Have you ever found yourself wondering…

Why do people fervently defend their beliefs in the face of contradicting factual evidence? Why have we grown so fearful, so reflexively rejecting of viewpoints, perspectives, and even facts that challenge our beliefs? Why are we so activated by perspectives that challenge our own? Why are the divisions between us growing stronger?

If so, keep reading.

There’s an evolutionary reason for all of the above and the key to dismantling it is bringing awareness to it.

I began writing this post months ago. At the time, I was seeking to address the psychological underpinnings of the increasing divides in consciousness in general, but the idea was spurred while witnessing the divided perspectives emerging as humanity navigated the coronavirus pandemic. 

Today, as I sit here sorting through and editing the 15 pages scrolled below, the focus of our divides has shifted. While the coronavirus divides have been momentarily subdued, racial divides have reemerged at the forefront of mainstream consciousness. 

I’ve reworked and rewritten this piece to reflect an even broader perspective of divisions, but it is certainly not perfect or all-encompassing. 

It’s challenging to address so much in one place, but it’s my hope that what I’ve shared below pushes us to move beyond our unhelpful reflexive neurobiological thought patterns and, instead, to reflect critically on why we think and react the way we do when confronted with perspectives that challenge our own.

And perhaps most importantly, to shed a bright spotlight on the faulty evolutionary systems that cause us to protect our own—often limited, incorrect, unjust, unethical, and immoral—thought patterns when presented with factual evidence to the contrary.

Because it’s this wonky brain-derived phenomenon that shuts our hearts off to those who need us most. It’s this phenomenon that perpetuates suffering and prohibits the awakening of our consciousness—both collectively and individually. It’s this phenomenon that keeps us separated and strengthens a mounting collection of invisible divides.

But in bringing awareness to it, we begin to dismantle it.

One final note before we get into it:

If you read through this entire article and can only see it applying to others, not yourself, look harder. Of course there are variances in how this plays out in each of us depending on where we are in our level of awareness, but there isn’t one of us who’s exempt from this phenomenon.

INVISIBLE DIVIDES

A barrage of invisible divides exists between us.

These divides are a threat not only to our individual mental peace but also to our collective humanity and our capacity to embrace heart-centered connection.

There’s ​a lot ​unfolding in the world right now, and there’s even more unfolding in our minds as we try to make sense of it all.

Some of us have leaned into fear and its many counterparts—comfort, complacency, denial, righteousness, close-mindedness, boastfulness, hatred, disdain, etc.

Some of us have leaned into empowerment and its many counterparts—compassion, intentional action, open-mindedness, humility, commitment, radical empathy, self-reflection, learning, etc. 

And some of us find ourselves dancing between these two disparate lands, weaving in and out of paralyzing states of inaction or one-tracked positivity that undermines the mass suffering unfolding before our eyes (i.e., spiritual bypassing). 

But there’s one thing many of us have looked for amidst it all: certainty. In something, in anything.

And in our certainty seeking, a deep and profound polarization has emerged amongst us. 

We all seem certain of something right now—even if it’s merely our own confusion. 

And when someone else’s certain perspective conflicts with our own certain perspective, it’s become certain grounds for judgmental battle instead of thoughtful reflection and open-minded inquiry.

THE SHIELD OF ANONYMITY

“The global expressions of suffering—violence, the oppression of nondominant populations, the unsustainable and addictive consuming that threatens this earth—all arise out of fear and are rooted in feelings of separation and otherness.” —Tara Brach

These intensifying divides haven’t erupted out of nowhere. 

In addition to centuries of systemically upheld authoritarian oppression, for decades now, the internet has provided us with a shield of anonymity that’s bolstered our egos and reduced our capacity for heartfelt human connection. 

(I’ll save the finger pointing of biased, bought-out, and intentionally divisive media entities for another time, but know that they’re most certainly part of the problem. And if you want to reclaim your free will and deepen your connection to your fellow humans, shutoff the news… or at least the mainstream version of it.)

Without conscious intent, the collective ‘other’ has become our opponent. 

Perhaps most detrimental of all though—at least to our open-mindedness—has been our ability to selectively seek only those narratives that mirror our own while blocking (sometimes quite literally) the narratives of those who differ or dissent. 

As we hypnotically scroll through various social media feeds and TV channels, many of us see not windows but mirrors. A version of the familiar self reflected back by another. 

And in the off chance we choose to peer through the window of an opposing or alternative perspective, it’s often an opportunity sought out of judgment rather than genuine open-minded inquiry.

In an effort to find certainty in something, we’ve lost our soulfulness, our connection, our common ground, our cognitive flexibility, and our capacity to engage in truly open-minded exploration and heart-centered discussion. Or perhaps we never had it to begin with.

We crave a return to that which binds us together at the collective core—our commonly held desires for joy, purpose, fulfillment, and unconditional love. Our desires to be heard, to feel safe, to be treated equally, and to be honored not because of what we have become but simply because we are. 

And yet many of us are unable to do our part to move humanity in that direction, because we’re incapable of humbly holding space for perspectives that differ from our own—our egos on constant guard with their counterargument at the ready.

Why are we so angry when others present a counter perspective? Why is our natural inclination to attack and destroy those viewpoints and even facts that run counter to our own beliefs?

Why are we threatened by thought forms? 

Can we retrain our minds to hold space for new perspectives?

Perhaps most importantly though, can we retrain our minds to fully open to new ideas and truths? Ones that run entirely counter to our currently held belief systems and challenge the way we’ve been living, thinking, and behaving for the entirety of our existence.

Because the truth doesn’t adapt to fit you, you must adapt to fit the truth no matter how painful it is or how profoundly it shatters the paradigm you currently embrace.

If it’s a collective return to peace and unity that we seek, we must be willing to adapt in light of information that challenges our beliefs.

We must be steadfast in our commitment to compassion. And we must be willing to ask the hard questions, of ourselves and even of others we once revered or placed on pedestals.

But doing so isn’t easy. It requires us to bring stealth awareness to an engrained neurobiological reflex… 

CUE THE BACKFIRE EFFECT

Are you familiar with the Backfire Effect?

Discovered by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler in a 2006 study, the Backfire Effect is a psychological phenomenon that afflicts each and every one of us. And it does an excellent job of keeping us divided.

The Backfire Effect occurs when our personal beliefs, especially our most important ones, are met with opposing facts or evidence. 

Instead of the new facts convincing us to question our beliefs, the mind feels so threatened that it actually causes us to root more firmly into our original belief system despite evidence to the contrary.

The Backfire Effect demonstrates why facts typically don’t win arguments. ​

Because facts that compete with beliefs we strongly identify with are interpreted by the brain as threats to our very existence.

“T​he backfire effect is a very strong, psychological aspect in all of our minds. Due to this effect, whenever you are confronted with information and facts that contradict something you believe, instead of changing your view or forming a new opinion, your original beliefs will often be strengthened. You will believe in your previously formed opinion even more vigorously, despite seeing hard proof.” —​scienceabc.com

Combine this universal phenomenon with the anonymity and bubble-inducing distance of the internet, and we find ourselves not only rejecting new factual evidence but also each other. 

*Side notes: The Backfire Effect has strong ties to the psychological phenomenon known as Confirmation Bias. “J​ust as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you.” —​Your Are Not So Smart: The Backfire Effect

It’s also a child phenomenon of Cognitive Dissonance—more on that in the notes at the end of this article.

blame the amygdala

As you sit here right now reading this, your rational mind—the frontal lobe—is likely thinking, “There’s no way I do this. There’s no way I reject factual evidence to preserve my beliefs.” And to be fair, it doesn’t and you don’t consciously make this decision. The rational, data-oriented frontal lobe isn’t responsible for this counterintuitive phenomenon.

If any part of your brain is deserving of finger-pointing scrutiny here, it’s most certainly the amygdala. It’s activated when a threat is detected—cognitive, emotional, physical, or otherwise. 

The amygdala treats all incoming threats as physical threats to survival and seeks to destroy or escape said threats (i.e., fight or flight).

Because the amygdala is tied to our survival instincts, what it says goes. And so ​there actually isn’t a way for your frontal lobe to speak to your amygdala and tell it to zip it during these moments of heightened activation.

This is because communication between the frontal lobe and amygdala isn’t bidirectional. In other words, the frontal lobe can’t override the amygdala with its rational thoughts.

When activated, the amygdala has a one-way street to the frontal lobe and so there is no telling it to stand down. There is no saying, “Hey, chill. This is just a cognitive threat, not a physical one.”

Again, this is because the amygdala treats all threats equally. Threats to our core beliefs send out the same red flags as threats to our physical survival.

Why though?

The amygdala hasn’t evolved to adapt to the fact that most modern-day threats are cognitive and emotional in nature. It’s still operating as it did millennia ago for our ancestors who needed to keep watch for hungry tigers. 

To the amygdala, facts and perspectives that challenge your core beliefs are as threatening to your existence as a hungry tiger. 

Chew on that for a minute.

Does this make rational sense? 

Nope.

Do most of us continue to unwittingly acquiesce to this reflexive response anyway? 

Yep.

ARE YOU YOUR BELIEFS?

Because our beliefs are so deeply enmeshed with our identity—in many ways, our identity is merely a collection of our beliefs developed over time—the amygdala equates our beliefs with our existence.

As mentioned above, when the amygdala activates, it overruns the far more conscious, discerning, and tactful frontal lobe, and causes us to do and say whatever it needs us to in order to protect and root more firmly into that original belief system.

When it comes to matters of survival, the frontal lobe is a servant to the amygdala. Unfortunately, the amygdala is not discerning of facts or others’ feelings. It lacks both thoroughness and compassion. It’s solely concerned with keeping you alive.

Again, redundant but important: Because the amygdala’s goal is to destroy or evade anything that challenges the survival of you (real or imagined, physical or nonphysical), it ​needs​ to keep those core beliefs of yours alive no matter the cost.

This is why we’ll say and do almost anything when our beliefs are confronted with an opposing truth, including lashing out at those we love most, heartlessly rejecting stories of tragedy and oppression, denying the facts or cherry picking data to fit our narrative, lying to ourselves to maintain a sense of internal comfort, acquiescing to group-think mentality without question, etc.

Again, layer this phenomena with the vast anonymity of the internet, and it’s no wonder online debates can feel like hate-fueled warzones.

“W​hen you read a negative comment, when someone shits on what you love, when your beliefs are challenged, you pore over the data, picking it apart, searching for weakness. The cognitive dissonance locks up the gears of your mind until you deal with it. In the process you form more neural connections, build new memories and put out effort – once you finally move on, your original convictions are stronger than ever.” —Y​our Are Not So Smart: The Backfire Effect

But are you your beliefs? Take a moment to really consider this question.

the dangers of the backfire effect

Left unchecked, the Backfire Effect encourages us to approach deeper truths and one another’s lived experiences with reflexive rejection as opposed to thoughtful consideration. 

Perhaps worst of all, when combined with the perceived distance the online world has created, we simply discard those people who share perspectives or facts that run counter to our own beliefs. Which further narrows our minds and enhances our divisions.

Our minds leap to push away anything that doesn’t match up with our own perceptions of reality instead of genuinely pursuing an opposing perspective or fact that might lead us, not only to a more fruitful truth, but also to places of profound connection and meaningful evolution.

And we push away our fellow humans in the process.

We label people with viewpoints that challenge our own (e.g., dumb, naïve, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, sheep, too sensitive, weak, liberal/conservative, democrat/republican, etc.), discard them, and wipe our hands clean. Further closing our minds to potentially far deeper truths and strengthening the divides between us.

Labeling is an unconscious shortcut.

The mind is a brilliant but lazy machine. Labeling is far easier than thinking and so the mind will happily apply its labels and biases whenever and wherever it can. “That person is X so you don’t have to think about or even consider what she’s saying.”

Unless you’re making consistent conscious attempts to override your mind’s defaults and control it, it’s controlling you. Remember that. 

Investigating opposing perspectives and facts with open-hearted compassion and thoughtful discernment is doing the hard (and real) work. Being willing to get uncomfortable is doing the hard work.

Each of us is individually responsible for doing the hard work. 

What do we truly have to lose? Our faulty belief systems? Our limiting attachments? Our un-truths? Our biases?

Should we not be welcoming these losses with open arms? Should we not be actively seeking to destroy those beliefs that fail to uphold justice, block out the light of truth, and build walls between us?

It’s no wonder the distance has grown stronger, the divides greater, and the suffering more pronounced. 

We’re all walking around as servants to our minds, believing we are our beliefs and denying the heart’s desire for unconditional connection with our fellow humans. 

We’re opting for comfort over compassion to foolhardily protect what we think we know instead of humbling ourselves to investigate what we don’t. We’re searching for tigers and shutting each other out.

Whether you’d like to admit it or not, you’re not running your brain, your brain is running you. Awareness of this is the key to flipping the script.

And while I’m absolutely not advocating blind adoption of other people’s beliefs or values, I am advocating that we learn to bring awareness to the knee-jerk mind reaction that encourages us to push away and reject that which does not mirror our own illusions of reality.

And that we learn to compassionately hold space for ideas, facts, and perspectives that challenge the narrative we’ve embraced (often passively and without conscious discernment as it’s been fed to us by “authority” and reinforced throughout the years).

Because in failing to do so, we’re pushing each other further away. And we’re strengthening the divides. 

If it’s peace and unity we seek, we must each be willing to get uncomfortable.

beating the backfire effect

“Between the stimulus and the response there is a space, and in that space is your power and your freedom.” —Viktor Frankl

Beating the Backfire Effect isn’t easy. 

It requires us to keep a constant lookout for when it’s occurring and to thoughtfully bring awareness to this instinctual phenomenon. 

It requires us to never be so attached to our beliefs that we fail to let them go in the face of evidence that would suggest doing so.

It requires that rather than pushing back against others, we learn to push back against our own mind-wrought fear when someone presents a perspective that differs from our own. 

And it requires us to embrace the beauty of difference from an intuitive heartspace instead of treating it as a threat to our (ego) existence. 

Because at the core of it all, a differing perspective isn’t a threat to you, it’s only a threat to your mind. 

We must learn to rise above the mind. 

We must seek our common connection by creating space for our differences and upholding a sense of humble compassion above all else… especially above our desire to be right. 

We must embrace the heart-opening powers of humility and vulnerability as we silence the fears of the mind that seek to reflexively reject. 

And we must hold space for our own discomfort and dissonance so that we can reconnect, not only with our most authentic selves, but also with each other. 

Beating the Backfire Effect is first done with the mind through awareness, but the battle is won with heart-centered vulnerability. 

I’ve included several methods of options for combatting it below. Some for the more logical minded, some for the more heart-rooted, and some for those who find themselves appreciating both sides of that coin.

No matter which flavor you pick, the core solution is awareness.

Simply being aware of this phenomenon and the fact that every brain out there is designed to default to it allows us to generate the space required for both radical self-inquiry and compassionate connection.

It’s through awareness that we begin to rewire this faulty neural circuitry and opt, instead, for a path of authentic open-mindedness.

1. EMBRACE BELIEF NON-ATTACHMENT

Do you believe you are your beliefs?

Have you boiled your existence down to a mere collection of thoughts and ideas that create the you you know?

Many of us do believe this. But beating the Backfire Effect becomes particularly challenging for those of us who do.

Why?

If we believe we are our beliefs, then we’re going to cling to them for dear life. Because releasing them would mean losing our identity… ourselves. 

However, when we perceive of our beliefs from a place of flexible non-attachment, we remain perpetually open to new ideas and truths. And so the coming and going of beliefs freely and without attachment becomes an evolutionary dance of the soul rather than a loss of self. The ‘I’ is no longer defined by what it believes but by what it is.

From this place of belief non-attachment, the experiencer perceives of her identity as something far greater than what is explained in words. Her existence can’t be boiled down to a set of limited ideas.

Attachment to our beliefs is limiting and divisive.

In releasing the limiting ideas of who the mind thinks we are, we become limitless—boundless and infinitely connected.

Furthermore, when we recognize that we’re not our mind or our beliefs, we move into the most authentic and radical form of open mindedness. One that disentangles our identity from our belief systems and one that allows us to constantly question the narrative that both surrounds without and exists within. 

It’s from this place of bird’s-eye awareness that the greatest truths are discovered. It’s also from this place that we reclaim our power and reconnect with heart-centered compassion.

2. QUESTION IT ALL

The unconscious nature of the Backfire Effect is what makes it so potent, convincing, and sticky. And so the key to dismantling it is to consistently work to bring its underpinnings into conscious awareness.

As mentioned above, the brain is a brilliant but lazy machine. 

It loves to take shortcuts when and where it can. And so when we’re met with information that confirms our existing beliefs, that information sails through the brain unflagged. It’s merely added to our mounting pile of “See, I told you so” evidence on that particular topic.

However, when something to the contrary pops up, it’s flagged and activates the amygdala’s ‘threat override’ system, which then proceeds to reject and discard it (or fight back against it) without a glimmer of open-minded inquiry.

Because it’s easier this way.

Allowing evidence of our existing beliefs to pass through to acceptance, unscathed and unquestioned, makes biological sense. Those ideas aren’t threatening our identity, and so the brain sees no reason to question them.

But ​we, a​s conscious thinkers and humans, should.

Because now that you’re aware of it, does the Backfire Effect really make good sense? Does it make sense to be repulsed by new information when our beliefs are challenged and to be unquestioningly accepting when they’re not? 

Is doing so an act of discernment or foolery?  

Can we rework this antiquated and lazy neural circuitry to instead align with an empowering attitude of truth-seeking discernment? One that stays light-footed and flexible and works to uncover the root truth rather than only that which serves to maintain our currently held beliefs?

When push comes to shove, is our goal merely to take the easy route to confirm the beliefs we already have or are we willing to walk the unpaved, thorny road to discern the truth and embrace an attitude of genuine open-mindedness when confronted with our differences?

Can we proactively hold space for discomfort because we know the reward is evolution, justice, connection, and movement towards a more profound truth?

Are we willing to rise above our beliefs (and our egos) and question it all?

3. TURN TOWARDS FEAR

As someone who aligns strongly with the spiritual side of life and intuitive phenomena, I’d be remiss not to also mention that the intuitive wisdom your body receives is a more excellent discerner of truth than the mind will ever be.

“Fear is a natural reaction to moving closer to the truth.” —Pema Chödrön

It’s normal to experience fear and discomfort as you step toward the unknown, new perspectives included. But rather than turning away, embrace the discomfort and use it as a guide to consciously turn towards fear.

In other words, allow fear to lead you to truth by way of unfamiliar territory.

The ego (mind) fears what the intuition (heart) guides you towards. It fears losing itself (i.e., its beliefs and identities) in the evolution of your soul. It’s unaware of one of the greatest secrets of all: that the real you is discovered as you shed the ego’s limited ideas of who it tells you you are. That as the ego’s divisive ideas of ‘self’ fall away, the limitless energy of you emerges.

Call on courage to rise above the ego’s fear-wrought chattering, and trust that you’ll discover yourself as you confront that which your mind is afraid of.

Turning towards fear is the key to softening it. It’s turning away that gives it power.

“People have a hard time letting go of their suffering. Out of fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar.” —Thich Nhat Hanh

4. KNOW YOUR BLIND SPOTS

What are your hot-button beliefs? 

These are your truth-seeking blind spots.

These are the areas where you’re most likely to cherry pick information and turn a blind eye to evidence and experiences to the contrary.

Know these spots. Challenge them. Bring awareness to them.

Proactively unearth evidence to the contrary and hold generous space to consider competing perspectives so that you can choose an informed path rather than clinging to a comfortable one. Doing so will lead you to greater truths and temper that pesky rejective reflex that perpetuates division and otherness.

5. INTERSECTING LINES OF SELF-INQUIRY

Below is a list of possible questions to reflect on in moments when you find yourself retreating into reflexive rejection of new perspectives or back into the comfort of your existing beliefs. 

Is my need to be right getting in the way of my willingness to learn or my ability to evolve? 

Is my fear of experiencing cognitive dissonance stopping me from learning something new?

How do I react when faced with perspectives, facts, or ideas that challenge my beliefs?

Can I learn to treat the feeling of cognitive dissonance as a breadcrumb to a greater truth rather than as a threat to my identity/beliefs?

Am I clinging so tightly to my existing beliefs that I’ve ruled out the possibility of there ever being another “truth” or the possibility of there being a coexisting truth that runs contradictory to my own? Can I hold space for both?

Am I afraid of losing myself if I let go of my beliefs or shift them? Is my identity entangled with my beliefs? 

Can I make space for contradictory beliefs without being triggered by them?

Can I imagine myself making peace with beliefs that contradict my own?

Does my perspective evolve as new information is received? Or am I anchored to the perspective I’ve always had?

Why am I afraid of releasing my beliefs? What do my beliefs say about me? What would it feel like to set my beliefs aside or release them?

Can peace exist in the world when we hold space for beliefs that compete with our own? Does peace come from opening our hearts to consider competing truths, perspectives, and lived experiences?

Am I working harder to protect my existing beliefs than I’m working to challenge them? Why?

When I feel that pang of anger when faced with a contrasting perspective, can I create space for humility and bravery instead? 

Can I at least fully consider and openly investigate an alternative truth before I reject it? Why or why not?

Can I summon enough wonder for this competing opinion to consider its validity? 

Am I available to be awakened to the difficult truths? Or is it more important for me to maintain a sense of comfort?

Do I value comfort over truth? Do I value comfort over connection? Why? Am I willing and able to change this?

Am I willing to consider all possibilities in order to ascertain the most profound truth or am I only willing to consider that which feels comfortable and familiar? 

Am I willing to question and challenge the beliefs of those I look up to (leaders, politicians, doctors, “experts”, etc.) to find the root truth? Or are there certain individuals or groups whom I’ve placed on such high pedestals that I’ve created truth-seeking blind spots?

Do I believe what I see/hear or do I question what I see/hear? Do I question only when my beliefs are challenged or do I question all of the time? Why?

Do I exhibit bravery and compassion when faced with ideas and beliefs that compete with my own? Why or why not?

How can I hold space for competing perspectives without automatically shutting them down? How can I react inquisitively and curiously rather than with disdain?

When I feel threatened by another’s viewpoint or belief, do I retreat into fear/anger/disdain/labeling/rejection or do I hold space to compassionately and openly consider it?

notes

*THE BACKFIRE EFFECT IS PART OF BUT DIFFERENT THAN COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Cognitive dissonance, explored by Leon Festinger in 1957, is essentially a parent concept to the Backfire Effect. 

Most simply put, cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort that occurs when we’re holding two competing ideas in mind at the same time. 

The brain doesn’t enjoy discomfort and so it seeks to alleviate dissonance.

 

Festinger noted that experiencing dissonance typically leads a person to resolve it by making one of three choices: 

1.   Change one of the competing thoughts creating the inconsistency (the adjusted thought doesn’t have to be factual—in fact, it often isn’t).

2.   Change one of the competing behaviors creating the inconsistency.

3.   Add a thought (again, doesn’t have to be factual).

All of the above choices require some level of rational thought (even if the resulting change is factually inaccurate, delusional, unjust, etc.)—a product of the frontal lobe’s reasoning abilities. 

As we learned above, the Backfire Effect is essentially a survival instinct. It’s not the product of rational thought but rather a reflexive attempt by the amygdala to destroy an incoming threat via fight or flight.

So for those looking to understand exactly where the Backfire Effect fits into the theory of Cognitive Dissonance, I like to think of it as being a precursor to choice number 1—change a thought.

Instead of changing a thought though, the Backfire Effect reflexively destroys or denies the incoming thought or fact on impact. 

The Backfire Effect is essentially a reaction to a strong intolerance to dissonance and a rejective protective mechanism that shields you from having to experience it.

In this way, the Backfire Effect is what happens when dissonance is so strong, so intense it can’t possibly be integrated or even considered. 

What can’t be integrated is rejected or destroyed.