We all have that one friend, right.
He (or she. Sometimes it’s a she. I feel like inevitably it’s gonna be a dude, though) is convinced that something you know to be absolutely irrational and completely incorrect, is 100 per cent fact.
This is the friend that you will, after a couple of wines, get it into your head that you can change their mind, if only you can help them see sense.
But no matter how many wines you’ve had, or that he (or she) has had, there is nothing you can do. He (or she… okay, real talk stating that it can also be or she is getting tiring. So can I just trust you, dear reader, to know that I mean, “or she”?) believes what he believes and it doesn’t matter what empirical evidence you present, how many studies you point to, how much you tell them him he’s crazy.
There is absolutely no way you can change his mind.
Your friend is Pauline Hanson. Or Andrew Bolt. Or an anti-vaxxer. Or a climate change denier.
And Pauline Hanson has confirmation bias. Though, to be fair to Pauline Hanson, you and I have confirmation bias too.
Confirmation bias is the idea that we are cognitively biased towards information that confirms that which we already believe. As humans, we will seek out, interpret and recall information that suits us. We will discount and disfavour information that may prove us wrong.
We don't have confirmation bias about everything in life. But we will often have it for things we are emotionally invested in.
That means, if you present me with reasonable evidence to show me that my views on the health benefits of kale are incorrect I'll probably get on board. I'm not really that invested in kale.
But if you bring me information that suggests climate change is a scientific conspiracy, or that life begins at conception and tell me we should ban abortion, things I care very deeply about, I'm highly likely to laugh you out of the room.
That's why trying to convince Pauline Hanson that her views on Muslim extremism are wrong with nothing but facts is a fool's errand. It won't work. These are things she is highly emotionally invested in.
That's not to say that she isn't wrong, or that her views aren't dangerous. They are. The things she says are incredibly dangerous. The hatred towards Muslims, Indigenous Australians, Asians and others she espouses is awful.
But, there's only one way to change Pauline Hanson's mind, and Father Rod Bower, who has by way of his church sign invited Pauline round for a meal, is on the money.
It's the same way that groups like Love Makes A Way and Welcome to Australia are doing it to try to change the minds of politicians who are keeping children in immigration detention facilities.
We are all going to have to shower her with love.
It might not work. But calling her an idiot definitely won't work. Making her an object of ridicule won't work. Cold, hard facts won't work.
The only chance we've got is to be respectful and, like Father Rod Bower has, invite her over for lunch for a chat.
Top Comments
Wow, critical thinking ability has left the stage! I think we should all learn the 'human' attribute of respecting each others opinions, and respecting the 'human' right to free speech. Alternative is fascism, if that is what you are advocating?
This goes for anyone though, I have friends that feels as strongly as you do and others that feel as strongly as she. Neither one ever willing to listen to the others - the "hansons" are shouted down as bigots, racists, heartless etc. Whereas the "others" are called tree huggers, bible bashers, bleeding hearts.
What's important to remember & you haven't mentioned here though is there is a REASON people feel this way & just because they feel & think differently to you doesn't mean they're completely wrong - that goes both ways, people need to listen, really listen-not this *have ears open while thinking of a rebuttal* which is how most conversations are these days.
I completely agree with amandarose though (below) these things take time, it's not just 1 chat that will change someone's thinking it will be small things over time
I really love this comment.
Because whilst I disagree with a lot of what Pauline Hanson says, I also get frustrated that Mamamia writers too suffer from confirmation bias, in that they have a total blind spot about Muslims. So much injustice in the Islamic world perpetrated on women, and yet Mamamia writers can not see it because they belong to this left wing clique that is not allowed to critique Islam/Muslims, so no matter how much evidence you present to them because of their confirmation bias they will refuse to see it. On the other hand Hanson and her supporters suffer from right wing confirmation bias, if there right wing friends say something then they must follow it too.
I've always had left wing beliefs, a strong belief in social justice, helping disadvantaged and disabled people, I believe in indigenous rights etc, so I too also for a long time, like the Mamamia writers, had a similar left wing confirmation bias, if the left wing said it as far as I was concerned it must be right. But once the left wing started supporting gender apartheid in the form of its support of Islamic fascism was the point that my core belief in the left wing was seriously shaken. Since then I've started to think well if the left wing can be so supportive of people who believe in gender apartheid then what else have they been wrong about it? Also when right wing people like Hanson are against gender apartheid it makes me realise that I never gave people like her a chance in the past I just dismissed their point of view as right wing and therefore wrong. I still do not agree with her on the majority of topics and find some of her views downright repugnant, but the left wing's betrayal of women in their support of Islam has made me realise not to jump to conclusions about people again, left or right, but to listen to each of their opinions, and judge each on its individual merit and not automatically believe or disbelieve an opinion simply because the left wing or right wing support it.
Unless logic and critical thinking applies.