BELIEFS

What do you believe? The answer is likely to be 'more than you realize'. We understand and manage the world around us through our beliefs, which may not be perfect, but which are largely useful.

Changing minds very often means changing beliefs, which means the persuader should gain a good understanding of what these are, how they are formed and how they get changed.

Articles on belief include:

What are beliefs?

Here's a simple definition:

A belief is an assumed truth.

Hence everything is a belief -- including this statement.

We create beliefs to anchor our understanding of the world around us and so, once we have formed a belief, we will tend to persevere with that belief.

Beyond belief

The corollary of our definition of belief  is that if we know something to be true, then it is more than a belief. The tricky question now is 'How do we know that something is always true?' Just because in our experience it has always been true, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will continue to be true.

We usually belief that things will happen as they have previously happened, because it is useful to do so. As such, this means that everything is a belief. Which is good, from a persuasion standpoint. Because beliefs can be changed.

Beliefs and language

Belief is highly entangled with language. If there is a word for something then we believe it exists, as in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. We thus 'language reality into existence'.

This is one reason why people from different countries have difficulty understanding one another, as the beliefs they hold are built into the language and the culture.

Beliefs About People We have beliefs about many things. These may be 'black and white' polarities. They may also range along a spectrum between the two ends. A particularly critical area in which we hold beliefs is about other people. What I believe about people will drive how I behave towards them. This applies to myself too, of course. Intent: concerned for others vs. concerned for self This is the belief about how basically selfish people are. A balance between these two concerns leads to the Care-Behavior Matrix. Concern for others I can believe that people are basically good and kind and have a natural tendency to help others. People who believe this way are likely to be trusting and trustworthy. They may also be naive and open to unprincipled persuasion. Concern for self I can believe that we are all basically selfish, and all actions are self-motivated. People who see the world in this Machiavellian way will not trust others and will manipulate the world for their own ends. They may even interpret pro social, helpful actions as for the purpose of making me feel good. Capability: natural talent vs. ability to learn This is the nature vs. nurture debate. Natural talent This is also called Trait Theory. It assumes that people are born with particular talents and abilities and that there is no point trying to change these. This was popular in the early years of psychological theories and then was scotched when the complexity of people, the (particularly Freudian) effects of early development and their ability to learn was considered. More lately, it has return in the guise of Behavioral Genetics. If people in organizations believe more in natural talent, this increases significantly the importance of recruitment and decrease the importance of training and development. If I believe that I have some talents and not others, then I am less likely to seek to learn and more likely to try to live based on what I can already do and what I believe I know. Ability to learn I can believe that, by and large, we all have similar talent, and that the question of ability is more about learning. All people are seen as 'learning machines' and the focus is more often rather on whether we can learn but our preferred learning style. If people in organizations believe more in our capability to learn, this increases significantly the importance of training and development and decrease the importance of recruitment. If I believe that I can develop through learning, I will be more likely to seek higher education and take an approach of 'life-long learning'. Intelligence: Fixed ability vs. Growth mindset Similar to nature-nurture capability beliefs, this is often a personal belief: Am I as clever as I am or can I become more intelligent. as with other beliefs, each creates a self-fulfilling prophesy whereby a person grows intellectually or not. (Research, by the way, has shown that around half of your 'intelligence' is inherited and half is about what you do). Fixed ability The fixed ability belief is that we have a certain intelligence and ability and are unable to change this. It has been found that children who are praised as being 'clever' tend to take on less risky challenges as they do not want to lose this 'intelligent' tag. Growth mindset In contrast to the fixed viewpoint, a person with the 'growth' mindset believes that if they work hard they will become more and more clever. Children who are praised as 'working hard' take on more challenging tasks, in contrast with those who were praised for being clever. Rights: For care or independence This is the communist vs. capitalist debate. Rights for care If I believe in a right for care, then I assume that anyone who is in need can turn to someone else and ask for help, and the other person has a duty of care to assist in whatever way they can. The question that goes with this is who has the duty of care. Depending on the person and the situation, this may be: Government - social security, health, etc. Employer - employment, benefits Friends - support Family - close support Governments who believe in the right of care will provide that care through social services, hospitals, and so on, funding this from taxation. Organizations who believe in a rights of care will be loyal to their employees and will try not to fire them except under exceptional circumstances (and then will wring their hands about it). People who belief that others have a right of care will actively or reactively give help to them. No rights for care If I believe that nobody has a right of care then I will tend towards a more anarchic disposition, believing and acting that it is 'every person for himself or herself'. Governments that have less concern about care will have low taxation and very limited funded institutions and laws about care. Organizations who believe they have no duty of care will hire and fire at will and provide the minimum possible benefits and environment to keep the people they need. Individuals who believe that people have no right of care will ignore the plight of others. Difference: Self vs. other people Beliefs about people include beliefs about people in general and people in particular. Although we may believe that people in general are rather nice, we can believe that a particular person is not very nice. That person may be ourselves, too. I look at you and I look at me. And before either of us has opened our mouths or acted, there is already a gap, which will drive how I behave towards you (and me). When my beliefs about myself are different from my beliefs about other people, then psychological problems are likely, ranging from low self-esteem to megalomania. Difference beliefs about people lead to biases of many kinds, such as racial or gender bias. The Care-Behavior Matrix Depending on our beliefs about people, in particular our beliefs about ourselves and others regarding care, we may act very differently toward them, as in the table below. Care-Behavior matrix What I believe about others They care about me They do not care about me What I believe about myself I should care for others I do not care for others Collaborator Nurturer User Independent The Collaborator If we believe in the rights of people to be cared for, that we have a duty of care towards them, and also believe that others are trustworthy and caring, then we will seek to collaborate and work together with them. The Collaborator is the opposite of the Independent. They make good team players and can become very frustrated when working with Users and Independents. The Nurturer If we believe in the rights of people to be cared for and that we have a duty of care towards them, but that they do not care about others, then we will try to be helpful and guide them in their actions (perhaps even if they do not want help). The Nurturer is the opposite of the User. When Users and Nurturers work together, the Nurturer can become a victim. The User If we believe that people have no rights to be cared for, but that others are trustworthy and caring, then we may seek to take advantage of this. We may stereotype or depersonalize them as we seek to absolve ourselves of any guilt about this. The User is the opposite of the Nurturer and when they work together, the User may become a bully or callously take advantage of the Nurturer's good faith. The Independent If we do not believe in the rights of people to be cared for, and that others do not care about us, then we will go our own way and generally ignore others. The Independent is the opposite of the Collaborator and will usually prefer to work alone rather than in teams. The Confidence Trap Description There is a trap where belief that you can do something leads to you not doing it. One of the places where this paradox can happen is in visualization and other deliberate motivational activity. You are asked to imagine an exciting new future, with the idea that you will then be terribly motivated to work hard to get there. But what can occur is that the belief that it will happen is so strong that you just sit back and wait for it to appear. Another common confidence trap happens in schools, where students believe themselves intelligent and able to learn quickly, and so procrastinate or otherwise put off work now with the assumption that a quick flick through the books later will suffice to get that A grade. In this way, intelligence can breed laziness. This pattern can also reach out into the rest of a person's under-achieving life. Research Oettingen and Wadden (1991) tracked women on a weight-loss program. Those who believed they would easily lose weight actually lost less weight. Phan and Taylor (1999) asked students to visualize themselves getting high grades and then record the hours they spent studying. Students who visualized spent less time studying than those who did not and got lower marks in important mid-term exams. Discussion So why does this happen? One reason is that the parts of our brain that are used to think about the future are also the same parts that remember the past, so imagining a future can, if we are not careful, feel in some way as it has already happened. This can happen subconsciously, with the comfort of a 'remembered future' surfacing as confidence. There is an assumption in visualization methods that a desirable future is motivating, making a person want to do something to achieve it. Yet people whose sense of control is achieved by ceding control to others may, when believing in the desirable future, also believe that it will be provided for them. And where the sense of control is gained through action, over-confidence in one's own ability to manage the future may also have a non-motivating effect. This will happen more with some people than others, probably those who are more easily deluded and for whom hard work is not considered a pleasure. Perhaps also people who do not naturally focus on the future more easily drop a forced imagining into a confident past. Double think Description Double think was described by George Orwell as simultaneously holding two conflicting beliefs. Orwell describes it thus: "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word double think it is necessary to exercise double think. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of double think one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."    -- George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four Orwell describes doublespeak as being a part of newspeak, which is the method for control of thought through subtle language. Double think adds control that eliminates uncertainty and so the whole belief system seems coherent. Double think is not hypocrisy as the person actually believes in both things, even though they contradict. Example A politician believes in general openness, yet the need for secrecy in certain things. A person believes they will succeed, yet also they will learn from their mistakes. A sales person convinces them  self that their company products are the very best, yet they personally prefer a competitor's product. Discussion Belief systems often contain many beliefs and it is easy for any of these to contradict one another at different levels and in different contexts. People who want to believe in the whole system therefore have to find ways of handling the internal conflicts. They may do this simply by ignoring differences or by rationalizing these with fallacious argument. In arguing with others, a typically method is chunking up to a higher level question that defends the whole belief system ('Are you doubting the word of God??'). People also tend to have multiple belief systems which even more easily contradict, such as a person who is both a scientist and a committed Christian. The way such contradictions are often managed is by compartmentalization, thinking in one set or beliefs or another, but somehow having a 'Chinese wall' in the mind that holds two two apart. Double think can be considered as a coping mechanism to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance where contradictory beliefs lead to internal tensions. Note that double think is not the same as doublespeak (or double talk), which is a defensive form or language that uses euphemism orvagueness to hide meaning. Types of Belief There are many types of belief. Here are a few: Existence (A) One of the simplest beliefs is that some given thing exists. The classic existence belief is the belief in God. For existentialists, the belief is in the outer world. If you realize that what we perceive is an internal inference of what happens in the outer world, then our first belief is that what we perceive truly exists. Note that existence can also have temporal and morphological aspects. Thus A can come into existence at a point in time, it can change (gradually or suddenly) into something else (A becomes B). It can also disappear or become extinct. To believe that things can exist is also to believe that things do not exist. Existence is probably the most basic belief. Thus I believe that the world outside of my mind really exists. Each word that I write has a whole bag of beliefs attached to it. For the most part, however, it is simply impractical to challenge beliefs at this level - though sometimes it can be very useful. Association (A:B) We understand things in terms of other things. Thus we say A is like B or related to B in some way. You look like your father. A rose is a sort of flower. We also have an entire map within our heads of what we know. Think about something and other things come immediately to mind. The Freudian analyst's couch is the classic place where associations are examined. If we associate 'killing' with 'father', what does this mean? Is our father a murderer? Do we have an Oedipal complex and want to kill our father? This is a very dangerous zone for analysts, who can also create associations by asking things like 'So, why do you want to kill your father?' Equivalence (A=B) We assume that things are the same, although in reality, everything is different, including two pennies, if you look closely enough. The trap of equivalence belief is in when we mean 'some elements of A are similar to some elements of B', and then shorten it to 'A is B'. For example, you might might say 'You are stupid'. I could then be mightily upset because I equate all of stupid to all of me. The verb 'to be' is thus a very dangerous word! Another classic equivalence error we make is that we assume that 'the map is the territory'. We make internal maps of the outer world and then act as if they are the same thing. Enaction (A happens) 'Shit happens' is a common belief that is useful in accepting an imperfect world. We believe in the flow of time and the change of the world around us. Causation (A -> B) We have a constant need to explain how things work, and a part of that explanation is to determine cause. A false form of causal belief is where we correlate two things and assume that because they happen at the same time or in the same place that one causes another. Detectives do this when a 'suspect' was in the same place that a murder happened. We even have a special part of our memories (procedural memory) to remember how to do things.