When we argue with people, we can be pretty sure their brains are arguing right back at us
The human brain is well equipped to rationalise current behaviours and defend comfort zones from the kind of arguments delivered by well-meaning educators.
Economists call this phenomenon the ‘sunk costs effect’. People make investments in certain courses of action and may defend those investments to the point of absurdity even when the prospective gains outweigh the benefits.
Hence educational campaigns that rely on reasons are likely to force people to voice counter-arguments. And the more they argue for a position, the firmer their position becomes.
As Miller and Rollnick explain in Motivational Interviewing, that’s exactly the opposite of what change makers should be doing:
“It is the client who should be voicing the arguments for change. When you find yourself in the role of arguing for change while your client (patient, student, child) is voicing arguments against it, you’re in precisely the wrong role.”
In sort, reasons tend to be counter-productive. There are plenty of alternative strategies, for example:
