11,141
edits
How to help those in the message: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::''Related articles'': '''[[Cognitive Dissonance]]''' | ::''Related articles'': '''[[Cognitive Dissonance]]''' | ||
People who are still in the message have a hard time even listening to explanations of why the message is false. This is because of "[[Cognitive Dissonance|cognitive dissonance]]," which is a term used to describe the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs (the message is God's word / the message is false). This conflict | People who are still in the message have a hard time even listening to explanations of why the message is false. This is because of "[[Cognitive Dissonance|cognitive dissonance]]," which is a term used to describe the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs (the message is God's word / the message is false). This conflict can cause feelings of unease, discomfort, frustration, nausea, dread, guilt, anger, anxiety, and other negative feelings. | ||
In fact, when you offer someone in the message undeniable proof that the message is false, they will generally believe the message more intensely and fanatically then they did previously. This is a direct result of [[Cognitive Dissonance|cognitive dissonance]]. | In fact, when you offer someone in the message undeniable proof that the message is false, they will generally believe the message more intensely and fanatically then they did previously. This is a direct result of [[Cognitive Dissonance|cognitive dissonance]]. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The conventional wisdom in psychology is that the brain has two independent systems at work at all times. First, there’s what we called the emotional side. It’s the part of you that is instinctive, that feels pain and pleasure. Second, there’s the rational side, also known as the reflective or conscious system. It’s the part of you that deliberates and analyzes and looks into the future.<ref>Heath, Chip; Heath, Dan. Switch (p. 6). Crown. Kindle Edition.</ref> | The conventional wisdom in psychology is that the brain has two independent systems at work at all times. First, there’s what we called the emotional side. It’s the part of you that is instinctive, that feels pain and pleasure. Second, there’s the rational side, also known as the reflective or conscious system. It’s the part of you that deliberates and analyzes and looks into the future.<ref>Heath, Chip; Heath, Dan. Switch (p. 6). Crown. Kindle Edition.</ref> | ||
Jonathan Haidt describes this in his book, The Happiness Hypothesis, as the Elephant (emotional self) and the Rider (rational self). Like a rider on the back of an elephant, the conscious, reasoning part of the mind has only limited control of what the elephant does. Reason and emotion must both work together to create intelligent behavior, but emotion ( | Jonathan Haidt describes this in his book, The Happiness Hypothesis, as the Elephant (emotional self) and the Rider (rational self). Like a rider on the back of an elephant, the conscious, reasoning part of the mind has only limited control of what the elephant does. Reason and emotion must both work together to create intelligent behavior, but emotion and "gut feelings" ( major parts of the elephant) do most of the work. The elephant includes the gut feelings, visceral reactions, emotions, and intuitions that comprise much of the automatic system. The elephant and the rider each have their own intelligence, and when they work together well, they enable the unique brilliance of human beings. But they don’t always work together well.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Happiness Hypothesis (p. 10-34). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.</ref> | ||
If you listen closely to the arguments of message followers, you will understand | If you listen closely to the arguments of message followers, you will understand that it is really the elephant that is guiding the rider (and not the other way around). It is the elephant who decides what is good or bad, right or wrong. But only the rider can string sentences together and create arguments to give to other people. For message followers who are defending William Branham, the rider goes beyond being just an advisor to the elephant; he becomes the lawyer, fighting to persuade you of the elephant’s point of view. | ||
The message follower is like the proverbial drunken man looking for his car keys under the street light: | The message follower is like the proverbial drunken man looking for his car keys under the street light: | ||
:''“Did you drop | :''“Did you drop your keys here?” asks the police officer, trying to help. '' | ||
:''“No” says the man, “I dropped them back there in the alley, but the light is better over here.” | :''“No” says the man, “I dropped them back there in the alley, but the light is better over here.” | ||
The reasons that message followers give for believing the message are like the tail which is being wagged by the dog. The dog’s tail wags to communicate. But you can’t make a dog happy by forcibly wagging its tail. And '''you can’t change the minds of message followers by utterly refuting their arguments''' (which we know is easy to do). | |||
If you want to change their minds, you’ve got to talk to their | If you want to change their minds, you’ve got to talk to their elephant. You have to convey respect, warmth, and an openness to dialogue before stating the case against the message. | ||
Our righteous minds readily shift into combat mode. Our own rider and | Our self-righteous minds readily shift into combat mode. Our own rider and our elephant work together smoothly to lob rhetorical grenades and fend off attacks. The performance may impress our friends and show allies that we are committed members of the anti-message team, but no matter how good our logic, it’s not going to change the minds of message followers if they are in combat mode too. | ||
Therefore, if you want to change a message follower’s mind about William Branham, talk to their elephant first. If you ask people to believe something that violates their | Therefore, if you want to change a message follower’s mind about William Branham, '''you must talk to their elephant first'''. If you ask people to believe something that violates their long-held beliefs, they will devote their efforts to finding an escape hatch — a reason to doubt your argument or conclusion. AND they will almost always succeed.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind (p. 56-59). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.</ref> | ||
=Your friends and family in the message are afraid= | =Your friends and family in the message are afraid= | ||