Facts, Truth and Stories Vs. ‘Motivated Reasoning’ and Exceptionalism
This Indian proverb from last week has lingered in my mind: “Tell me the facts and I’ll learn. Tell me the truth and I’ll believe. But tell me a story and it will live in my heart forever.”
It is so beautiful, this idea that we can reach people’s hearts and thus minds through telling beautiful stories, but there are two things that keep me from being able to believe in it: exceptionalism and science.
Let me tell you a story. A few years ago a pig, Hammie, was rescued by the people who had bought him for a pig roast. These were people who are not fazed by killing animals – it is part of what they do for a living. The year they bought Hammie they didn’t kill him the day they brought him home, the way they normally would have. For whatever reason, his death was delayed. And in that brief period of time, he followed them around, he asked for belly rubs, and in the end the wife couldn’t let Hammie be killed.
They brought him to Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary, and for a couple years after that the wife would come to visit. “Hammie is different, there is something special about him,” the wife would insist. Terry would try to get her to see that he was really like all the other pigs, that they all wanted affection, belly rubs, to lie in the sun (or a mud puddle!) and enjoy their lives. But nothing could get through to her, and she continued to insist that Hammie deserved to be saved because he was different from all the others. She believed Hammie was the exception, that he lived outside the rules.
To admit otherwise would have required her to change her life to align with her beliefs.
This is in the back of my mind every time I tell a story about the sanctuary animals, that I could be entrenching someone’s belief in exceptionalism.
Now for the science. On Monday, Mother Jones published an article, “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science“, which is a long and detailed article that all activists should read. I’ve talked before about the role emotions play in decision-making, and Mother Jones’ article goes into this in-depth.
The theory of motivated reasoning builds on a key insight of modern neuroscience (PDF): Reasoning is actually suffused with emotion (or what researchers often call “affect”). Not only are the two inseparable, but our positive or negative feelings about people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts, in a matter of milliseconds—fast enough to detect with an EEG device, but long before we’re aware of it. That shouldn’t be surprising: Evolution required us to react very quickly to stimuli in our environment. It’s a “basic human survival skill,” explains political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.
We’re not driven only by emotions, of course—we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower—and even then, it doesn’t take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that’s highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about.
So, essentially, people believe what they want to believe based on an emotional response that they might or might not be aware of, and will seek out information sources that back the belief up, and interpret everything so that they bolster the decision already decided upon. And it gets better:
And that undercuts the standard notion that the way to persuade people is via evidence and argument. In fact, head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever.
It’s hard to believe, but both stories and facts are likely to fail us, and could even backfire, entrenching their previous beliefs more strongly. So what is left?
According to the Mother Jones article:
In other words, paradoxically, you don’t lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.
This is where we circle around, again, to the key in our advocacy efforts: know your audience. Know where they are coming from, what matters to them, and start there.
However, some believe that we should not stray from a straightforward ethics-based animal rights argument.
What do you think?
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
Here’s what I’ve come to about this, and of course it’s my unscientific experience & opinion, but it is supported by the above (and there’s a TED talk like it I’ll find that’s fantastic and includes why people believe in god). I like Igualdad Animal more and more each day. Here’s a recent video: http://vimeo.com/8385284 And here’s The Rhythm by Decipher Films, which I had posted here a while ago: http://vimeo.com/15140727?ab
There’s a story. Not long, and often just implied. But the entire thing isn’t gory. There’s a combination of the mundane, or even the sweet, at the beginning, and then the inevitability of the daily, standard use and killing of the animals. No pick axes to the head, no sodomizing, no laughing about suffering. Just the ordinary, everyday deaths that few people will find worthy of petitions and outrage and the massive circulation of videos if that was all they saw.
But with these videos no farmers will be on the side of vegans saying, “that’s horrible, I agree, but we don’t do it that way. We have a solution and it’s not going vegan. You really can still eat ‘meat’” (as is happening now with the new MFA video).
The way the videos are produced, the message (for me), is clear without having to bombard me with graphic images. The combination of a story told through the mundane and the grisly, or the light and the dark (as in the case of Tribe of Heart’s Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home) is what I can show the average person and not have them be angry that I did. Instead, I see a tear in their eye and we have a discussion. There is empathy that I can see at least at that moment.
–sorry–had to run to Baby Sky.
Now all I need is a study to support my handful of anecdotes. I like the idea of emotion–both sweetness and sadness–being invoked, in addition to a clear message against exceptionalism. And a clear message that what happens every day, at every operation, is bad enough.
I didn’t even try to watch the rabbit one. And I couldn’t watch the 2nd part of the lamb one.
I like the idea of both the sadness and the sweetness being invoked, but *why do we need gore to invoke the sadness*?
Maybe I am wired differently than others or something, but all I need is to see the rescue, to see the awesomeness of the mother caring for her babies, and then the words “x number of lambs are killed every year…” or whatever. I am sad just from seeing that. I understand what they’re getting at. I don’t need to see the gore. And in fact, I can’t watch it, I just close the video, so if there was anything else they were saying, I’m never going to see it. Granted I’m not the target audience either. And maybe others do need to see that kind of thing.
I rarely look at anything Animal Equality does, because it’s too graphic for me. I love the interviews Sharon has done on Animal Voices though.
Deb,
As you know, I’m not a fan of gore (and the videos actually contain less gore than you think, but the anticipation of what’s going to happen is what’s terrifying and stomach-turning).
I don’t watch the graphic videos either. But I’m talking about other people–and apparently most people from everything we’ve been reading–whose emotions are a significant part of their decision-making process, and for whom the facts won’t trigger emotions. Hence, the images, and the question is how much/what kind. I honestly don’t understand how anyone watches the videos posted on my FB page every day. But every time I say that, or ask who on earth can sit through Earthlings (vegan or not), I get a bunch of people who say they watched it and went vegan. Clearly, there are many roads to success. But again, the most successful for the most people? I still don’t think we have the formula, but it seems that it includes some images that are uncomfortable to watch.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the facts don’t trigger emotions. Our decisions are not pure-logic-based, that’s true – decisions are rooted in emotions, and we cherry pick what facts we “believe” based on what we’ve already decided emotionally. But I’ve never seen anyone say that facts don’t trigger emotions.
Data is often believed or disbelieved based on it’s source, hence “vegans have an agenda” where the corporations making money off of animal agriculture don’t (or so believe the people who don’t want to accept anything that we say).
But the fact that lambs and sheep are killed is not something that anyone disputes, that I’ve ever heard, and even if they did, a picture of a restaurant menu with lamb as an option would be visual proof of that statement as much as slaughterhouse footage. So if images are important for people’s belief (or not) of the data, it doesn’t have to be gore to make the point. Yet, gore is the tool of choice. The only tool available, in most people’s minds.
Please sign our petition about Jesus, Christians and animals at http://www.Godscreaturesministry.org and share. Many thanks!!
Jan
I remember watching a video some time ago and unfortunately I can’t put my finger on it right now. But I remember it started off with a young girl at a farm and everything would indicate that this was a standard “food-animal” farm. As I watched I became angrier and angrier because of the idyllic conditions that were portrayed… But that’s exactly what the creator wanted to set up. The scene then rapidly switched for a moment to the killing of a chicken in the “organic” “home-spun” style, just like “maw and paw” used to do. Well, the juxtapose was almost too much to bare! But then the girl returned into the scene and it was revealed that she was at a sanctuary that spared animals such a fate.
Yes, it was gruesome for a small moment – But the positioning of both realities brought home the message of what ought to be. It was where any audience, meat eater or not was most comfortable. I can only assume that this would encourage people to explore their own inner reasons as to why.
And not enough praise can be said for Igualdad Animal. Their peaceful, silent honoring of all the lost animal lives at their demonstration in the the town square was stirring. They did so much with so little… And the unspoken message could not have been made more clear.
Oh… I meant this to answer the question: “Know where they are coming from, what matters to them, and start there.” Or “not stray from a straightforward ethics-based argument.” It might be me or my circle of influence… But I’ve not been very successful with ethics-based discussions. Although I love them because they are so pure and strike to the very root of all desired justice… But sadly my audience hasn’t been receptive thus far. :(
I think this is common, based on what I hear from many people. The good news is that once people are eating vegan (or more vegan meals, if they’re transitioning) then they’ll be more open to the rest of the arguments.
I do feel that the ethical reasons are the ones that will mean a lifetime’s commitment to veganism, where when it’s for our health we’re more likely to “cheat”. (Or maybe that’s just me!) But I don’t think we have to get people on board with the ethical views on day 1…
You quote the Mother Jones article: “You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.” Then you write: “However, some believe that we should not stray from a straightforward ethics-based argument.”
Are you are saying these are two different things? If you are, is it not the case that ethics are based on values and if this is true the MJ statement and using a “straighforward ethics-base argument” seem to be the same thing.
Excuse my confusion
Values, as they describe in the article, being business, religion, etc.
In an Animal Rights context, these values would be things like health, environment, rejection of colonialism, human rights, religion, animal rights, and more that I’m not even thinking of off the top of my head.
You are right – I wasn’t clear, and I will edit to make sure I am being more clear – but the ethics-based argument I was referring to was the ethical animal rights argument. I’m sure you’ve heard some of the groups say this, that we shouldn’t be approaching the issue from the environmental, health, etc, viewpoints…so that was what I was trying to refer to.
Thanks for pointing that out!
Value: We agree that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals.
Ethical argument: Animals suffer and are inevitably killed merely to serve our pleasure and convenience. If we believe in our values, we must remove ourselves from the system that inflicts unnecessary suffering and death on animals on our behalf; we must become vegan.
Your point, Eric?
Perhaps at the foundation of successful outreach is providing people with plenty of options after they become aware of animal liberation issues and ask, Now what? When people know that they can take certain actions and realize temporary setbacks are part of their journey, they’re strongly motivated to continue building a path toward a more compassionate, inclusive life. It’s essential for them to experience a sense of their own power and ability for achievement. In other words, they’ll go vegan or conduct open rescues or volunteer at animal sanctuaries as long as doing so is perceived as an improvement to their own lives. Self-interest appears to be human nature.
Many good points have been raised about the use of graphic images. But I wonder if our focus should be on making support for vegan pursuits readily available within our communities. That could be cooking demos, guiding trips to local sanctuaries, one-on-one mentoring, film screenings, and any variety of creative activities suited to our personality, whether we be extroverts or introverts or somewhere in between. We can’t underestimate the negative effect that our culture has on people as it consistently condones and encourages animal use. The presence of educational outreach and follow-up support can be significantly strengthened by each of us working solo and/or in a grassroots group (that we help start if we can’t find one). The dearth of consistent follow-up support might be the actual problem? Maybe we need to emphasize the how-to element and regularly offer activities that counter the mindset of the status quo, activities that are opportunities to encourage new paths of generous thinking and feeling so people aren’t afraid to grow. So that people will relearn to naturally seek to engage each other and our animal kin with an open heart.
Sundog, I think you’ve brought up something that’s really important, and which I hadn’t even thought of — essentially, *which emotions* are driving people to hear the truth about animal exploitation (or any social justice / environmental issue) but not believing the facts, or somehow otherwise convincing themselves that they don’t need to take action.
And, at least to a degree, it’s fear, isn’t it? Fear of change, and all that is implied. Maybe fear of failure, or fear of losing community, fear of not enjoying vegan food, all these variations on this theme.
I do think that support networks, mentoring, cooking classes, shopping trips, all these things, they can make a huge difference. And it’s definitely possible that if people knew *before* information on animal exploitation was presented to them that they’d have as much support as they needed, maybe they’d automatically be more likely to accept and change, because some of their fears would have been eliminated.
I definitely think you’re on to something!
I’m helping out at a local vegan bake sale tomorrow – I’m going to suggest to Gary that he put out a sign-up sheet for people interested in shopping expeditions or cooking classes. Or something! Mentoring of some kind. (Though knowing Gary, he might already do this!)
Chris in Beijing wrote me a while back about the idea of the AA sponsor and how it seems like what I do is like what they do. Of course, it’s intensive like the mentor idea (or maybe it IS the mentor idea) and it doesn’t involve a lot of people per person. But for me, it’s the only way I know what to do next–the person gives me the cue about their obstacle or objection–and little by little they come around (and don’t go back). So they’re transitioning on their own terms, in their own way, but with help and support. And b/c they’re not completely sold on the idea, they could easily fold at the thought of a problem, which is why the constant support is so important. I also love the Ask a Vegan idea as either a column at a local paper (does anyone even read the local paper?) or an hour at the local library, with vegan goodies in hand, and plenty of resources. At least in my area, there has been an increase of people going to libraries b/c they’re free and air conditioned. Have fun at the bake sale!