"One of my favorite stories concerns a London taxi driver who, early one morning, took me to Heathrow Airport," Jane Goodall writes in her book Reason for Hope, with Phillip Berman. "I was tired, I had two weeks of lectures ahead of me, and I planned to doze in the car. But somehow the driver knew that I worked with chimpanzees and launched into a vindictive tirade against everyone who 'wasted' money on animals. Especially his sister. He went on and on about his sister. She worked for a local animal protection group. There was so much human suffering, so many abused children. It made him sick to have a sister who cared about animals. There were far too many TV programs about animals. He always turned them off."
The book takes awhile to get moving, and I kept putting the autobiography on hold for other books. That said, the book is inspiring, and changed my views on several issues, most notably theism.* I wanted to begin today's post by quoting a (longish) excerpt that shines light on another issue of note (can you guess from the title?). In any case, I'll resume the vignette:
"I was not in the mood for all that. I was just about to lean back in my seat and close my eyes when I realized that this was exactly the kind of irritating, blinkered person that so desperately needed to be made aware. He represented thousands who thought the same way. Ignorant of these issues, unable to discuss, only able to trot out the same old dogmatic statements that he had heard, and repeated, a hundred times. Quite clearly I had been meant to ride in that taxi.
"He represented thousands who thought the same way. Ignorant of these issues, unable to discuss, only able to trot out the same old dogmatic statements that he had heard, and repeated, a hundred times." –Jane Goodall with Phillip Berman, Reason for Hope
So I sat uncomfortably sideways on the jump seat and talked to him all the way to Heathrow through the little open window behind him. I started off with stories about the chimps. He did listen, but it didn't seem to make any difference. I told him how chimps could learn sign language. I told him how some of them loved to paint. And how they felt emotions, and cared for each other, and even rescued each other. I recounted stories about dogs and other animals who had saved the lives of their owners. I suggested that we had a responsibility toward animals in captivity because we had deprived them of any ability to fend for themselves. And that there were already many people concerned about human problems, so surely it was okay for some to care about animals also.
But nothing seemed to make any difference. Caring about animals, he maintained stubbornly, was a waste of time. 'But anyway, enjoy yourself in America,' he said as I got out.
It was appropriate to give him a tip regardless of his views, but I didn't have the right amount, and he had no change. So I told him to take a couple of pounds for himself and give the rest to his sister, for her animal work. I never thought he would–but it appealed to my sense of humor.
When I got back to the UK after my tour one of the letters waiting for me was from the cab driver's sister.
'My brother gave me your donation,' she wrote. 'That was so very kind of you. But the most amazing thing is, something happened to my brother. What on earth did you do to him? He's so nice to me suddenly, and he's asking me all these questions about the animals. He's really interested in my work. He's changed. What did you do to him?'
"But the most amazing thing is, something happened to my brother. What on earth did you do to him?" –Jane Goodall with Phillip Berman, Reason for Hope, quoting a letter she received
My exhausting hour had paid off. Not only had he made his sister happy, but perhaps he had expounded his new understanding to some of his friends and converted one or more of them."
Introduction
Hello to all! Today I'll be talking about convinced conviction, or con-con** for short, my term for what happened to the taxi driver in Goodall's story. He was too stubborn to concede the argument, but afterwards, his worldview was permanently changed, and he went on evangelizing for his new beliefs. This is a common thread among those with stubborn veins in their body.
We the Stubborn
I'll admit that I'm a stubborn person.** Like my penmanship, my persuasive skills are good when I put in the effort, though I often don't. To win arguments and actually convince people, it's important to recognize the opposing point of view with respect.
But in my default mode of "I'm right and you're wrong," it's hard to admit defeat. Especially once my position is entrenched. There's a danger in overcorrecting for new information–but there's a danger in undercorrecting as well. I'm hesitant to say one is a bigger danger, but the latter is certainly more pervasive.
Concession vs. Stand
When Jane Goodall's taxi driver realized, deep down, that animal rights was a legitimate cause, he had a choice to make. Concede the argument, or continue his stand. Clearly, he believed that Goodall was correct, but for the sake of his reputation, he took his stand. I don't think he made this decision in the spur of the moment: he was having the discussion on autopilot. But his conviction was convinced when he took the time to think.
Don't get con-conned. After an argument, if you realize you were wrong, by all means join the opposing side. There's no shame in doing this. But what I mean is, during a debate, take the time to weigh the merits of the case objectively in real time. It's easy to fall prey to the sunk-costs fallacy and keep going because that's what you've been going for in the past.
This advice is to myself an equal amount, if not more, then to the stubborn among you all. I've been there. Many times. I'm trying to stop going there.
How To Con-Con People
Now, a message to the rest of you. Tired of arguing with me and not getting your voice heard? You can take advantage of the fact that I (or my annoying subconscious default state) views arguments as a game of tug-of-war, where you keep tugging as hard as you can. This doesn't con-con people, it creates more distance between your perspectives.
To con-con a person, make a lot of concessions. Be sure to mention when you agree with the other person on minor points, and be civil in all cases. Once you've made your case, I suggest taking a counterintuitive-seeming step: concede the point. This makes clear that you're not playing the same tug-of-war game. There's a chance that when the other person walks away, they start listening.
Concede the point.
As a matter of fact, this technique works for most arguments (except for the concession part, of course). It's good to show that the other person is not your enemy. Debates should be collaborative processes, to find synthesis, as opposed to an adversarial one to approach this shallow notion of being right.
Convincing Myself
It's all good and well for me to type this on my computer, and even to convince my own conviction. But reforming my behavior is a different process, and a harder one. But with my help, I know that I got this.***
–beautifulthorns
*"Is it arrogant, presumptuous, to think that I might have heard the Voice of God? Not at all. We all do–that 'still, small voice' that we speak of, telling us what we ought to do. That, I think, is the Voice of God. Of course, it is usually called the voice of conscience, and if we feel more comfortable with that definition, that's fine."
This (genius) idea that the conscience is God rings true, and is backed up by logical evidence.
This (genius) idea that the conscience is God rings true, and is backed up by logical evidence. In fact, most holy texts corroborate this–obviously, not the part about God creating the world in seven days or parting the Red Sea–but the idea that God is a force within all of us, driving us all to do the right thing? Under this axiom, God would be mildly but steadily working to make the universe a better place.
So that definition of God satisfies me completely. I've tried to take it to heart, and listen to what the lord within me has to say. It's also a good way to follow through on promises–as of yet, vocalizing "God, I promise to do [insert task] by [insert time]" works about as well as the point system (which I still use). Thanks for everything, God.
**The term con-con is also used to mean a new constitutional convention. Not what I'm talking about.
***I've noticed that boys and men are disproportionately likely to be stubborn compared to girls and women. I'm not saying this as a stereotype, and I don't like when people imply that it's an exclusively male thing with terms like "mansplain." There exist plenty of stubborn women; while obviously not a real person, Parks and Recreation's Leslie Knope is a great example. It might be an effect of testosterone or another physical trait, but more likely it's based on societal conditioning.
Note also that stubbornness is not a negative thing per se. It's intertwined with the idea of rigidity, as I mentioned in my postling "Andrew Yang Has A Malleability Problem."
I realized I was talking to myself all along.
***It's funny how this post started as me talking to you all, but then I realized I was talking to myself all along.