Presenting facts didn't change them. The answer wasn't in 'information,' but in 'connection'

Have you ever tilted your head in confusion, wondering, "Why on earth does that person believe such a lie?"

Showing them the correct information doesn't change anything. Presenting data is met with, "That's fake." The more carefully you explain, the deeper the divide seems to grow.

You have surely experienced this more than once or twice.

Actually, I have hit similar walls in my clinical practice. Today, I would like to talk about the true nature of that frustration and an unexpected "way out."

The inconvenient truth that information doesn't change people

A paper published in 2025 by political scientist Samuel Baggwas, frankly, quite shocking to me. Titled "Democracy is wavering due to an epistemological problem, but the solution is not epistemological," it argues, in summary, that "fake news countermeasures, fact-checking, and media literacy education alone cannot cut off the root of the problem."

When I started reading, I initially thought, "Even so, it's important to deliver correct information, right?" But as I read on, comparing it to my own clinical experience, a sense that "Oh, this might be true" began to build up.

People are not moved by "facts" alone. This has been said in the world of cognitive psychology for decades. But when it is discussed at the level of democracy, as a problem for society as a whole, it carries a different weight.

Everyone experiences "motivated reasoning"

Let me talk a little about psychology here.

There is a term called "motivated reasoning." It is the tendency for people to decide on a conclusion first and then collect only the evidence that supports it. We find it easy to believe information that is convenient for us, and easy to judge information that is inconvenient as "low reliability."

You thought, "But I'm different," didn't you? To be honest, I thought so too. But research doesn't say that. According to the data cited in Bagg's paper, this tendency is observed just as much in highly educated people, people with specialized training, and people who consider themselves "rational."

In fact, it is said that the more knowledgeable you are, the better you become at finding "counter-arguments" to protect your own beliefs. Some researchers call this "sophisticated bias." It's a bit painful to hear as a medical professional, but we are no exception to this.

What we believe is not "information," but "what our peers say"

So, how do people judge the truth or falsehood of information?

The core of Bagg's argument is the concept of "social identity." He argues that we decide which sources of information to trust through the groups we feel we belong to—our profession, region, faith, political stance, lifestyle, and so on.

To use a metaphor, I think human cognition is like an "antenna with a filter." Information flies around like radio waves, but whether we receive it or not is determined by "which station we are tuned into." And what chooses that station is not reason, but a sense of "who I am."

This is by no means "something only foolish people do." In modern society, there is an infinite amount of information that we cannot verify directly ourselves. We understand the world by "trusting someone" on a daily basis. The problem is that the criteria for choosing that "someone" is often determined by whether they are one of our peers, rather than the quality of the data.

I finally understand why fact-checking doesn't work

I'm sure many of you have had similar experiences in clinical settings.

For example, if you explain to someone who continues unhealthy habits that 'the data shows these risks,' it often doesn't get through. However, it can change the moment a trusted colleague or family member says, 'You should stop.' Who says something can have more influence on behavioral change than the content of the information itself.

This is not about being lazy or irrational. It is a very natural human reaction.

Bagg's argument points this out in the context of democracy. People believe fake news not because they have low information literacy, but because the social groups they feel they can trust are on the side spreading the misinformation. And unless they sever their ties with those groups, no matter how much accurate information you provide, it is highly likely it will not be received.

So, how can we change things?

This is the part of Bagg's argument that I found most compelling.

The solution is not 'better information' or 'more opportunities for debate,' but 'the reconstruction of social identity' he says. He argues that when people change their sense of 'who they are,' it ultimately changes how they receive information.

Specifically, the most reliable way to change identity is through the experience of cooperating toward a common goal that is not directly related to politics, within a continuous, face-to-face relationship he suggests. Note that labor unions, local communities, religious groups, and sports teams are all 'places to do something together,' not 'places for political debate.'

This also resonates with what I have felt. People's perceptions and behaviors often change not at the moment they receive information, but after they have experienced something together within a trusted relationship. There is 'relationship' before 'dialogue'.

Conclusion: What to do before getting frustrated with 'people who won't change'

To summarize, there are three things I learned from this argument.

First, let go of the premise that 'people will change if you present them with facts' is one. That is wishful thinking and does not align with evidence from cognitive science. Second, as a supporter, be aware that 'who is saying it' can have a stronger influence than 'what is being said' is another. And third, for people to change in the long term, 'relationship' is needed before information is the final point.

I think this is interesting to read as a discussion on democracy, and it can also serve as a trigger for support professionals and medical workers to reflect on their daily work.

When you feel, 'Why won't that person change?', perhaps the place you should be approaching is not the quality of the information, but something much further back. Just realizing that might make you feel a little more at ease.

Thank you very much for staying with me until the end. I hope today's article serves as a trigger for you to think about your next steps starting tomorrow.

#CognitiveBias #SocialPsychology #CertifiedPublicPsychologist #FakeNews #BehavioralChange