We have heard many times about emotional «hijacking», when we lose emotional control and react uncontrollably to a stimulus without our response being modulated by our reasoning. Anatomically we could summarize: we respond with the amygdala without going through the filter of the cerebral cortex.
We could understand that this hijacking has its logic: since the cerebral cortex has not modulated the response, it has been disproportionate.
But what to think about what I would call a rational «hijacking»? situation in which a person in his/her senses, with full reason, does not attend to objective evidences that refute their beliefs because they are afraid that their vision of the world will fall apart.
Do you want some examples ?: the climate change deniers, the anti-vacuum group, the defenders that the Earth is flat, and some voters of world leaders or political parties whose trajectory or cases of corruption would give the impression that they would never be elected again and, nevertheless, they continue winning elections and governing.
What is surprising is that, as people are sometimes prepared, and some even with scientific training, despite the demonstration of objective evidence against their believes, they still do not change their minds, they only perceive what they want to believe and deny any argument that contradicts their convictions. In this case, the thought would be modulated or motivated by emotions, as if the cortex were at the mercy of the amygdala.
As relevant characteristics that define the people who suffer this, it could be mentioned:
- usually belongs to a group or community
- the confrontation with objective evidence contrary to their beliefs not only does not change their way of thinking but, on the contrary, it anchors them even more in their convictions
- only someone from their own group, and with some leadership, can partially modify these opinions
- they are not aware that this is a problem and, therefore, they do not see the need to change
The pediatricians who work with the parents against vaccination have tried for the good of the children, to find a form of dialogue that allows them to finally immunize their children. Consist in: not to contradict the parents in their arguments, not to show them contrary scientific evidence, and listen to them with attention and respect, in order to find the deep emotional motivation that sustains those beliefs to try to use in favor of the ideas or actions that we want obtain from them. That is the only, and not always feasible, way to achieve certain mental openness and change of behavior. In this case, the effort is worth it, the child’s health prevails over the tedium of a long negotiation and dialogue.
But what happens in cases where the interlocutor does not have a special motivation or empathy for the person or group of people who are in this situation to change their mind? or, what happens when two hijacking groups confront each other ?
Surprisingly, there are more and more people affected and more collective of different types who suffer this rational «hijacking». Lately in our country we see it every day in the political field: it is not about agreeing, looking for the common good or, if you prefer, the least bad, no, it is about imposing and defeating the one who has a different ideology. at the expense of their happiness and that of the people they love, no matter the cost, even their own freedom.
It is as if our society is being sectorized and as if people need to be part of one of these groups to have the feeling that, finally, their life has an ideal and acquires a meaning. Before, this aspect was partially covered by personal religious beliefs, and it seems that now that our society is secular, this need to find a meaning would have been transferred to different ideologies that, interestingly, would have in common a radical profile with an unquestionable and irrevocable adhesion, setting in motion the exclusive binary thinking of «with me or against me», of my group or the opposite.
As these types of groups seem to attract a large number of people because of their sense of belonging, their believe to be better or superior, or being accepted, we find the paradox that due to the number of followers they have in the political field they can end up governing us. And, worst, when two hijacking interlocutors or groups that hold the power confront each other, as it happens in our political daily life, those of us who have not yet suffered this abduction find difficult to achieve an intermediate way, even less a reconciliation (as reflected in the last electoral results of the political groups that supported this way) being at the mercy of ideologies and not wise ways to do, and, in my opinion, neither very democratic.
Those who are not abducted by one of these groups are inexorably force to listen to the daily grievances, even worse, end up being governed in a sectarian manner, by one or the other. This situation leads me to think, and propose, if it would not be convenient to evaluate previously, by some medical-psychological method, the suitability of the candidates.
«Every nation has the government it deserves.» Joseph de Maistre
