By otakuyassine3@gmail.com 
Most people who dive into an argument feel like they have all of the relevant information they need to take a stance. But new research suggests that people tend to assume they have the full story — even when they don’t.
The study, which was published in the journal PLOS ONE, surveyed nearly 1,300 Americans who were split into three groups. Each was asked to read an article about a fictional school that didn’t have adequate water.
The first group read an article that only gave reasons the school should merge with another one that had enough water. The second group received an article that only gave reasons the school should stay separate, and the third group read both arguments.
The researchers discovered that the groups who only read half of the story believed that they had enough information to make a good decision, with most saying they would follow the recommendations in the article that they read. They were also more confident in their decision that the school should merge or stay separate than the people who read the full story that presented both sides.
However, the researchers also found that most of the participants who later read the arguments for the other side were willing to change their minds about their decision once they had all of the information.
“We noticed that interpersonal conflict — the tension between us and others — has just a huge negative impact on our mental health and well-being,” study co-author Angus Fletcher, a professor of English at the Ohio State University and member of the university’s Project Narrative, tells Yahoo Life. “We wanted to understand the origins of these disagreements and found that a large number of them are based on basic misunderstandings.”
But why do people claim to have all the information they need even when they do not, and what can you do if you’re locked into an argument with one? Here’s what experts suggest.
Why do people make decisions without all the relevant information?
Jumping to conclusions about something without having all the information could be an evolutionary tactic that stuck, Fletcher says. “Our brains evolved to want to make quick decisions about things,” he says. Fletcher cites the example of cavemen, who often had to think fast to survive. “You didn’t have time to think,” he says.
Now Fletcher says that people often have more time to make decisions but simply don’t take it. “This has made us more judgmental than we need to be,” Fletcher says.
Hillary Ammon, a clinical psychologist at the Center for Anxiety & Women’s Emotional Wellness, tells Yahoo Life that she sees this in her practice as well. “Most people like certainty and are often rigid in their thinking,” she says. “Most people like clear black-or-white options — ‘it’s either this or that.’ They struggle to consider the gray area, or the gray area makes them uncomfortable.”
This also feeds into the idea of “confirmation bias,” Dr. Gail Saltz, an associate professor of psychiatry at the New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical College, tells Yahoo Life. “We tend to take in and utilize information that aligns with our held belief system and discard or ignore information that doesn’t,” she says. “So people don’t really go looking for more information if they feel they are already comfortable with the information they have, or even their own view of the information they have noticed.”
People can also be rigid in their thought process related to which decision is right, Ammon says. “In therapy, I often aid people in considering the gray area and getting more comfortable with it and display more flexible thinking patterns,” she says.
Is there anything you can do to counter this?
If you’re locked in an argument with someone who you think doesn’t have all the information despite insisting that they do, Fletcher recommends first taking a mental step back to consider whether you’re open to learning about both sides — and then get curious.
“Broadly speaking, you can’t change someone else’s behavior or beliefs,” he says. “It’s more productive for you to try to open your own mind.”
If the discussion or argument is becoming heated, Fletcher recommends trying to get the other person to calm down. “If someone is rigid in their thinking, they may feel threatened,” Fletcher says. “Anything you can do to de-escalate the situation and make them relax makes them more likely to be open to having a conversation.”
If you’re arguing over facts, like who won a basketball game or how much something costs, Ammon points out that you can simply look up the information to settle the issue. But “people may be more set in their beliefs when the information relates to ideological values,” she says. “So you may have a harder time reasoning with someone about personal values and beliefs.”
If the argument is rooted in personal beliefs, like politics, Ammon suggests trying to consider where the other person is coming from, as well as the facts. “In these instances, it may be most beneficial to listen to their beliefs, inquire what shaped their beliefs, then share your beliefs and your experiences that shaped them,” she says. “Both parties may not agree at the end of the conversation, but it may be possible for them to hear each other’s perspectives.”
One thing you don’t want to do, says Saltz, is tell someone they’re wrong — however tempting that might be. “Telling them they are wrong will only make them defensive,” she says.
Share this content: