We’ve all been here before. We see them, our ideological opponents. People whose brain cells are so obviously depleted to the point that they believe insanities. The olodos.

Or perhaps their intelligence isn’t the issue. Maybe they have stones where their hearts should be, completely devoid of empathy and compassion. Evil rules their moral compass and it shows in their erroneous opinions.

Or maybe they are just ignorant, their eyes never reading information that you are certain would change their minds. Their lives without the experience that would shift their perspective.

Whatever the case may be, they are wrong. And you know it.

Idiots. Evil. Ignorant. These are some of the go-to qualities that just about all of us ascribe to our ideological opponents. Although I think I’ve known this all along, it didn’t quite hit me until last year when I read what has become one of my favorite books titled Being Wrong: Adventures on the Margin of Error by Kathryn Schulz. She noted all three of those assumptions that we make about those with whom we disagree and I couldn’t help but think to myself, Oh wow! She’s right! We really do that!

SEE ALSO: The 53 Books I Read in 2018 (Free Books Included)

The Possibly Incorrect Assumption You Make About Your Ideological Opponent

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately, specifically about the third assumption. It’s usually predicated on the idea that you know or have experienced something they have not. And once they read the information you have read or experienced what you have experienced, they will change their mind.

If only they actually read the package inserts of vaccines. Then they’d know the dangerous chemicals they contain and vaccinate their kids. Like, who in their right mind knowingly allows their child to be injected with poison like mercury, says the anti-vaxxer.

If only they actually read their holy book in its entirety. Then they’d see God for the horrible monster he is. He is the furthest thing from loving, says the anti-theist.

If only they actually knew how Apple is limiting their customer’s user experience. If only the iPhone customer knew that they are basically paying more for less, says the former iPhone fan/now Android diehard.

From the more serious topics to lighthearted ones, we assume the other side is just ignorant of what we know. And perhaps, you are right. Maybe they didn’t explore the ideas enough or read relevant literature that has woken you up to the truth.

But a number of times, they aren’t ignorant. In fact, in certain circumstances, it’s almost never the case. Your ideological opponent is very well aware of that content you see as the game-changer.

A common misconception about assuming the 'other side' is ignorant lies in our simplistic view of what information & experience are and how they function. Click To Tweet

We often see information and experience as flat, two-dimensional things that can be accepted or denied. However, information and experience can also present themselves as three-dimensional things that allow for subjective interpretation.

And we can see this play out when we consider the anti-vaxxer, the anti-theist, the Android diehard, and their ideological opponents.

Naïve Realism: An Introduction

A few months back, I was listening to an episode of a podcast called You Are Not So Smart (highly recommend the podcast by the way). In this episode, I learned about naïve realism, a term coined by social psychologist Lee Ross in the 90’s. Naïve realism is basically the idea that you see and experience the world objectively and if someone disagrees with you, then it’s because they lack objectivity. They are the biased, ignorant, or irrational one. You are the unbiased, knowledgeable and rational one. The three characters I mentioned earlier in this article (the anti-vaxxer, the anti-theist, and the former iPhone fan/now Android diehard) all have sentiments that echo naïve realism. They all assume that their ideological opponents are unaware or ignorant. But let’s consider cases in which their opponents are actually aware.

Examples of Ideological Opponents not being ignorant

In the case of the pro-vaxxer, they might say in response to the anti-vaxxer, “Yes, mercury is terrible to have in high doses. However, the mercury in vaccines (ethylmercury) is different from mercury in fish that can poison you at high doses (methylmercury) and thus behaves differently. The former lasts in your body for a very short amount of time, so it’s safe. The latter easily biomagnifies, making your risk of mercury poisoning even higher compared to your exposure to ethylmercury.”

In the case of the theist, they might say in response to the anti-theist, “Yes, the God-ordained slaughter in the Old Testament is violent. I do not disagree with you there. However, I take the claim that God is loving by faith. Faith, by definition, cannot be logically proven and I concede to this. And I agree that it does not make sense. Faith is not supposed to make sense.”

In the case of the iPhone fan, he or she might say to the Android diehard, “Yes, I know all of the amazing things that Androids offer. Multitasking, fast charging included in the purchase, the fingerprint option still being available to unlock your phone in newer Android phones…they’re all good things. However, I prefer the user experience of the iPhone more than the Android, especially the aesthetics of its hardware and software. I don’t actually care much for those add-ons. Also, I love the Apple ecosystem and prefer that to Android ecosystem offerings. And I am willing to pay more for it.”

Why the Pro-Vax Response is Unique

In the cases of the theist and the iPhone user, the conversation is basically over as far as impersonal claims are concerned. The theist has acknowledged that his or her conclusion of God’s goodness is not based on rationality, so continuing on the conversation in hopes of a rational explanation would be pointless. In the case of the iPhone user, you can’t really debate personal preference since it’s so subjective. Of course, the anti-theist and Android diehard can hold whatever opinion they have about the responses from their ideological opponents.

But what sets the above responses apart from the response to the anti-vaxxer? Well, the pro-vaxxer responded with a claim that does not involve personal sentiments. It was neither a statement of personal conviction nor a personal preference. The Center of Disease Control, a major arm of the United States government’s Department of Health and Human services, is the source of the pro-vaxxer’s claim. The page this claim came from also includes links to peer-reviewed research about mercury in vaccines and its low risk.

An anti-theist cannot accept or deny a theist’s decision to forsake rationality. An Android diehard cannot accept or deny an iPhone fan’s preference for an iPhone. But an anti-vaxxer can accept or deny the claim the pro-vaxxer makes about mercury in vaccines and its safety.

Now, is it likely that the anti-vaxxer will accept the pro-vaxxer’s claim as true and become a pro-vaxxer?

In-group/Out-group Dynamics and Confirmation Bias

It is no secret that the anti-vaccination movement has taken a hold on social media. And it will only get stronger. One common sentiment held by anti-vaxxers is a general distrust for the American government. And according to the Pew Research Center, trust in the American Government has reached historic lows. “Only 17% of Americans today say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right ‘just about always’ (3%) or ‘most of the time’ (14%).” Given that the pro-vaxxer’s rebuttal includes information from the CDC, a government organization, we cannot be surprised if the anti-vaxxer rejects the studies and stats. It is likely that they will dismiss the claim and hold onto the anti-vax authorities instead.

Despite anecdotes not being sufficient forms of evidence, it is more likely that negative vaccine anecdotes will affect their decision to stay anti-vax than successful vaccine anecdotes. After all, media networks don’t report positive vaccines stories. And those positive stories aren’t the ones that are shared by word-of-mouth in anti-vax circles.

It is difficult for the human mind to be moved by data. Plots on a chart and percentages do not carry the immediate impact that anecdotes do. And under the influence of the power of those anecdotes, an anti-vaxxer could find other data and information that bolsters their position while disregarding information that refutes it. This is called confirmation bias. And it is something we are all prone to if left unchecked.

How Your Ideological Opponents Cement Your Place in Your Ideological Camp

There is also an almost Messianic mindset in the anti-vax group, one that recognizes and readily accepts the ridicule that comes with the territory of such an unpopular claim while believing that they are doing this for the good of their loved ones and, in some cases, their fellow citizens. And this isn’t exclusive to anti-vaxxers. It is part and parcel of most ideologies.

When your ideological opponents mock you, you can take solace in your in-group. You can relate with people who understand why you reason the way you do on a particular issue. In some cases, due to this dynamic of ridicule fueling a sense of solace in a group, this could actually reinforce your position in your ideological group, making it stronger than ever. And as a result, your ideological opponent no longer is someone with whom you merely disagree. They become an enemy.

You follow Schrödinger’s religion

One major plus of social media is having access to different points. This has been true for me, especially when it comes to religion. Even outside of the confines of online debate, I’ve taken interest in how people–on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum–use similar language to talk about their experiences. This observation has also reinforced how two people can look at the same information but make different inferences.

The religious person meditates on life before he committed to his god, singing “I once was lost but now I’m found, was blind but now I see.”

The former religious person shares her story about her journey away from religion, about how religion blinded her to the truth. And how she sees life through a clearer lens without it.

The atheist astrophysicist studies the Big Bang Theory and finds that the current scientific understanding of the universe needs no reference to anything or being outside of it.

The deist astrophysicist, while totally accepting the Big Bang Theory, believes that a supreme being is responsible for the origin of the universe.

The Christian testifies to how God showed her a sign and how she now has even bigger faith in God.

The Muslim testifies to how Allah showed him a sign and how he has even bigger faith in Allah.

Then they all face each other. The religious and the nonreligious. The atheist astrophysicist and the deist astrophysicist. The Christian and the Muslim. And they urge that their ideological opponent wakes up to the truth.

We read the same information. We have similar experiences. Yet we come to diametrically opposed conclusions.

Those who agree with us have “woken up to the truth” while our opponents consider us “asleep.”

We all follow Schrödinger’s religion. We are “awake” and “asleep” simultaneously.

You are wrong, too

At this very moment while you are reading this, you currently hold fallacious claims as truth. And I do too. After all, it is an inevitable part of being a human being. There are times when our anger at the other side’s demonstration of wrongness is justified. But it is humbling to think that, in our calling the other side stupid, uninformed, or evil, we may find out after the fact that we were talking about ourselves all along. We do not know everything and we have a lifetime of learning ahead of us, a lifetime that includes correcting our own erroneous positions in exchange for truth.

'For in the end, we all just coexist on different planes of ignorance. There is no epiphany more profound.' — @G_vestautong Click To Tweet

What is something you once believed was true that you know longer believe is true (or vice versa)? Share your stories in the comments below.