It's like you didn't read what I wrote. I was responding to your claim that people are rational. People are not, inherently, rational. Emotions hold far more sway over them, presenting them with evidence isn't sufficient because they don't want to be persuaded or because they can't rationally consume the evidence and draw conclusions from it.
Perhaps "rational" is not the right word to use here. People behave with much predictability and tend to behave consistently within the framework of their belief system. Within their own framework, they tend to behave rationally, even though it would appear irrational to one with an incompatible belief system.
Yes, emotional attachment to something will cause people to cling to it beyond its objective due, and that's why UX is so important. You're NOT going to persuade someone with information alone. You must make it accessible to them, which could involve all sorts of roundabout approaches, many of which may not even begin to offer any actual information until much later in the process (especially if you're trying to undo damage).
Ultimately my point is this:
- People do not react exactly the same as their neighbor. You can't make a one-size-fits-all solution and expect it to work.
- People tend act in a manner consistent with their belief system. There is a rationality to their thought process, even though emotions complicate things. But these complications are understood and have been studied extensively. The knowledge for how to deal with them exists.
- If you're going to reach someone, you must first understand what that belief system is, and figure out how to offer knowledge in a non-threatening way.
In fact, this thread makes for a good microcosm of the problem. Some people immediately understood what I was getting at. They upvoted, or gave positive response. Others either did not understand, or perhaps I touched a nerve (negative emotional response), causing them to downvote. One even responded with "It's good to know that, yet again the fault does not lie with the common man. It is always someone else's fault.", which is a pretty clear indication that my approach failed with him entirely. Pure information did not work, and in many ways my presentation of the information has been incomplete, as evidenced by yours and mine back-and-forth, culminating in "It's like you didn't read what I wrote." (a clear indication that I failed to communicate with you effectively).
In fact, my first entry into this thread was filled with attack words, which likely put most people into a defensive frame of mind (especially if they originally agreed with the article). I could definitely have done that better.
It's not easy to do, but I believe that tailoring the message is better than dismissal.
