People think that their opinion always remains fixed, independent of the mood of society. However, new scientific research shows that our views, including political ones, are constantly changing. This is due to completely unexpected reasons.
No matter how you argue with convinced oppositionists, no matter what iron arguments in support of your own position you bring, you are unlikely to convince a person to change his mind. You try to prove yourself many times a day: at the dinner table with a company or in the comments on social networks. This creates the illusion that your opinions always remain the same.
People tend to see what they want
But in fact, furious oppositionists can easily become adherents of the ideas of one or another political trend, and vice versa. Decades of scientific research confirm this paradoxical phenomenon: people are more likely to notice and remember opinions that do not disagree with their own beliefs.
For example, if you love drinking wine, you justify your habit with scientific findings that you have found healthy substances in the drink. You are not interested in the other side of the coin, according to which excessive alcohol consumption provokes countless serious diseases.
Promotional video:
The brain processes information with which it agrees faster
The human brain processes information faster than it seems to be true. In one of the scientific experiments, the subjects were asked to check the texts. Some of them contained lexical and grammatical errors, and some were flawlessly written. As soon as the volunteers encountered a clumsy phrase in the assignment, they began to check the rest of the text in more detail, hoping to find other flaws in the author.
The same thing happens with the formation of your opinions. A recent study by staff at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem confirmed this trend. In the course of the experiment, the subjects were asked to find errors in the text about the impact on society of the global Internet. One of them argued that social media makes us more sociable, while the other expressed a diametrically opposite opinion. If the volunteer shared the belief about the benefits of the Internet, he spent much less time looking for grammatical errors in the text, and vice versa. Thus, we found out that opinions can predetermine the answer.
People value their opinions
All of this research suggests that people value their opinions. But this does not mean that beliefs remain with you on a permanent basis. We tend to exaggerate our achievements and capabilities, being in an illusory reality. University of British Columbia researcher Christie Lauren studied the attitudes of San Francisco residents towards the use of plastic water bottles.
The ban on them was not encouraged by everyone, but, nevertheless, the city authorities were adamant. A day later, the research team again assessed public sentiment. Surprisingly, in 24 hours people's views have changed and become more loyal to the adopted bill. This feature of thinking has nothing to do with habits: none of the opponents of the use of plastic bottles has time to adapt to the practical aspects of the ban. Their great loyalty meant that some citizens had time to change their mentality.
Rationalization of circumstances
This experiment clearly demonstrates that we have a tendency to rationalize in negative situations. Any of us can free up more brain space to live on with what we have. Christine Lauren calls this defense mechanism the "psychological immune system." Another high-profile ban concerned smoking in public places (in hospitals, parks and food courts) in Ontario.
The researcher found that people not only changed their minds after the measures were introduced, but generally revised their memories. If before the ban, smokers reported that they spent 15 percent of their time smoking in public places, then a second survey showed that these figures were halved. As you can see, the mind plays with people in its strange games, allowing them to think that they are more law-abiding citizens. The correction of memories was necessary for smokers to convince themselves that the effect of the ban did not become something critical for them.
Teller
Another interesting study by Kristen Lauren and her team related to the relationship to the newly elected US President Donald Trump before and after the inauguration. Currently, the politician has the lowest popularity rating among all presidents since the Second World War. This suggests that the electorate who voted against Trump are now even more negative about the billionaire's stay at the helm of the country. But in reality, not everything is as bad as it might seem at first glance.
How is it really
Those who voted for him, within a couple of days after the inauguration, felt more trust in the odious politician, and this is not surprising. Curiously, people who were ardent opponents of Trump, two days after taking office, spoke about him in a more positive way. They mentally resigned themselves to the fact that this man would rule the country for the next four years. The reason for such a revolution in human consciousness is not at all the brilliant inauguration speech of the billionaire. This was not the case. According to the researchers, mind is coming to the fore again, trying to make disgruntled people feel good and convincing them that it is necessary to continue to live on.
As a result, people began to hate the newly elected president much less, fundamentally changing their thinking. On a subconscious level, each of them was looking for ways that convinced them of a bright future. The researcher does not believe this was intentional. People saw the only way out: to free up some of the cognitive resources to keep moving. Life is too short to waste your precious time grieving. At some point in history, this phenomenon of human consciousness may have a dark side. People can put up with a regime with which they fundamentally disagree.
The worst of bad events and the best of good
The Harvard University team has conducted dozens of experiments to shape expectations. It turns out that when we envision upcoming events, we expect the worst from bad events and the best from good ones. But in reality, the worst scenarios don't kill us or make us feel the full spectrum of negative emotions. On the other hand, the best events do not bring us as much happiness as it seems in dreams.
An interesting feature is that when people model a future event in their minds, they focus their attention only on important features, ignoring small details. That is why the expected negative event appears before you in such dark colors. For example, when you go to the doctor for an examination, you mentally prepare for the worst diagnosis. You think that if a serious illness has penetrated your body, you will not be able to overcome this blow of fate. But in reality, the storm of emotions quickly dies down, leaving room for the desire to fight.
Conclusion
Does the above mean that, for example, politicians can manipulate people's minds at their own discretion? If this were so, history would not have known so many riots and revolutions. A critical mass of opposition can always upset the balance.
Inga Kaisina
