There are several other cognitive errors that regularly appear in our political discussions, including those related to gun violence. These include the following:
Mind reading: Although there is little evidence that most of us can accurately read minds, many indulge in that exercise anyway. Mind reading sounds like this: “I know what they’re thinking, they’re thinking X and that means we need to stick with Y.” To mitigate mind reading a facilitator might say, “So you’re thinking Y, and are sure then that they would think X. What else might you be thinking?” Or one might ask “What concerns you most about X”? “How might it be different if you thought they were thinking A or B?” As participants begin to explore their different assumptions, new avenues for dialogue can open.
Control fallacies: “Control fallacies” include both the false belief that one has total control, or that one has no control. The first preempts discussion (“we don’t need to work with them, their views won’t have any effect”) and the second chills it. If nothing can be done, why even try? This second form is shown in statements like “Our gun culture is deeply embedded. Not much can be done.” A facilitator can respond to this first by reflecting what is felt: “So you feel you have no influence, and its not really worth the effort. Do you want to say more about that?” After hearing and reflecting the response, the facilitator can invite hope: “If it were possible, where would you start?”
“Shoulds”: When one creates a rigid rule of judgment, not tied to any clear principle or generally accepted rule, and becomes angry when others behave in a way contrary to that rule, you are witnessing the cognitive trap of “shoulds”. We have all heard this in conversations: “she should have known that”, the government “never should” or “always should”, or “he should have seen”. The key to opening further discussion here is to gently explore what lies behind the “should” – is it a principle? a past conversation? anger over an unforeseen consequence? Exploring the speaker’s assumptions or beliefs will often lead to new questions, and an opportunity to offer additional information that in turn opens the speaker’s perspective.
Being right: The view that one’s opinion is always right results in automatic rejection of any conflicting data or viewpoints. Not surprisingly, this makes dialogue and reasoned analysis very difficult. Generically this might sound like “That data doesn’t even make sense to me. It‘s just not that way. I already told you the way it is.” Directly confronting the speaker about this cognitive error, and piling on more data, will only lead to more resistance. It’s more likely to be effective to reframe the issue being discussed to incorporate a range of views. As more information comes into the discussion, the facilitator can invite an exploration of the range of data present: What makes some information trustworthy and other not? what information is missing that the participants would like to see? What would the group propose as the next steps?
Global labeling: This cognitive error, which often appears in tandem with “being right”, involves generalizing one or two qualities of a group into a negative judgment of the entire group, while ignoring evidence or other factors to the contrary. This error is evident throughout our public life, in such statements as in “All Democrats are godless” or “All Republicans are heartless”. “Global labeling” is a type of “us” v. “them” thinking that reflects very low levels of trust of those who have different views or experiences. Sometimes humor can help a speaker move forward. For example, referring to the statements above, a facilitator might say something like: “really, all? No [group label, e.g. Democrat/Republican] is [state mirror positive attribute of insult used, e.g., faithful/compassionate].” Humor should not be used though if the speaker is emotional, or if global labeling is used in conjunction with other cognitive errors, as the use of humor could easily be viewed as an alignment with the “others” and against the speaker. An alternative (and safer approach) would be to indirectly acknowledge the error and focus on what the speaker’s statement says about values or direction. For example, the facilitator might say:” ‘all’ is a strong word and we may, given time, be able to think of some exceptions.. Faith/compassion is a strong value for you. Would you like to say more about that here?” Note the use of “we” in the first part of that response both reassures the speaker that he is accepted while signaling to the group that the global labeling is not accepted. The shift to the word “you” in the next sentence invites the speaker to stay involved.