work

We’re always “the good guys” from our point of view. 

We’ve weighed up the pros and cons as best we can, we've considered the political climate, we’ve weighed everybody’s feelings (at least everybody who matters to us). Everything would be great if only the unreasonable people would fall in line. 

In my article, The Corrosive Cost of Cancel Culture, I highlighted the importance of compassion over vitriol and censure. Both for persuading reasonable people, and for reaching unreasonable people. After all, demonising our opponents only drives them further into their bubbles.

N agreed. But seemed reluctant to accept the full implications of the point.

It’s been a while since I shared a long conversation here, so buckle in!

---

N:

I agree with you about cancel culture’s problems, and what I’m about to say might be beyond the scope of your article, but with that disclaimer -- while the compassion is absolutely necessary and crucial in these stories, it wasn’t compassion alone that got people out of hate groups.

All of the people in your stories here, and others that I’ve listened to speak on their deradicalization, were also suffering within their communities, or cut off from their communities (e.g. in prison), and that *combined* with compassion from members of groups they hated is what allowed them to change.

Christian’s wife and kids had left him for being a militant white supremacist; he was lonely and hurting. Megan stopped feeling safe in her church community. Derek Black is another good example of someone who changed through a mixture of displacement and compassionate outreach.

These stories are important examples of the power of welcoming people in from the cold... but all of them also had faced negative consequences for their shitty beliefs, as well. I haven’t encountered a story of a major change of beliefs that didn’t require both a carrot and a stick. Those stories might exist, so I’m open to changing my mind about both parts being necessary, but that’s how it seems to me at present.

As for persuasion… that’s probably the least important ingredient. In time, they’d likely have deconstructed their own beliefs to maintain acceptance from a new in-group that made them feel safer than their previous community, anyway. Persuasion can speed up that process, but it’s worth very little without the necessary emotional backdrop.

Regardless, you’re right that cancel culture leaving no room for grace, compassion, and change/redemption is a problem. It’s both an ethical failure and strategically counterproductive in creating the world liberals and leftists profess to want.

---

---

Steve QJ:

“it wasn’t compassion alone that got people out of hate groups.”

Absolutely. I didn't say it was. Compassion is important, but of course it's not the only factor. In fact, I think I was pretty clear that persuasion is the key. Yes, it's very difficult to persuade a person until they're ready to listen. But the implication that they only changed because they were unhappy is totally off I think.

First, Christian Picciolini's wife knew who he was when she married him. She didn't leave him because he was a Neo Nazi, she left him because he was a crappy husband. Watch the video of Mike Barrett on Oprah. He was in tears at the memory of how unhappy he was as a white supremacist. Do you think there's a single Neo Nazi in the world who's a genuinely happy person? Do you think it's possible to have that much hate in your heart and not feel cut off from wider society? What "stick" are you referring to that is worse than what they do to themselves?

I couldn't disagree with you more strongly about persuasion being the least important ingredient. Persuasion isn't just about making arguments that they can't refute (though it is about this too). It's about opening people's eyes to perspectives they haven't heard before (both Phelps-Rogers and Picciolini mentioned the importance of this in changing their minds). It's about demonstrating, with your behaviour and kindness and intrinsic humanity that you're not what they've been led to believe. It's not a coincidence that every deradicalisation story I've ever heard features somebody meeting the "enemy" and discovering they weren't what they'd been taught.

Persuasion is what seeds the doubt in the trustworthiness of their community. Persuasion is what makes them curious enough to look outside their bubble to see if they've missed something. It's a frustratingly slow process, it's incredibly rare that you have one conversation with somebody and they change their mind, but when they do change their mind, it's because of the conversations that went before.

It's not just at the individual level that this is true. Look at suffrage or the Civil Rights Act or gay marriage, and tell me that persuasion wasn't the key ingredient that brought them about.

---

N:

Re: "I didn't say it was" -- you also didn't say it wasn't, which is why I brought it up. ;) I don't think there is a stick worse than what Neo-Nazis do to themselves, so I'm not referring to a different one, but it's important for people who want to do this work to know that it's there. AND it's important to acknowledge that not everyone has to be kind and approachable to their aggressors in order for change to be achieved. Only some of them do. It sure helps if the rest don't actively work against reform efforts, though.

You also didn't define how you were using persuasion, and I didn't read it as inherently defined as including the compassion that you also brought up; my bad on that one. I read it as "reason" / challenging their beliefs directly. Challenging their beliefs in conversation obviously helped; I don't think it was the most important part. Of course Picciolini and Phelps-Rogers mention this and maybe it was crucial for them in their conversations with the "other," but people are honestly pretty terrible at understanding how their minds really work, so it's not a given that explicit refutation and challenge from the same source as the people demonstrating compassion was necessary. They did need the curiosity, because the important thing there is that the curiosity motivates them to challenge themselves.

And I don't think that refutation of belief is THE key ingredient that brought about wider social change; it was absolutely necessary when you're working at that level, but emotion--love and relatability--was the *key* ingredient if we have to choose one.

We're coming at this a lot less from different beliefs than different definitions, though. Or, well, really just that I perceived you to be using a different definition than I would, because yes, persuasion can (and should) encompass many methods.

Re: Picciolini, iirc from his TedTalk, he was a crappy husband, but he also mentioned his beliefs as part of why his wife left with the kids. My memory is often pretty shit though so heavy emphasis on the "if" in the iirc.

---

“people are honestly pretty terrible at understanding how their minds really work, so it's not a given that explicit refutation and challenge from the same source as the people demonstrating compassion was necessary.”

There are several attempts at special pleading in this conversation, but this one really stood out to me. I’d summarise this argument as:

People aren’t always perfectly honest with themselves (which is true). So if they talk about their experience in a way that conflicts with what I want to believe, I’ll assume I understand their true feelings better than they do (which is insane).

The problem here isn’t just that this is dangerously arrogant, it’s that the only reason I can see to make this argument is to avoid acknowledging the value of compassion.

---

Steve QJ:

“you also didn't say it wasn't,”

😅I mean, I spent quite a lot of time writing about persuasion, so I think it's fair to say that I didn't suggest "compassion alone" gets people out of hate groups. I also don't agree that it's important to acknowledge that people don't need to be compassionate to their aggressors.

I think showing compassion should always be the aim. Obviously, being human, we're going to fall short sometimes. But if people like MLK can go through the civil rights movement holding love and non-violence (in the fullest sense of the term) as their primary values, I don't think there's any justification for us not to at least try to do the same. Too many people want to use their "oppression" simply as an excuse to be cruel and vindictive. It only ever makes things worse. Especially for them.

I think Picciolini and Phelps-Rogers mention persuasion and conversation because it was a key element of their deradicalisation. Again, I've never heard a deradicalisation story without them. Yes, people aren't always good at understanding how their minds work. But that doesn't mean your beliefs about what really made the difference are more valid. Given that neither of us have spoken to them, I think it makes more sense to take their word for it.

Yes, emotion, love, relatability, these are all key. As you say, maybe this is more a difference of framing than anything else. Changing an emotional belief requires emotional engagement. I might be able to change your beliefs about some factual matter simply by presenting you with new information. But if you believe you hate something (or somebody), I need to engage you on an emotional level too. Because hate is obviously emotional.

Again, persuasion encompasses all of this. Any skilled interaction does. We choose our words, we consider the emotional impact of our tone, we try to find common frames of reference. Compassion and emotion are baked into any genuine attempt at persuasion. These concepts aren't siloed off from each other because in the end we're all human.

---

N:

“I also don't agree that it's important to acknowledge that people don't need to be compassionate to their aggressors.”

I do, because not acknowledging it and saying "Hey, you don't have to do the work of persuasion; all you have to do is accept that people can change and let other people do the work," can make this less threatening and more attainable for people who are real fighty about it. I don't know that it would fit into your essay, but it's not a chastisement so much as an addition when I say:

Not everyone is going to be a good diplomat and that's fine. If people think it's one option or the other, though, and there's not that third option of not accepting an aggressor but not attacking them either, then I mean... they're probably going to stay on the attack until something else leads to them feeling sufficiently less threatened.

Telling them compassionate persuasion is the only justifiable option is just going to make them angry and contrarian. I know because half the time, I am that person being angry and contrarian when lectured (or when I perceive that I am being lectured) about how I need to conduct myself towards people I find morally repugnant. [Edit: To be clear, I don't pop off about canceling people or harass them on social media. I'm not THAT angry and contrarian.]

You may think this is a moral failing on my part, and I'd probably agree, but that doesn't actually matter to what I'm willing to do; my mental health would be wayyyy better if it were easy to live perfectly in line with my values and also if my values were all perfectly consistent and stable. Yes, it's not easy for anyone, really (I know you wouldn't argue otherwise) -- just for whatever reasons, for some people the emotional investment required is too prohibitive.

That you don't think there's any justification to refuse to engage compassionately -- if people like MLK can do it, etc. -- doesn't matter to the reality that some people will just never reach an emotional point where they're okay with actively embracing their aggressors and attempting to persuade them. Cessation of the cruelty and vindictiveness is another mark to aim for in the absence of open embrace. Of course, some people will refuse even that, but yeah, for all those reasons, I think acknowledging the third option is important.

It's fine if you don't agree but in some ways it seems like you're preaching to the choir, then. The people you're going to reach are mostly the people who are already wholly invested in being, or at least backing, someone who saves others through reason and compassion. I might be wrong. In fact, I hope I'm wrong. The absolute best outcome is that you change a lot of people's minds with this. I hope that's what happens.

And concession: alright, if I were to re-write my initial comment, I'd say "persuasion alone" doesn't achieve change. :p With compassion being enfolded in the tactics of persuasion. The whole thing was about how distance from or friction within their in-group is also necessary, and I will say now (because I didn't explicitly before) that being aware of those elements can be helpful in how we strategize deradicalization efforts. I also think it makes these conversations come off as less, um... Pollyanna, I guess, to people who feel pissy about the idea of being actively compassionate.

Also, ok, I don't need to convince you that direct challenge of their beliefs wasn't key. This is an agree to disagree moment for me; I'm not convinced that it was key, because I think they would have sought out the information even if they hadn't been confronted with it directly, but that's about as far as that thread can go since we've both laid out our reasons why. I can concede it's speculation on my part, though, and I understand why you'd rather construct your argument around what the subjects at hand have to say about their deradicalization.

---

Steve QJ:

“make this less threatening and more attainable for people who are real fighty about it.”

Hmmm, I think you mean "this allows people to let themselves off the hook when they're mean and/or lazy. It allows people to absolve themselves of responsibility and say "somebody else will do the hard work. It's not hypocritical if I don't practice what I preach." It doesn't fit into my essay because it's a cop out.

I see this argument all the time. From all sides of the political aisle. It is hard to not be angry and contrarian, I'm not disputing that, but I won't affirm the belief that this is "fine". It's not. MLK wasn't able to do it because it was easy for him. He was able to do it because he made the effort. We all have to take responsibility for our contribution to the discourse. But yeah, you seem to agree with all of this whilst also trying to fight the responsibility it places on you.😉

I also don't believe that that you or anybody else will "never" reach an emotional point where they can do this. You don't need to take it to the extreme of "embracing" your aggressors I never suggested this (the exaggeration is another way of making the reasonable requirements seem unreasonable). I'm just saying that it's important, for you as well as for those you disagree with, to engage honestly and fairly and reasonably. To not dehumanise each other. Every human being is capable of this. No human being is capable of doing it perfectly every time.

I'm not preaching to the choir, because I'm talking about making this effort for everybody. Even the cancellers. As I said in the article, we all need to need to figure out how to be more empathetic, especially with those we disagree with. And we all know what it's like to fail to do this. So the goal is simply to increase the proportion of the time we're successful. But to sincerely try to do that. Not to always give yourself the “out” of “nobody can do this perfectly, so it doesn't matter if I scream and shout at people because I’m ‘fighty.’”

---

We’re always the “good guys” from our point of view. Which makes it dangerously easy to believe that anybody with a different point of view is a “bad guy.”

But while it’s way easier (and faster), to dehumanise people than it is to persuade them, all this does is drive them further away. 

A functioning society is a constant back and forth between conflicting points of view. A pendulum swinging between different, often polarised ideals. A battle of persuasion. And as annoying as this can be, it's the only option short of dictatorship. 

Sometimes we need to start from common ground and build from there. Sometimes both sides have reasonable, persuasive grounds for their position. Sometimes we need to do the hardest thing of all and humanise each other.

If anything separates the good guys from the bad guys nowadays, it might just be the willingness to do that.