How do you challenge one’s belief system?

How do we know when to speak out so others don’t freak out? We’re all at different places life. Some gain knowledge and insight that others don’t have. It’s natural to want to inform people of these discoveries. But doing so can create unexpected problems.

For example, if people believe eating ground orange peels will prevent dangerous viruses from entering their bodies, should we try to enlighten them, or simply remain silent? It’s a real dilemma.

By remaining silent, they might become ill or die. Yet on the other hand, if people are firmly entrenched into a belief system, would they allow the experience of others to enter their closed perspective anyway?

Here’s what I’ve discovered over the years: If folks are content in a specific area of understanding, they often do not want that area disturbed.

If I attempt to “pierce the veil” and someone is not ready to accept a different perspective, my action will probably just stimulate denial and anger.

Now you might ask, “Why this reaction?” I’m only trying to help — right?

Most people can’t stand being wrong, nor do they wish to discover that their emotionally invested belief systems are not based in factual reality. This applies to just about everyone — including the so-called “experts.”

So when a belief system is threatened, especially in the areas of religion, politics and now unfortunately, science, a natural reaction is to defend the status quo and reject any new information that might disturb it.

There are many personal and historical examples of this human phenomenon. Here’s one that most are unaware:

Just about everyone knows about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. But few have heard about a similar attack in 1932. Rear Admiral Harry Yarnell had the insight and knowledge to see a future that other Naval officers could not. He foresaw the power of aircraft and how they would be the deciding factor in future military battles.

To prove his point, he launched a surprise mock attack on Pearl Harbor, using 152 airplanes from two aircraft carriers. Had it been an actual attack, the result on the American fleet would have been devastating.

You would think with such a dramatic demonstration, Navy brass would have sat up and taken notice. But it was not to be. You see, their belief systems were content within the traditional Navy. They believed huge battle ships would decide future warfare on the high seas — not flimsy primitive aircraft. Therefore Yarnell’s demonstration and alternative facts fell on blind eyes and deaf ears.

But one country far away was opened to different ideas. News stories about the mock exercise went worldwide and gave the Japanese the idea for the December 7, 1941 attack. Their plan was almost identical to Yarnell’s — even to the point of using a sleepy Sunday for the launch. The only reason it wasn’t as devastating was America’s three aircraft carriers were coincidentally out to sea that day.

Another example of factual denial was the story of Galileo Galilei. He supported the idea of heliocentrism, or in other words, the Earth revolves around the sun. But the Catholic Church at the time had contrary beliefs. So in 1633, he was put on trial for his discoveries. His facts were not allowed to penetrate the church leaders’ sphere of reference. But even more that that, in order to maintain their limited thinking, Galileo had to be isolated and silenced. (Hummm, does this sound like Twitter today?)

But getting back to the main point: How do we penetrate what psychologist George Kelly referred to as “impermeable constructs” in people? Is it possible, and should we even try?

Traditional psychoanalysts might argue “no” to that last point. Most people will only allow new information to enter their frame of reality if they are so uncomfortable with the status quo that it no longer makes sense. As a teenager, I had very rigid beliefs. But the more I learned and discovered, the less these inflexible constricts worked. Therefore, I became open to a wider range of ideas and had to modify my static thinking.

This is why traditional psychoanalysts don’t say much during a psychotherapy session. If patients feel safe within their status quo positions, they will often reject and block new information. What the therapist does is look for openings where a patient is no longer comfortable and probes those areas of “readiness” to allow new insight.

So what do we do about the misinformed believer? I suppose we can try to challenge this person’s thinking. But we run a risk. When people feel their beliefs are threatened, they can become further entrenched, making changes even more difficult.

We could ignore their fallacies and watch them suffer with their own ideas. We could also try to force our understandings upon them, but that can actually cause more harm than good. So as a final thought, perhaps the silence of those traditional psychoanalysts had it right all along.