Navigating Objectivity: Why We Struggle to Change Our Beliefs
Written on
Chapter 1: The Challenge of Changing Beliefs
Have you ever noticed the difficulty in shifting someone’s firmly held belief? If you find yourself pondering that question, you're certainly not alone.
As a scientist recently engaged in the realm of nutrition, I am both fascinated and concerned by its divisive nature. Whether it involves preferences for specific diets like ketogenic, vegan, or paleo, debates on the safety of GMOs, or claims of organic superiority, it's rare to witness a change of opinion. Engaging in such discussions can feel as futile as debating a devout believer about the existence of God.
During a recent long-haul flight, I had the chance to delve into the book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), authored by renowned social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. Their work offers profound insights into why we cling to our beliefs so tenaciously, extending beyond nutrition into broader aspects of life.
As someone who values objectivity in my quest for knowledge, this book truly opened my eyes. Tavris and Aronson detail how our brains are wired to uphold our self-image while minimizing “cognitive dissonance.” We often perceive ourselves as logical and sensible individuals, making us uncomfortable with any information that challenges that perception, such as the notion that we might be mistaken.
Section 1.1: Understanding Cognitive Dissonance
We perform impressive mental gymnastics to alleviate cognitive dissonance. New evidence is often twisted to align with our pre-existing beliefs, while we scrutinize contradictory information harshly and embrace supportive evidence wholeheartedly (confirmation bias). In fact, we may even modify our memories to better fit our worldview and self-concept.
No one is exempt from this phenomenon—doctors, lawyers, politicians, and even scientists can fall prey to this bias. Unfortunately, we often remain oblivious to its presence within ourselves.
Subsection 1.1.1: Implications for Scientific Research
The insights from this book highlight a rather sobering truth about science: a significant proportion of published research findings are flawed (as noted in a study by Ioannidis). Epidemiological studies, which are a staple in nutritional research, present particular challenges.
Are scientists intentionally misleading? Not at all; rather, we excel at framing research outcomes to align with our beliefs. We often dissect and manipulate our data until we identify a narrative that feels valid, presenting it as the sole logical interpretation. While we readily identify “selective storytelling” in others, we rarely recognize it in ourselves. This is why establishing pre-defined analyses and “go/no-go” criteria in clinical trials is vital—they help counteract this selective narrative.
I am not advocating for the dismissal of scientific inquiry. With time and contributions from various stakeholders, the scientific community is likely to uncover and accept the truth. However, we must approach any study's findings with skepticism, especially those that proclaim “new and exciting” results, leave room for interpretation, or necessitate a leap of faith from experimental to real-world applications.
When assessing diet and health research, it's crucial to be wary of studies that lack proper controls or have multiple potential interpretations (such as any epidemiological study), those conducted in non-human models, and small studies with potential conflicts of interest. It seems that nearly all dietary and health studies fall under one of these cautionary flags!
Section 1.2: Strategies for Enhancing Objectivity
How can we seek truth amidst these biases?
- Acknowledge Your Biases: Recognizing your biases is a significant step toward mitigating their influence. While I advocate for a whole-foods, plant-centric diet, I endeavor to critically assess studies that laud animal products just as rigorously as those that condemn them. For instance, when the New York Times highlighted concerns about eggs and cholesterol, I refrained from jumping on the bandwagon due to the study’s numerous flaws.
- Play Devil's Advocate: Challenge yourself to consider the opposing viewpoint. When you find yourself dismissing an opposing argument, seek the truth in their perspective and explore what evidence could sway your opinion. During my research on soy, I sought to understand both the health benefits and the fears surrounding it, diligently reviewing data from both sides before forming a conclusion.
- Engage with Diverse Perspectives: Surrounding yourself with like-minded individuals limits your exposure to contradictory evidence. I prefer engaging in discussions with a variety of dietary beliefs, as this fosters the most significant learning opportunities.
Call to Action
This article serves as both a rallying cry to be vigilant about our objectivity and a request for accountability. If you notice me letting my beliefs cloud my judgment, please don’t hesitate to point it out!
I extend my gratitude to Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson for illuminating these vital human tendencies. I also want to thank my brother (Wrestling with Philosophy) and Dr. Peter Attia for their recommendations!
Chapter 2: The Complexity of Objective Reality
The first video, titled "Why there's no such thing as objective reality," presents an intriguing discussion on the subjectivity of our perceptions and beliefs.
The second video, "Truth vs Reality: How we evolved to survive, not to see what's really there," delves into the evolutionary aspects of our perceptions, further emphasizing the complexity of objective reality.