Rejecting Ideas we Don't Like

When we receive information that conflicts with our pre-conceived notions (as happens all the time in politics), we often struggle to avoid admitting that we may have been wrong. But how does that work, exactly, and how can we overcome this resistance in others?


The answer can largely be found in an academic article published in the Review of Educational Research in 1993, The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition.

I think that this paper contains a model that is critical to understanding how people TODAY react to information that does not fit their pre-conceived notions, referred to in the article as "Theory A."

(Remember, a theory is a model or understanding that fits the observed facts.)

The authors, Clark Chinn and William Brewer, postulate seven basic types of responses to "anomalous data", i.e. information that conflicts with pre-conceived notions:

1. Ignore the anomalous data,
2. Reject the data,
3. Exclude the data from the domain of theory A,
4. Hold the data in abeyance (delay thinking about it),
5. Reinterpret the data while retaining theory A,
6. Reinterpret the data and make peripheral changes to theory A, or finally
7. Accept the data and change Theory A, in favor of Theory B.

How do we use this information?

Here are some sequential steps that can cause a class or an individual to confront the need for change resulting from conflicting information:

1. Where possible, establish an environment of open mindedness, such as attempting to get agreement to employ Occam’s Razor.
2. Define the issue specifically, and get agreement on the definition.
3. Ask questions to determine which of the seven responses to anomalous data the individual or person is employing.
4. Present various facts or research conclusions that are evidence for changing theory.
5. At all times, avoid “discounting” the person’s opinion, which will chill his or her receptiveness to other ideas. 
6. Avoid using negative terminology – no, don’t, can’t, I disagree.  Rather use positively oriented questions or statements...Rather than saying “that won’t work because…” say “how do you deal with the problem of…”
7. Discuss each of the pieces of evidence.  Ask questions about that theory and lead the individual or group to the conclusion that the altered theory may have merit.
8. Where appropriate, encourage experiments to test or confirm the information being presented. 

The harder you push them, the more resistant to change people are. The process above, instead of pushing, hopes to sneak up on people and get them to come to their own realization about the problems with their existing understanding, rather than just having someone bluntly tell them they are wrong.