Here is what they said.

I posed the following open-ended questions:

1. “What are your views on abortion?”

2. “If you oppose abortion, why do you oppose it?”

3. “Under what circumstances do you think it should be legal to get one?”

The open-ended responses fell into these categories:

• 90% said abortion is wrong because it is murder (i.e., wrong like killing an adult is wrong)

• 24% said abortion is forbidden according to their religion

• 14% said they think it violates the rights of the unborn child

• 10% said Roe v. Wade misinterpreted the constitution

Note that the reasons listed above were those that people spontaneously wrote in their open-ended responses. Some wrote multiple reasons, which is why the probabilities exceed 100%.

Here are typical (exact quotes of) responses I received:

• “I believe that life starts at conception and abortion is the murder of innocent children. It is evil and immoral.”

• “An unborn baby is still a life. People who are pro-choice are not giving a choice to the baby”

• “I am against taking the life of an innocent baby. However, I am also careful not to judge those who are caught in a situation of rape, incest or life of the mother.”

• “I’m against abortion because it takes a human life. That’s really all there is to it! It’s simply murder”

• “I oppose it because I believe that God is in control of the pregnancy to begin with and we should not attempt to alter God’s plan.”

• “It goes against God’s Word, which teaches that life begins at conception”

• “the constitution of the United States does not speak to the legality of abortion, so it must be decided by legislators.”

On multiple-choice questions, here are the percentages of respondents who felt it should be ILLEGAL in different situations:

• 86% thought abortion should be illegal in normal circumstances (NOT an instance of rape, medical issues, incest, etc.)

• 67% thought abortion should be illegal for incest/genetic abnormality

• 53% thought abortion should be illegal when birth poses a 50% chance of death to the mom

Who were these respondents? I recruited them using our platform for running studies, Positly.com.

Regarding demographics: 42% of the respondents were women, 58% were men, and the average age was 45.

Only 12% consider themselves “not at all religious,” with 63% considering themselves “very” or “extremely” religious, and 79% considering themselves at least “moderately” religious.

51% of respondents live in the suburbs, and 22% in rural areas, with 27% in urban areas.

Choosing labels for themselves (with the ability to pick more than one) 34% of the respondents chose Christian Conservative, 26% Traditional Conservative, 25% said that they were actively against giving themselves a label, 12% selected Libertarian, and 8% selected Centrist. None were Liberal or Left-wing.

The qualitative responses above were collected as part of a broader study that involved a total of 396 people on Positly.com sharing their reactions to Roe vs. Wade being overturned. Of these, approximately 30% were very happy it was overturned, 10% were a little happy, 15% were indifferent or neutral, 7% were a little unhappy, and 38% were very unhappy it was overturned. (Not all of the qualitative responses made by those who were very happy it was overturned were analyzed to produce the summaries above; instead, a smaller subset was chosen at random for analysis of their qualitative responses.) 

In the same study, I also asked all participants when they consider someone a living human person that it would be wrong to kill. Here are the response selections made by 120 people in the survey who said they have left-of-center (liberal) political views and 190 people in the survey saying they have right-of-center (conservative) views (right-leaning participants were purposely over-sampled in this study):

Notes on this chart: Respondents selected one time point from the following multiple-choice list of options (note that each is recorded in the chart as time since conception, as opposed to time since the most recent period the mother had, which is approximately 2 weeks prior to conception): At conception (i.e., when a human sperm enters a human egg/ovum), 4 weeks after the woman’s last period (about 2 weeks after conception), 6 weeks after the woman’s last period (when the beating of fetal heart tissue is detectable), 13 weeks after the woman’s last period (the end of the 1st trimester), 24 weeks after the woman’s last period  (when the fetus is viable, that is, capable of living outside the uterus), 26 weeks after the woman’s last period  (the end of the 2nd trimester), Just after birth, At one year of age, At three years of age,  At five years of age, At 10 years of age, At 18 years of age). The following responses were not included: 1 person said 18 years, 1 person said 1 year, 1 person said 3 years, and 1 person said 5 years (the first 2 outliers were on the political left and the second 2 outliers were on the political right). The total number of responses from people on the political left (including the 2 outliers) was 122 and the total number of responses from people on the political right  (including the 2 outliers) was 192.

This piece was first written on June 27, 2022, and first appeared on this site on June 30, 2022. The last section was added on July 5, 2022.

It’s tough to make real-life disagreements productive, but here are my favorite techniques for making it easier to do so. These help more if you are significantly motivated to use the disagreement to deepen mutual understanding of the issue.

I’m assuming here that you have control over your own behavior, but not over the other persons, because that’s the reality of almost all such situations. I’m not assuming that the other person is motivated to figure out the truth (e.g., they may be mostly motivated by “winning” the debate).

TIPS FOR HAVING MORE PRODUCTIVE REAL LIFE DISAGREEMENTS

(1) Avoid debates in front of others – if others are watching, it tends to create unproductive social dynamics. You or the person who disagrees with you may want to look good in the debate in front of those other people, which tends to push in the opposite direction of being open-minded and conceding when the other person has made a good point. What’s more, having other people involved increases the chance that the conversation gets derailed.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “Bob, what do you think about what we’re discussing?”

PRODUCTIVE: “Want to sit over there with me and discuss this in more detail?”

(2) Stay on topic – very often, the topic of disagreement will start to drift. Resist the urge to go follow tangents or switch what the debate is about, or you’ll lose focus. If someone says something new that you disagree with, resist the urge to address it if it isn’t related to the main point of contention.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “You’re wrong about that too.”

PRODUCTIVE: “We can discuss that point of disagreement later, but I’d be interested in returning to the subject we were discussing if you don’t mind.”

(3) Investigate first, don’t attack – when someone says something we strongly disagree with, we can be tempted to immediately attack their position. However, doing so sets up the discussion as a war. If the goal is to have a productive debate (where both you and the other person have a reasonable chance of making your views more accurate), then it’s much better to set the conversation up as a discussion where you can learn from each other instead. Avoid immediately jumping into attacking the other person’s position so that they aren’t put on the defensive and so that the conversation isn’t framed in terms of winning. This relates to Julia Galef’s concept of Scout Mindset (see: http://bit.ly/2fPYRJI), which I think is the right mindset to have when entering into a disagreement. You should be trying to understand the lay of the land, not firing cannons. If you fire cannons, you can expect cannon fire right back at you.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “There are at least three reasons you’re wrong about that.”

PRODUCTIVE: “Could you tell me more about that?”

(4) Clarify the other person’s claims – it’s surprisingly easy to have a long disagreement without fully understanding what the other person really meant. Typically you’ll need to ask a lot of clarifying questions early on so that you really understand what’s being claimed. If you refute the other person’s points, without having clarified, there is a good chance that you are arguing against something that isn’t quite what they believe. One of the best ways of making sure you’ve understood the other side is to repeat back the other person’s claims in your own words and ask if you’ve accurately reflected what they are saying.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “But X is not true because…”

PRODUCTIVE: “I think that what you’re saying is X, am I understanding that right?”

(5) Clarify definitions – language tends to be quite ambiguous. If the points you are making hinge on someone understanding your definition of a word, then take a moment to clarify what you mean by it. Or, if you notice that the way the other person is using a word may not be quite the way you use it, stop for a moment to explain your usage and to ask them to clarify their own. If you and the other party mean different things by word, it’s very hard to constantly keep that in mind without getting confused. It’s typically much better to either decide to switch over to the other person’s definition (once you’ve asked them to explain it) or to ask to switch to another word entirely that you both agree on the definition for. It’s a lot harder to get someone to successfully switch over to your definition than to simply resolve to switch over to theirs.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “We obviously don’t have free will because we don’t choose the things we fundamentally want.”

PRODUCTIVE: “Could you elaborate on what you mean by the phrase ‘free will’? I’m not sure I understand what you are using that phrase to mean.”

(6) Identify reason(s) for belief – don’t just stop at understanding what the other person is claiming. If you actually want to make progress in the debate, you’ll need to dig into the reasons behind their beliefs. Knowing why they believe what they do may cause you to agree with the other person more (because it helps you understand their reasoning) but, even if it doesn’t, it can also help you understand where the debate needs to focus in order to make progress. Without knowing why they believe what they do, you don’t know what points are most critical to discuss.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “I don’t think X is true because….”

PRODUCTIVE: “What are the main reasons that you think X is true?”

(7) Gently probe the reasons you’re given – if someone tells you that the reason they believe X is Y, don’t assume that if you were to change their belief in Y, then belief X would change too. First of all, we are not always aware of the reasons we believe things, so while the person might think Y is the reason they believe X, they might be wrong (it could just be their best on the spot guess or the first argument their brain could put together – they may have even forgotten what caused them to believe X). Second, our beliefs may be propped up by multiple other beliefs, so even if the other person really does believe X because of Y, there may be other beliefs P and Q that would need to change at the same time for the other person to stop believing X. What’s more, a person may have an emotional attachment to X that isn’t really supported by conscious “reasons” at all (e.g., the idea of not believing X causes them anxiety, so if they start to sense that X is being challenged they try to defend it with whatever argument comes to mind first). So if the main point of contention in your debate is whether X is true, and the other party says they believe X because of Y, you’ll want to gently probe Y to understand better what’s really going on. This can be done with questions such as:

-“Is Y the main reason you believe X, or are there other important reasons you believe X as well?”

-“If you were no longer convinced of Y, do you think that would be enough to cause you to stop believing X?”

-“If it turned out that X was true, would you see that as a bad thing? Why?”

UNPRODUCTIVE: “But Y is not a convincing reason to believe X.”

PRODUCTIVE: “If you stopped believing that Y was true, would that change your mind about X?”

(8) Look for the critical points of disagreement – there may be a lot of reasons that you and the other person disagree, but they are unlikely to be equally important. Chances are, there are a small number of important points of contention that the disagreement hinges on. (see CFAR’s “double crux” technique: http://bit.ly/2xYjqOI for more about finding these “crux’s”). It can be helpful to frame finding the core points of disagreement as an explicit goal in the conversation and to enlist the other person’s help in figuring it out.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “Let’s go one by one through all the reasons we disagree.”

PRODUCTIVE: “I think our main point of disagreement is actually just Y. does that seem right to you? If not, I’d be really interested in finding out what our core points of disagreement really are.”

(9) Find common ground – agreeing tends to make people feel closer to each other and to make a debate feel less heated and awkward, so it’s good to point out the things that you do already agree on. Pointing out what you think you already agree on can also be helpful for clarification because you may discover hidden points of disagreement that you didn’t even realize were there.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “It looks like we really don’t agree on this topic.”

PRODUCTIVE: “It looks like we already agree on a number of things, including…”

(10) Look for ways you can learn – one of the best things about a disagreement is that it presents an opportunity to make your own views more accurate. Even if you are right overall on the topic, you can still correct minor errors in your beliefs and arguments and hone them for the future. Chances are the other person has at least SOME good points. Try to learn as much as you can from them. At the very least, you can learn about how someone gets to the point of believing something that you disagree with on this topic, which is useful to understand in its own right. On complex, controversial issues, it is almost always the case that both sides have some reasonable points. It’s valuable to know what the reasonable points on the other side are. Keep in mind also that, like everyone, you are totally wrong about some of the things that you strongly believe in. This might just be one of those topics. If that’s true, it’s better to find out now and then start being right about it, rather than continuing being wrong about the topic indefinitely.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “I’m still not convinced.”

PRODUCTIVE: “I’d be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on Z because I’ve never thought about Z the way you’re presenting it.”

(11) Give credit when a good point is made – if the other person makes a good point, or changes your mind about something, tell them that. This might feel like conceding ground in the “battle,” but if you’re viewing the disagreement as a battle, then you are probably already not in a productive mode of discussion. Telling the other person that they made a good point or that they changed your mind about something shows good faith. It demonstrates that you are actually interested in listening to what they say and that you are not simply trying to beat them. That tends to make the other person less defensive, more open-minded, and more likely to be willing to admit that you changed their mind as well. It can help to frame the entire discussion as a collaborative enterprise to figure out the truth, rather than as a conflict between two people. Remember that finding out you are wrong about something is a gift that makes you more powerful because, the next time around, you’ll have truer beliefs and better arguments, as well as a deeper understanding of the world.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “What you said was not 100% true.”

PRODUCTIVE: “You made a great point about Z, which helps me understand this topic better.”

(12) Keep your ego out of it – if your ego is invested in coming out on top in the disagreement, or at least in not having your points refuted, then you are less likely to learn and more likely to turn the disagreement into a battle where the goal is winning. One nice trick for keeping your ego off to the side is to put forward claims without saying that you necessarily believe them. For instance, to keep an argument that you have uncertainty about at arm’s length, you can say, “Some people argue that Z, what do you think of that claim?” or if you aren’t sure you believe something, say “I’m not sure yet what I think about this yet, but one thing that comes to mind is Z.” You can also bring up the views of other people, as in “I was reading an article that said Z. What’s your reaction to that?” Using softening language can help too, such as “I’m thinking that” rather than “I believe that” or even worse, “I’ve always believed that.” The more your language makes the belief seem like a core part of your identity, the harder you may later feel it is to back down, even if you turn out to be totally wrong.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “I believe in Y.”

PRODUCTIVE: “I’m still figuring out what I think about Y. Some people say Z about it; what do you think of that argument?”

(13) Keep the other person’s ego out of it – if the other person’s ego is invested in winning (or at least not losing), it is likely going to tend to reduce the quality of the discussion. Make it as easy as possible for the other person to concede a point, for instance, by acknowledging that you understand why they think the thing and explaining how you see someone might come to that conclusion, or by emphasizing that another point they made was really good while you’re pointing out that this other point they made is weaker. Mentioning ways that you realize your own views were wrong can also be helpful, as it neutralizes the embarrassment of being wrong. If you used to believe the same thing that they do (but changed your mind about it), it can be helpful mentioning that as well to show that you understand why someone would take their side.

UNPRODUCTIVE: “You’re wrong about X.”

PRODUCTIVE: “I can understand why you said X, and you made a lot of good points about it. I think, though, that there is an important consideration that the argument you gave isn’t taking into account.”

But all hope is not lost. We can effectively reason about which of our beliefs are more likely to be correct, and which are more likely to be in error. Even if we feel equally strong feelings of belief for two ideas, further considerations can make us realize that we are more likely to be correct in one of the cases than the other. In other words, there are traits that go beyond our strength of belief that can help us identify where we are likely to have made errors.

Consider the following properties that beliefs can have. Each of these is an indicator that a belief is less likely to be true.

1. Many smart, knowledgeable people disagree with you (e.g. you think that evolution didn’t happen). If many such people think you are wrong, it is not obvious why your belief is more likely to be correct than the beliefs of those who disagree.
2. You have a financial (or other) incentive to believe it (e.g. you think that the product you created really does regrow hair, and you value providing a product that helps people). When we have an incentive to think a certain way, we are less likely to seek out or listen to evidence that contradicts this way of thinking.
3. If the belief were not true you would find it psychologically disturbing (e.g. you believe that your wife does not fantasize about any other men). Our minds tend to veer away from thoughts that disturb us, making it less likely that we believe them, even when they are true.
4. You originally came to believe for reasons that don’t have much to do with logic, evidence or reason (e.g. growing up, your mom wouldn’t let you pet dogs on the street, so you believe that doing so is dangerous).
5. Your argument as to why your belief is true is long and complex (e.g. you believe that a convicted criminal is innocent, because when you evaluate the twelve pieces of evidence given against her, you find that they each don’t hold up). When our arguments are long and complex it is more likely that we have made an error at some point in our thinking.
6. There are lots of possible outcomes, and your belief is that just one of them will occur (e.g. you think Hillary will beat out the other seven candidates in this primary). Typically, the more possible outcomes there are, the less likely it will be that any particular one of them is correct.
7. A large number of factors influence whether your belief will end up being true (e.g. you’re convinced that GDP growth will decline over the next year). When many factors influence an occurrence, it is really hard to be sure that you have properly taken into account all of the important ones.
8. You don’t understand the arguments of those that disagree with you, or see how they could believe what they believe (e.g. you know that a fetus is obviously a person). When you don’t understand contrary opinions, it is an indicator that you have mainly researched one side of an issue, and so are less likely to have really weighed the strength of arguments on all sides.
9. You become emotional when people disagree with you about the belief (e.g. you think that insurance companies should not cap health expenditures for illnesses that are usually terminal, and you become upset when challenged on this issue). The problem here is that strong emotions can interfere with our ability to evaluate arguments objectively, and prevent us from engaging in open-minded discourse about a subject.
10. You can’t clearly explain what your belief means (e.g. you’re convinced that you have free will). When we find it hard to explain what we mean by one of our beliefs, it may be the case that we have merely become attached to an idea or intuition, rather than having considered the evidence and made a decision based on that.

To be good at identifying and stamping out our false beliefs, we need to go beyond just considering how strong our feeling of belief is. We need to consider the properties of our beliefs, and decide whether each is the sort of belief that we should have skepticism about.

Influences: Kathryn Schulz