We’ve all experienced it. In one of our social feeds, somebody posts a story, makes a statement, or takes a position that is not only contrary to ours, but contrary to our understanding of the facts. Bam! Time to jump in and fix it! 

I try to ignore - except for the occasional sarcastic comment - the low-hanging fruit, the topics that have become politicized beyond reasonable discourse. I can’t grasp the illogic of someone who claims to have photographic proof of a flat Earth, and I know that my best debate-club performance won’t move the needle in the mind of a global warming denier. Instead, I gravitate towards evolving topics with measurable shades of grey; the dangers of GMOs, for example, or the safety of 5G cellular networks. It should be here where minds - including mine - may not yet be fossilized.

I like being well-prepared for online battle. When I choose to jump in, I first arm myself with a smattering of irrefutable facts that support my position. I keep links in reserve should the battle escalate and I need reinforcements. Taking my time to craft my points, I’m careful to lay out a clear and logical argument. I proofread twice; sloppiness detracts from my intended aura of authority. I post, and wait to bask in the awed appreciation that comes with enlightenment.

And it works every time!

Not. It basically never works.

Let’s assume for a moment that I’m on the “right” side of the argument, where “right” relies on hard facts even as it might dismiss soft factors. Assume that my rhetorical skills are good, effectively representing scientific consensus. That the discussion did escalate, and I did post links to “the best” sources. And - in a huge leap of faith - that my online adversary actually read the material my links referenced. 

Why, faced with overwhelming evidence, do so many react unreasonably? 

Self-interest

We develop a worldview through our beliefs, acquired at home and honed through school, religious education, circles of friends. These beliefs shape our sense of self. They become the lens through which we view our needs and interests; how we raise our children, foster relationships, respond to hardships, view our role in the world.

Positions that counter these beliefs can threaten our sense of self, and our ego reacts with a fight-or-flight response. In this Darwinian sense, counter arguments can take the form of a bear entering the cave, forcing an intuitively defensive response. 

Here’s a simple question: “Do you believe in science?” Asked in isolation, virtually all of us would reply “Of course!” But we’re also strongly biased to believe that which reinforces our closely held beliefs, to deny what makes us uncomfortable. When evidence conflicts with our beliefs, we’re forced to choose. 

For many, beliefs trump science. I have long assumed a strong correlation between education and acceptance of the scientific method. The better educated one is, the more capable they should be at uncovering fallacies in their beliefs, and at changing their mind. Perhaps disproving my own point, I’ve managed to hold on to this conviction even though my experience doesn’t support it.

I think it’s time to let go.

Nextdoor neighbors

Not too long ago, I responded to a post on Nextdoor, the online social network for petty complaints, neighbor-shaming, and lost cats. One of my neighbors was soliciting signatures to protest a permit for a new 5G cellular antenna, soon to be installed outside her apartment building. She claimed they are “harmful and ugly.” I allowed the ugly, but took exception to the harmful. I responded with my facts, and my stellar reference links - the American Cancer Society, the National Institutes of Health, the FCC - clearly summarized a wide body of research pointing to the relative safety of 5G services. Neighborly, I suggested that the aesthetic aspect was likely the only path with even a remote chance at success. But she wouldn’t give. “It is well documented that the 5G towers are harmful. And I have children!” Taking her lead, a handful of neighbors chimed in, parroting myriad claims of harmful health effects.

Remember the simple question I asked above? “Do you believe in science?” Were I to ask in this context, the response might be different, more likely “well, that depends.”

Ignored at first, my push for evidence was finally rewarded with a handful of links. Unsurprisingly (since I was already convinced of the superiority of my facts), these were mostly InfoWars-like junk; I felt the need to disinfect my Chromebook afterwards. It was time to retreat quietly, although I may have taken a parting shot. Still, I wondered; who is this neighbor? She came off as intelligent, contradicting my long-held correlation theory.

Turns out she’s a lawyer. Apparently quite successful. Her anti-5G convictions had nothing to do with her level of education - she’s had more formal education than many, including me. It must be self-interest, then, that so strongly influences her to the point that she can discount scientific consensus.

Unique frames of reference

We each enter into discussions with a uniquely personal frame of reference, framed by our self-interests. When people disagree, it’s helpful to begin by acknowledging this inherent bias. My personal bias on the 5G topic is my career in tech, my interest in technological advancements, the disruptive promises of IoT. I’m biased in favor of cell towers. My lawyer neighbor had already exposed her bias by expressing concern about the health of her children. Her self-interest biases her against the same evidence I’m so willing to accept, leading her to embrace a different (much smaller) set of facts and theories. I wasn’t about to disprove her facts with mine, as they threaten her self-interest. In her view, I was the bear entering her cave.

(Was I “right?” In a narrow sense, yes; the scientific consensus, the hard statistics are on my side. But that doesn’t necessarily make her wrong, as this ignores the softer, more personal factors. I’m not promoting bothsidesism here; there’s little balance to be found in the technical arguments. But to have a chance at changing her mind, I’d need to better understand her self-interests. In any case, the merits or dangers of 5G networks aren’t the intent of my commentary.)

Mentally labeling her a denialist, I did some research. Wikipedia defines denialism as the choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism follows well-defined patterns of rhetorical tactics designed to promote “balance” or “both sides” of an argument, even (or especially) when there’s no seriously legitimate argument to be had. As long as there’s the appearance of controversy, deniers can continue to fight. There’s even a well-understood denialism playbook. Here are the highlights - along with my hand-picked anecdotes from her evidence:

• Point to a conspiracy. Dismiss the data by suggesting there’s a conspiracy to suppress the truth. The FCC chairman took a donation from Verizon, a 5G company!

• Cherry-pick facts. Highlight outdated, anomalous, or discredited papers to make it look like the research is weak or incomplete. Microwave ovens operate at similar frequencies and can damage DNA!

• Trot in false experts. Find an expert - often self-proclaimed - in the field, or another adjacent field, to lend credibility. Check out the personal website of this UC Berkeley PhD!

• Move the goalposts. Dismiss evidence by continually demanding more - often unfillable - pieces of evidence. There’s still 5G testing going on!

• Other logical fallacies. False analogies, red herrings, appeals to consequences. Even the NIH admits that cell phones could possibly cause cancer!

The connection

And then I made the connection. My neighbor was a lawyer; her job is to defend clients. Every one of these denialism playbook tactics is also a legal defense tactic. Throughout her career, she’s honed skills to deny prosecutorial evidence, to sow doubt in the minds of a jury - even where no reasonable doubt exists. The more overwhelming the evidence, the greater the satisfaction that comes with a successful defense. The difference is that online, there’s no jury; most arguments end in a draw.

I think we’ve all got a bit of lawyer - public defender - in us. Maybe we revel in defending positions that are unpopular or marginalized, attacked by pesky “experts.” Maybe we’ve simply watched too much Perry Mason or L.A. Law.

Because I refuse to believe we’re all denialists.