One of the greatest myths human beings hold of themselves is the conviction that they’re rational creatures. 

From Plato and Aristotle to Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin, the narrative of our superior sense of reason runs through centuries of philosophical and scientific thought. The myth that our rational minds set us apart from other species has led us to believe that our intellect has given us an evolutionary edge. 

As long as we overcome our feelings and instincts, we’re doing okay. So long as we stick to common sense, we’ll succeed.

Along with that myth of intellectual superiority comes the belief that an internal war waged within us all between “emotion” and “logic.” It’s a compelling myth, and it’s charming in its simplicity. 

The truth is far messier. 

Human beings rarely act reasonably. Seldom do we weigh the pros and cons of a situation before making a choice. We tend to follow gut feelings and act on spontaneous hunches. Then it shocks us when friends and family act unreasonably on theirs. 

As the behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman demonstrates in Thinking, Fast and Slow, humans scarcely behave as if they were trained or intuitive statisticians. They side with tribes much more than they do with the facts.

The Neurobiology of Affiliation

At the heart of any worldview lies a belief system, formed largely on what neuroscientists call affiliative feelings, or the mix of memories and associations. To navigate the world, we rely on those internal perceptions. Our views obey a logic all their own. 

If you eat Special K for breakfast, for instance, and you identify as someone who only eats Special K, your brain may project that feeling into the future. Even if your spouse cites all sorts of data and argues sensibly that Harvest Crunch is more delicious and nutritious, you likely won’t be swayed the next time you sit down to breakfast. If you’ve formed beliefs about how special Special K makes you feel and how good it is for you, very few facts or statistics will change your mind.

Of course, if you believe that pleasing your spouse is more important than pleasing yourself, you may switch cereal affiliations. Your devotion to your spouse may override your fidelity to Special K. Either way, the facts and stats are moot. What matters most is your memories and feelings — your beliefs. 

Beliefs Are Adaptive in Nature

Recent research in neuroscience tells us that beliefs are “neuropsychic products of fundamental brain processes.” They’re adaptive in nature. They enable us to make quick predictions about the environment and the behavior of people around us. Beliefs form templates for how we perceive ourselves and the world we live in.

Unfortunately, if we hold on too firmly to our beliefs, we may act out of our prejudices. We may conflict with those who have opposing convictions. 

You may have experienced this within your own family. Perhaps an uncle held beliefs about your career path that differed radically from your own. Or maybe your culture or religion didn’t “believe in” same-sex marriage, so you left your community to be the person you believed yourself to be. Clashes of belief systems happen daily. In politics. On the subway. Across Twitter. 

Underneath those confrontations lies the need within each of us to belong. To believe. And to follow through on our intrinsic need to stay sane and consistent.

As Abraham Maslow theorized: Beyond our physiological requirements for food, water, and safety, we need to feel love and esteem. Indeed, our access to shelter and sustenance arises often from our affiliations within a larger community. Without family ties or tribes, we may find it difficult to survive. 

Key Neural Processes

Clinical neuropsychologist and neuroscientist Paul J. Eslinger et. al. reveal that social feelings involve key neural processes that “signify optimal function, discord, and dynamics of social synchronization.” Social feelings not only encourage loyalty to a group but also attachment to its shared ideas and behaviors.

Affiliative feelings form the foundation of our interpersonal relationships; they drive socially motivated behavior and define our sense of morality. We’re more likely to feel gratitude, guilt, and compassion with those with whom we share a kinship. Sentiments like disgust, contempt, and indignation appear when someone inside or outside our tribe violates our expectations.

The “reason” people feel upset by another person’s behavior often has little to do with reason and everything to do with affiliation. Affiliative feelings tell us how to behave and whom to trust. People who fall outside our parameters of acceptable social behavior may trigger our protective instincts. 

For example, one person may feel aversion to a group of rowdy teenagers in a park and instinctively walk away. Another may sense kinship and continue walking towards them. For the first person, their rowdiness falls outside of an acceptable parameter for social behavior. For the other, the behavior feels familiar and safe. 

Similar dynamics play out within political groups. One group may feel entitled to voice unpopular views of gender or race. For them, doing so constitutes their right to “free speech.” For others, the same views may trigger disgust.

Stanford Professor Robert Sapolsky aptly refers to affiliative feelings and allegiances as “Us and Them” thinking. When you bite into a rotten tomato, the insular cortex sends signals to the amygdala to ring the alarm. Similar neural processes happen when you feel moral disgust. Accepting amoral behavior is as unappealing to the brain as eating a basket of rancid food. 

How to Overcome Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the brain’s tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of existing beliefs or theories. When you reject any evidence that is incompatible with your perspective of the world, psychologists call it “belief perseverance.” 

Why do confirmation bias and belief perseverance persist? 

Let’s say your mother has committed to a singular worldview: The family must have turkey for Christmas dinner. 

When you visit your mother for the holidays and tell her you no longer eat meat, she may interpret the news as a threat to her identity. Stress hormones increase, which can hijack your mother’s neocortex and interrupt her ability to listen to your valid reasons for choosing not to eat meat. 

If facts rarely change minds, if logic has no hope of persuading others to listen, what might we do to win people over? Or better yet, what actions can we all take to act a little more reasonably? 

To start, work with your own mind. Overcome any hidden beliefs that have persevered despite the contradicting evidence out there. Create a habit of challenging your own views. Learn perspectives outside your field, culture, and discipline. Research multiple sources to see all sides of a current affair. 

When you come across someone who harbors views that appear unreasonable, speak to her in ways that are non-confrontational. Talk calmly, slowly, compassionately, and clearly. Any new information you provide will be less likely to trigger your friend’s amygdala into fight, flight, or freeze. Rather than try to convince her with your armory of facts, ask questions. Respectfully listen to your opponent’s opinions, even if you disagree or consider them unreasonable. 

Since the brain often sides with situations that give rise to affiliative feelings, invite someone who holds an opposing view over for dinner. See them as a brother or a sister. Articulate your shared values before you share your opposing points of view. If you do, each of you is less likely to fall into any patterns of “Us and Them” thinking.

Remember: If you discover that you’ve been proven wrong, celebrate! It’s a sign that you’ve expanded your mind. 

John Assaraf
The Brain Whisperer