Are your beliefs fortified by psychological walls?

Afriend of mine (who’s a professor emeritus of religion) and I have had an online conversation about various issues that our country faces today.

One point discussed is the rigid belief system some people have, which is often based on hearsay and emotion — coupled with little basis in fact. This can especially be observed in idealistic young people, who have not had much real world experience.

The professor gave me his opinion on human thinking from a theological standpoint, which I will not attempt to explain here since this is not my field of expertise. But then he asked me how I viewed this issue from a psychological perspective. Here’s my reply:

When it comes to politics and religion, rational thinking can go out the window. Ridged psychological walls are built to keep out different ideas and ways of seeing things. This phenomenon does not seem to be related to intelligence.

My father might be an example. When it came to his specific medical field, he was recognized as a world-renowned expert. Dad was quite open-minded, logical and always looking for better answers to identify and treat difficult diseases.

He was more than willing to listen to colleagues and gather as much information as he could. One of his most remembered quotes was, “The more I know, the less I know,” referring to the paradox of his continuous expanding realm of knowledge.

But when it came to religion and politics, Dad’s views were set in concrete: “I’ve made up my mind. This is the way it is. I don’t want to hear anymore about it.”

Of course, he’s not the only one who has used compartmentalized thinking. Many people do.

There’s something about these two subject areas that tend to be perceived from an emotional standpoint, and not necessarily from logical thinking.

How about some of the political talk shows you may have seen over the last few decades? One guest will vigorously argue with the other. At the end of a five-minute segment, no view is ever altered. One or the other will never say: “Oh, I see your point. That makes sense. You’ve changed my mind.”

The question then becomes “why?” Why does the emotional need to defend one’s views on these two subjects often rise to the point of false assumptions, resentment, anger and sometimes violence?

Perhaps the famous Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget had one of the better answers for this dilemma of human thinking. His works are somewhat complicated and too lengthy to cover here, but perhaps I can borrow some of his ideas to summarize my position:

People form their own impressions of reality, based on individual and group experiences. We do have commonly shared perceptions with others, such as a chair is a chair or the sky is the sky. But when it comes to abstract ideas found in politics and religion, there are no physical limitations — only what we can imagine in our own minds becomes “real.”

We form these ideas to make sense out of the world we inhabit. Without some kind of psychological foundation and structure, a sense of “reality” can be difficult to maintain. Once we conclude, “This is the way it is,” we defend these positions to maintain an “equilibrium” in our thinking.

Change can only come when there is a “disequilibrium.” In other words, when valid data comes along that does not allow us to maintain status quo thinking, We must then accommodate and change present views to fit newly discovered knowledge.

However for most people, it’s not quite that simple. If we have invested time into a specific way of thinking and these ideas become challenged, the first reaction is to defend. This can take place in a number of ways, such as outright denial, generating alternative facts (sometimes imagined, distorted or otherwise), attacking the alternative facts or character of the challenger, rationalizing one’s own position, or finding other people to support a status quo position.

But when new knowledge cannot be overcome with psychological defenses, change, growth and accommodation take place. A new framework of reality is formed.

People avoid change in thinking because no one wants to feel stupid or that they “got it wrong.” This can create self-doubt and depression. Most will avoid such misery.

So now you know why arguments on politics and religion usually go nowhere unless someone is ready to “accommodate” their mindset. Otherwise, providing alternative facts simply can’t jump the emotional walls, which lock in one’s present thinking.

So that’s my answer to a professor friend, whose experiences may have formed a different reality from mine as to why politics and religion are so difficult to discuss.

In summation, Adam Savage on the show “MythBusters” used to wear a T-shirt that stated: “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

Need I say more?