As an undergraduate, I majored in physics and minored in secondary (middle school and high school) education. In addition to a full complement of physics courses, I also learned biology, chemistry, and geology. Among my education courses was one in adolescent psychology where we explored how people process information and develop beliefs. There is a naïve notion that when a teacher says something and writes it on the board, all the students ultimately understand it and accept it.
One of our classes was particularly interesting in that the professor posed an objective problem, with an objective solution, and we ended up with essentially three different prospective solutions. So, he divided us up into three groups where the groups met separately, discussed why they all agreed on that group’s solution, and then chose one in the group to present their solution to all three groups.
After a round of presentations, the professor invited anyone in any group, who felt that they had now been persuaded that another group’s answer was correct, to leave the first group and join the other. There were approximately 30 people in the class, and the groups were approximately 10 people, each. After that first round of presentations only one person, in one group, elected to change groups.
Now, keep in mind that this was not a subjective problem with a multitude of solutions but rather a math problem with one and only one correct solution. Nevertheless, despite reasoned presentations, only one person in 30 was persuaded to change his or her belief. Part of the reluctance to change beliefs was mathematical misunderstanding. Part was semantics. And, I believe, a big part was group loyalty. How else do we explain the “Flat Earth” groups?
The problem that was posed involved a first person purchasing a product for $10 from s second person. The second person had second thoughts about selling the product, and convinced the first person to sell it back to him for $20. But, the first person felt so bad about it, that he offered the second person $30 and repurchased the product. The question was “how much profit, if any, did the second person make?”
The answers were $10, $20 or $30 as solicited from the class, and then the groups were divided into three groups where they believe the answer was $10, $20 or $30. Again, this is not subjective. There is one correct solution – $20 – but try as each group might to convince others to change their beliefs, only one person did so.
What this speaks to is how difficult it is to change peoples’ minds. The old joke about “don’t confuse me with facts because I have my opinion” is all too real. We are in the midst of the 2020 presidential election. Hundreds of millions of dollars in media advertising is being spent at this moment to attempt to either solidify choices, or change some minds. But, this isn’t a math problem with only one solution. This is a subjective problem with at least two choices – Trump or Biden. I can remember during the 2016 election Kelly Anne Conway saying “we are entitled to alternative facts,” or something like that.
In my mind, there is enough evidence to establish that Trump is a sociopath and narcissist. In a perfect world, even his most ardent supporter, given those facts, should agree that he is a sociopath and a narcissist. But we hear “don’t listen to what he says; look at what he does.” And, when I look at what he does, I still come to same conclusion that he is a sociopath and a narcissist. Yet, some others “looking” at what he does come to a very different conclusion.
Based on my experience in that classroom experiment, I should not be at all surprised that 30 percent of likely voters in America are solid Trump supporters. And, I would argue against spending any money on trying to change their views. As I have said to many people, recently, history shows us that in the US electoral college elections, it is the so-called “independent” voters in a handful of states who swing the election one way or the other. In 2008 and 2012, these were the voters who put Obama in the White House. In 2016, these same voters put Trump in the White House.
I believe that although it is very clear that Biden is far superior to Trump to serve as president, as Yogi said “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” If I were calling the shots for how campaign funds would be spent in the run up to November 3 2020, I would earmark just enough funds in key states to increase the likelihood that Biden’s lead is secure, and put most of the money in those handful of states where the independents who voted for Trump in 2016 could be persuaded that, in retrospect, that was a mistake, and they would not repeat it in 2020. There is no amount of money and messaging that will persuade all of them; but there is a finite and reasonable amount of money to shape appropriate messages and targets for those messages to change just enough minds to put Biden in the White House come January 2021.