What happens when our beliefs are challenged?

As organizational psychologist Adam Grant explains in his book Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know, when our ideas or beliefs are challenged, we tend to slip into one of three roles:

The politician

The politician lobbies to change the beliefs of others and win their approval. “Let me help you understand why I’m right and you’re wrong.”

The prosecutor

The prosecutor argues to disprove the beliefs of others and win their case. “Let me demonstrate why I’m right and you’re wrong.”

The preacher

The preacher evangelizes their sacred beliefs to protect and promote their ideals. “I’m right. You’re wrong. Period.”

In different ways, each of these roles takes a defensive position, choosing pride over humility and conviction over curiosity.

But there’s a fourth role, too:

The scientist

The scientist puts their own beliefs aside in search of the objective truth. “Let me use evidence to prove to myself that I’m actually right.”

Unlike the others, the scientist’s mind is open to new ideas and the fact that they might, in fact, be wrong. The scientist seeks the truth regardless of their preconceived notions.

What motivates the politician, prosecutor, preacher, and scientist?

Each of these characters is motivated by two things:

• Misson: What their ultimate goal is in a conflict of ideas.
• Method: What tools do they use to achieve their goal.

Of course, the scientist is the least common of the four. No one likes when their beliefs are challenged. And when they are, the easiest reaction is a defensive one.

Why? Because our brains really want us to be right.

In fact, we often like feeling right more than we do being right.

That’s thanks to two cognitive biases most of us carry:

• Confirmation bias: We see what we expect to see.
• Desirability bias: We see what we want to see.

Together, these biases make us less likely to openly receive new information or ideas that contradict what we already believe.

They’re the reason we react stubbornly when confronted with challenging opinions. And why even when we know we might be wrong, we dig our heels in anyway.

Why you should embrace being wrong

In his autobiography, Benjamin Franklin wrote:

“If you wish information and improvement from the knowledge of others and yet at the same time express yourself as firmly fix’d in your present opinions, modest, sensible men, who do not love disputation, will probably leave you undisturbed in the possession of your error.”

In other words, if you want to grow, you first have to be willing to admit you’re wrong.

As we meet people in life, we look for signals to determine whether or not they’re trustworthy, competent, or reliable. Most of us look for affirmative signals: Are they right about their ideas? Do they possess impressive knowledge about their domain? Can they accurately predict future outcomes?

But non-affirmative signals can be just as valuable. Writing about an interview with Jeff Bezos, Basecamp founder Jason Fried recounts the Amazon founder’s opinion:

“He said people who were right a lot of the time were people who often changed their minds. He doesn’t think consistency of thought is a particularly positive trait. It’s perfectly healthy — encouraged, even — to have an idea tomorrow that contradicted your idea today.

He’s observed that the smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. They’re open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking.”

This doesn’t mean that you should try to be wrong or make decisions without a case to support them. But, as Fried says:

“You should consider your point of view as temporary.”

This idea might seem to contradict the conventional wisdom that consistency is a key to success. But two things can be true at once. Consistency in effort and execution is essential. Consistency in thought, however, is an inhibitor to growth. Or, as the great Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

“Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

As Union Square Ventures founder Fred Wilson suggests: Have strong views, but hold them weakly:

“When an investment opportunity is surfaced, I will immediately have an opinion and I will voice it, often strongly. My colleagues understand that is my style and don’t let me bully the conversation. Because they also know I will fold quickly when the facts prove I am wrong. And I don’t require too many facts to prove that to myself.”

Intellecutal humility

To think like a scientist, we must navigate our internal and external worlds with an emphasis on intellectual humility.

According to Mark Leary, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University and the lead author of Cognitive and Interpersonal Features of Intellectual Humility, a report on four studies published in the Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin:

“Intellectual humility is the opposite of intellectual arrogance or conceit. In common parlance, it resembles open-mindedness. Intellectually humble people can have strong beliefs, but recognize their fallibility and are willing to be proven wrong on matters large and small.”

His team’s studies revealed how this often underestimated personality trait applies in the real world:

• Intellectual humility correlates with greater openness, curiosity, tolerance of ambiguity, and low dogmatism.
• Individuals with high levels of intellectual humility are less certain about their personal religious beliefs and less likely to judge others based on theirs.
• Intellectually humble people are less inclined to accuse politicians who change their positions of being “flip-floppers.”
• Intellectual humility is associated with greater openness to persuasion when presented with solid arguments.

How to think like a scientist

Our goal should be to think like a scientist — to resist the human tendency toward overconfidence and receive new ideas in good faith and with open arms.

So the next time you find yourself digging your heels in, remember to think twice.

🔑 Key takeaways

1. When our beliefs are challenged, we slip into one of four roles: Prosecutor, politician, preacher, or scientist.
2. The prosecutor, politician, and preacher are resistant to new ideas. The scientist is open to them.
3. Our mission and method dictate the role we choose. Our mission is our goal in a conflict of ideas: Winning or finding truth. Our method is how we achieve it: Through evidence or belief.
4. Confirmation bias and desirability bias are two cognitive biases that make us naturally resistant to challenging information.
5. When evaluating others’ competence, intelligence, or reliability, don’t just look for affirmative signals. Look for non-affirmative ones, too.
6. Your point of view should be justified but temporary.
7. Your should hold your beliefs strongly but weakly.
8. Adopt a mindset of intellectual humility.