The truth about facts: Why they don’t work in high stakes conversations

Jan 17

There’s an appealing logic to the belief that if we could just stick to the facts, discussions would be straightforward. The truth is that we humans aren’t wired that way. We project our values and feelings onto the facts that confront us to make meaning and understand the world around us. Cognitive science tells us that opinions and beliefs are remarkably steadfast because of this interplay and how we have evolved to interact with each other. What we know about these dynamics has huge implications for how we undertake difficult conversations and public engagement.

“Let’s start with the facts”

I’ve been in the public engagement arena for well over a decade, and I’ve seen the facts-first approach fail too many times to remember them all. Government and business leaders decide to lead the first 30 minutes of a session with an overview of the data to “get everyone on the same page” of a given issue. When I’d watch these presentations unfold, I’d scan the assembled stakeholders to see arms folded and brows furrowed. I was seeing the physical manifestation of firmly-held views being further entrenched. Most often, there was no same page, no agreement on the statement of facts. There was more anger and opposition.

Why couldn’t everyone acknowledge the truth the data revealed? Facts are facts, right?

What science tells us about our reasoning abilities

If you want an excellent overview of the cognitive science behind how we humans have evolved to respond less than rationally when it comes to forming and upholding beliefs, this 2017 article by Elizabeth Kolbert in The New Yorker is a good place to start.

Kolbert outlines various studies dating back to the 70s that underpin the phenomenon of confirmation bias--our tendency to embrace information that aligns with our beliefs and discount that which contradicts them. A few findings from the cited research include that once we form an impression, it’s very hard to let that go, even when faced with contrary evidence. Further, we often form those impressions or opinions based on an incomplete understanding of an issue and a reliance on the knowledge of others we associate with who likely also have incomplete knowledge. It doesn’t sound very reasonable or rational, does it?

From an evolutionary perspective, however, our behaviour makes more sense. In hunter-gatherer societies, our ancestors were more concerned with social standing and their personal security than with “being right.” Social interaction and agreeableness within your group were paramount.

Kolbert points out that evolutionary advancements haven’t kept pace with the information age we live in where we face a constant onslaught of contrary arguments, fake news, and deeply complex issues that take time and care to fully comprehend.

So, what does this all mean for public engagement? Do we stop presenting the facts?

Facts are critical when it comes to presenting the information stakeholders need to provide meaningful feedback. But, we’d do well to recognize that facts are not divorced from feelings, values, and beliefs. We need a different approach.

Create a climate of openness

I always start a public engagement session with an agenda and a stake. The agenda is the list of what we need to cover or do and the stake is a statement of what we hope to create and experience together. You can also think of a stake like a core belief or value that you hold for a group or conversation.

Agenda: “build out next steps of Phase 5”

Stake: “by working together in fun and collaborative ways, our team will find innovative solutions for Phase 5”

If you go into a public engagement session with the goal to change people’s minds, you’re starting a steep uphill climb with a boulder hurtling down the path towards you. If you enter with the assumption that you are going to have an exchange with others and learn something from the experience, you’ll prepare the stage for a more productive time.

It’s helpful to cultivate a mindset that feelings and emotions are just as valid as facts and data. They are all an important part of the discussion.

Recognize the emotion behind the position

If we start with presenting the facts, it’s going to fan emotions and take us further from our goal of collaboration and mutual understanding. So, we need to start by allowing stakeholders to tell us what’s important to them and how they are or will be impacted by the situation or outcome.

In my experience, it’s only after people have been able to share their feelings or describe how they have been affected, that they are ready to talk about change, analyze ideas, and work together towards understanding and solutions. I’ll often ask:

What happened to you? What will happen to you?
How have you been impacted or will be impacted by this situation?
How does all of this make you feel?

Move beyond emotion

Once you’ve had the opportunity to share and hear the answers to the above questions, it’s time to move to the next step—which is opening up the conversation to engage in constructive dialogue. In this stage, I’ll ask:

What challenges are we facing?
How will you choose to respond to this situation?
What values will guide your actions and should guide collective action?
What do you need to see happen to feel ready to participate?
What do your friends/neighbours/colleagues value or need?

This second set of questions empowers people to play a role in the decision, retain power over the collaborative choices, and engage constructively on issues that matter to them. Obviously, there is more to it than just a set of good questions AND it’s an important place to begin.

How you communicate data and facts

As with every other conversation, how you communicate data and facts is as important as the information itself.

Reciprocity is a powerful force in human interactions. We are far more likely to respond in kind to our fellow humans. Whether it’s inviting someone over to dinner after they’ve hosted you at their home or liking someone’s social media post because they liked yours, we are inclined to reciprocate. That’s why it’s important to enter into a public engagement session with openness and a genuine eagerness to hear and understand.

Before you share your experience, facts, or a combination of the two, asking permission to do so can be powerful. After offering a statement reflecting what you’ve heard the other person say, ask something like, “Would you be willing to hear my opinion/my truth on this matter?” This question conveys the person has a choice whether to listen to you or not allowing them a degree of control. Coupled with the reflective statement it also engages the reciprocity instinct that makes us more open to taking in new information.

Public engagement is always about more than facts

We love facts. Possessing them makes us feel smart, right, “in the know.” But, facts don’t exist in a vacuum–we view them through a set of values, feelings, and beliefs. Dueling facts are never going to win the argument and move us forward. Until we address the emotion behind the opinions and beliefs we hold, our dialogue is going nowhere.

I’d love to hear your experiences when working with people and facts!

Until next time.

Kim Hyshka