How can you explain to someone that their mental model is fundamentally flawed – when their entire way of thinking is based on it? How can I find out what knowledge I’m missing, when my entire framework of thought is limited by my existing knowledge? How do you deal with people who refuse to acknowledge alternative knowledge and dismiss it outright as ‘fake news’? Why is it difficult to accept that some people do not accept fact-based knowledge?
Question 1: How can you explain to someone that their mental model is fundamentally wrong – when their entire way of thinking is based on it?
Answer:
A mental model is never ‘wrong’ in and of itself. It is the result of subjective experience, shaped by individual perception, motivation and social context. The claim that a model is ‘fundamentally wrong’ presupposes either that there is an objectively ‘correct’ model (which is philosophically questionable), or that empirically verifiable evidence is accepted – which in turn requires a willingness to revise one’s views. However, many people avoid cognitive restructuring because it is associated with uncertainty.
Alongside this subjectivist perspective, mental models can also be assessed in terms of how functional and applicable they are in reality. In certain contexts (e.g. medicine, technology, safety), it is not truth but practical appropriateness that is decisive. Rather than directly questioning the entire model, it is more effective to discuss specific risks and the potential benefits of alternative perspectives.
Question 2: How can I find out what knowledge I am lacking if my entire framework of thought is limited by my existing knowledge?
Answer:
A very good question – and almost the answer in itself. Modern AI can open up new perspectives through targeted prompts. Experts, discussions outside one’s own filter bubble and intensive reading also help to broaden one’s horizons.
Furthermore, metacognitive thinking – that is, reflecting on one’s own thought processes – helps. Questions such as: ‘What assumptions underpin my thinking?’ or ‘What would have to happen for me to change my mind?’ promote insight into blind spots. However, epistemic limits can never be completely ruled out: the problem of ‘unknown unknowns’ remains.
3. Question: How should one deal with people who refuse to acknowledge alternative knowledge and label it outright as ‘fake news’?
Answer:
For many people, any attempt is likely to be in vain. Those who do not want to learn will not do so. One possible strategy is to hold up a mirror to the other side by also labelling their sources as fake – perhaps this will cause irritation. In principle, however, I am cautious about hoping that deeply held convictions will be abandoned. Openness usually only arises when personal benefit or impending harm becomes apparent.
The strategy of mirroring may cause irritation in the short term, but it carries the risk of reactance – a psychological defence mechanism. Approaches that focus on shared values or concrete everyday references have a more lasting effect. Asking questions rather than making statements (“What would convince you?”) can open up cautious avenues for dialogue. However, this requires patience – and sometimes the realisation that attempts to persuade do not always bear fruit.
4. Question: Why is it difficult to accept that some people do not accept fact-based knowledge?
Answer:
Because facts are processed not only rationally, but also emotionally. Information that contradicts an existing world view threatens a person’s self-image, social identity or sense of control – and is therefore often rejected. This phenomenon is known as cognitive dissonance: to avoid internal conflict, people resort to excuses or alternative ‘truths’ rather than engaging critically with new information. Particularly in politicised contexts, the desire for internal coherence outweighs openness to new evidence.
In addition to avoiding dissonance, social belonging also plays a role. When fact-based information contradicts the group’s opinion, people risk exclusion or rejection. Rejecting facts can therefore be an expression of group loyalty – rather than intellectual ignorance.