[MUSIC]. I'm here with Kris De Meyer, a neuroscientist currently working at the Department of Neuroimaging at King's Institute for Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, and producer of documentary, Right Between Your Ears, a film about the neuroscience and psychology of how people form convictions. And I've asked Kris here because I think this idea about how we form our convictions from initial beliefs is really, really important to everyone that's looking at the Shakespeare authorship question. From what you've observed, Kris, are the issues around belief and conviction any different with the Shakespeare authorship question to those you find in other areas such as religious belief? >> So in general, it appears that the way that our brains are believing things when we become convinced of something, and when we accept something to be true, versus when we reject something to be false, that that is independent of the types of beliefs that we're holding. So yes, there is neuroscience evidence that would show that in generic terms, when someone is very convinced of something, that will be the same regardless of what their conviction is about. So the processes by which people become convinced of things also seem to be very similar across the different domains that you look at. >> How do people become convinced? They have a little bit of knowledge, they find something out, they form a belief about something, how does that turn into a conviction? >> So, one way to understand that is by thinking about what comes first. Is it the beliefs that we have that guide the things that we do or is it the things that we do that guide the beliefs that we have? So suppose that you are puzzling about this question, you hear about this question for the first time. And you're starting to look around and you find a piece of evidence that resonates with you. Now you've made like a little step in the direction of believing one side over the other side. You then might start talking to people about it, which means that you're taking a public stance for this. You're sharing this, you might have a heated argument with someone else who disagrees with you, or someone might really put you down, someone who has already a stronger conviction on either side. Now, those moments where we are doing something, where we're taking an action, where we're stepping out and taking a public stance, those are moments that can change our beliefs. Because what happens is when you take that action, and when you then perhaps have an acrimonious exchange over it, it creates what is called cognitive dissonance. Which is a very visceral feeling of discomfort where we are questioning perhaps ourselves, the image that we have of ourselves is as intelligent people, as people who can think critically. And when that is being questioned in us, that generates the discomfort, and the discomfort then puts in motion the fact that our brains starts justifying what we have just done. So we justify it to ourselves and we find reasons and additional reasons for why our initial decision, our initial step in one direction, was the right one. And so in the film, Right Between Your Ears, we used an analogy that was devised by two social psychologists, Carol Tavers and Elliot Aronson, and that's the analogy of the pyramid. And they liken that initial moment of not having a strong conviction at all to the tip of the pyramid. And once you take that initial decision, and that sets in motion that cycle of further actions, more discussing with friends, and then finding additional reasons for your belief, that is the descent of the pyramid. And so the further down you go, the more convinced you become that you have the right view on this, the more reasons and evidence you find for your view, because obviously none of us would believe something that we think is nonsense and that we don't have any reasons for. And so, the further you go down, the more you become convinced. And also, the further you go from your original position of not having a strong conviction. And the further you end up from someone who initially took that step of the other side, and went down on the other side of the pyramid. What you can end up with is that people at the bottom of the pyramid are very convinced they are right and the other side is wrong. >> Yeah, and they end up polarized because they are far apart at the bottom. They start here and then as they take this pyramid of choice, it's called, isn't it >> Yes >> And they slide down with each step of their conviction until they're poles apart, and can't see eye to eye. And this is where you get the kind of ferocious battles that you get with the authorship question, but with lots of other things as well. So politics, all kinds of other areas, and lots of other academic areas as well, where an academic will take a stance on one side for a theory and another one against a theory. So, it sounds like what you're saying to avoid the kind of conflicts that happen, where people ... it's been described actually, the Shakespeare authorship question, it's been described as "a dialog of the deaf" because people can't hear the other point of view. They just think it's totally invalid. A way to avoid that then would be to try and stay at the top of the pyramid. Is it possible to not slide down to conviction and to stay in uncertainty around this? Is that doable, do you think? >> I suppose it's really difficult because when we really are engaged in a topic, when we become very passionate about it. It automatically almost implies that we will form a very strong conviction about it. I think what is more important in this particular case is that we realize that when we are at the bottom of the pyramid, we have our views and our reasons for why we are in that particular position, that we might try to understand that people on the opposite side have a similar set of reasons - well, obviously, a very different set of reasons - but similarly, they have a very strong set of reasons for why they ended up on that side of the pyramid. So I guess it's more about, what we do when we are on that side so that we stop having a conversation of the deaf in that particular situation. And then perhaps through ... if that makes conversations more productive, then we will slowly start to move up the sides of the pyramid again. And we don't need to be all the way at the top. We don't need to be an absolute 50/50 certainty or uncertainty about this. We can be sort of halfway down. But at least that will allow us to realize that the way that we believe this is very similar to the way that people on the opposite side believe this. >> Even though they have entirely different reasons for believing, they've rallied different evidence, or different readings of the evidence, to come to what to them seems to be the truth. >> Yes. >> And they're just as right in their rightness as we are in ours. >> Yes. >> As it were. >> Yeah. Because the way that happens is we're all constructing systems of beliefs inside of our heads then. And we do that mostly as a lawyer to prove a case with positive evidence that all points in one direction. And the more strongly we are engaged in a topic, the more passionately we feel about that, the more evidence we seek that all points in that same direction. And the more dismissive we are of contradictory evidence. And so on both sides, we have that system of evidence and reasons and beliefs inside our heads that tells us that we are right and the other side is wrong. So in the case of the Shakespeare authorship question, of course there will be one of the two sets of beliefs that is right and the other one is wrong. But within the set of beliefs that we construct to point in one direction, many individual reasons that we have, many individual pieces of evidence could actually be wrong. So it is possible that when someone attacks me on one side of the pyramid for something that I believe and shows that this is wrong, that that particular strand of evidence that I used is wrong in that location. But it doesn't necessarily mean that everything else is wrong, that I believe. So even though the authorship question is a binary one, "Was it Shakspere from Stratford-Upon-Avon or was it not?", within the individual sets of reasons that we have to either say no or yes to that question, there could be things that are correct and things that are incorrect. >> Yes. And what I find when I watch debates on this is that the opponent of whoever it is will pick up on the obvious wrong thing. I saw a debate recently where I saw what I regarded as misinformation or misreading of evidence on both sides. And always the opponent will be able to pick up the thing that was wrong, and then from that imply that the whole position is wrong. So I think we need to be very careful about not being too attached to individual pieces of evidence that we think are on our side, because we can be wrong about that. Because confirmation bias, which you were describing there, weren't you? Because we're getting things to rally to our side and we start seeing everything rallying. This is my evidence and this is supporting my point of view, but not all of it is. And we have to allow ourselves to let things go. >> Yes. >> So that we are less wrong [LAUGH]. >> Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. [MUSIC]
