Teacher training colleges do offer courses dedicated to studying the workings of the human mind from a pedagogical perspective. However, secondary school teachers rarely have university degrees that include a course with this focus. It's generally assumed that a teaching degree not only signifies the acquisition of knowledge but also the ability to transmit it. Yet, the teaching methodologies employed by teachers are often quite different, rarely grounded in research on how the mind works.
When we try to convey values in the classroom or in society that we believe are supported by objective and irrefutable data, we often encounter a rejection of those values despite any evidence we may have provided. This not only generates personal discomfort but also suggests that we might be doing something wrong in our approach. We don't understand what's going on in the other person's mind. We feel repulsion, and tensions rise. Even if our arguments have been objectively indisputable, the other person may end the debate reinforcing their mistaken idea. Furthermore, that person may feel the urge to spread that idea. Why does this happen?
Psychologist Ramón Nogueras Pérez, drawing on Leon Festinger's book "When Prophecy Fails" (1956), analyzed confirmation bias at a meeting of skeptics at the Pub Madrid. Confirmation bias is the tendency we humans have to ignore arguments that contradict our beliefs and cling to information that reinforces what we already believe.
In 1953, social psychologist Festinger, intrigued by the observation that pre-existing ideas are resistant to change, began a study on cognitive dissonance, which occurs when a person holds a viewpoint but receives information that categorically refutes it. To investigate this, he sought out a group of people who held a very strong belief but received compelling disconfirmation of it.
She found what she was looking for. At that time, Dorothy Martin (whose anonymity Festinger respected until her death, using the pseudonym Marian Keech) placed an advertisement in a local newspaper prophesying the greatest catastrophe in the history of the planet, and that moment was imminent. She had contacted extraterrestrials from the planet Clarion (which does not exist) through the mechanism of “automatic writing,” who warned her that the end of the world would arrive before December 21, 1954.
Festinger infiltrated several assistants among Martin's followers. Before December 20th, Martin avoided the media and only allowed those who demonstrated faith and dedication to the cause into the sect. On the 20th, Martin's followers went to the guide's house to await a spaceship that would save them from the catastrophe. At 12:05 AM on the 21st, when the group was distraught because the ship hadn't arrived, someone pointed out that a clock in the room read 11:55 PM on the 20th, and they agreed that there was still time. At 12:10 AM, they admitted that the rescuers from the planet Clarion hadn't arrived. At 4:45 AM, Martin received another message via automated writing, informing them that due to the great faith demonstrated by the group and the light radiated that night, God had decided not to destroy planet Earth. On day 21, the group begins calling the media to gain more followers for Martin and to report that they have saved the world.
Festinger found that those who had sacrificed the most for their beliefs (leaving their jobs, families, and all their savings) or had publicly defended them were the ones who clung to them most fiercely. Nogueras, in the Madrid pub, explained the reason very graphically: "Nobody likes to realize they're an idiot."
The idea is reinforced by a social environment that shares that belief. Therefore, when faced with the cognitive dissonance produced by the clear disconfirmation of the prophecy, the followers try to gain greater social support.
Nogueras illustrates cognitive dissonance with the use of tobacco. “On the one hand, I know that smoking harms my health. However, I smoke. Conclusion: I'm an idiot.” Faced with this dissonance, he proposes three possible responses. The first, and most rational, but least common, is to quit smoking. This eliminates the dissonance rationally. The second option is to ignore the dissonance and continue smoking. The third option involves introducing an external fact (even if it's irrelevant) that allows me to cling to the dissonance: “Well, my Uncle Pepe smoked from the age of 12 and lived to be 96.”
We've all experienced these kinds of situations dozens of times, especially those of us who speak out in favor of animals in our social circles. "I don't like killing animals, but I go hunting every Sunday," "I don't like animal abuse, but I'm a fan of bullfighting," "I respect animal life, but I eat them."
If we point out something as obvious as the impossibility of respecting animals and simultaneously eating them, we encounter the three possible responses that Nogueras mentioned. The first option, and the least common, is to stop consuming animals. This eliminates the dissonance.
The second option is to ignore the dissonance; to forget that even though we believe we respect animals, our way of life causes a great deal of animal suffering. To forget that the steak we're eating was once an animal that wanted to continue living. This response to dissonance is very common.
The third option is that they'll respond with, "Yeah, but if you were on a desert island with a pig and a knife, you'd eat the pig," or "You can't be healthy on a vegan diet." It doesn't matter if you show them studies from reputable scientists that support a diet free of animal products. Faced with this new cognitive dissonance, they'll prefer to stick with the words of their doctor, who once told them, "You have to eat meat to get enough protein."
In that informal setting, Nogueras concludes that it's pointless to waste energy trying to convince those who have dedicated themselves to a belief, or who live in an environment clearly favorable to that position. It's better to focus attention on those who haven't yet reflected on the issue or haven't publicly taken a stance.
Similarly, it is not advisable to confront people with disconfirmation, because, even if there are irrefutable arguments against their initial belief (as happened to Mrs. Martin's followers), these can result in a strengthening of that belief and a search for new followers.