Human Relationships Versus Objective Data

Let’s say you’ve done your homework. You’ve read the reports, double-checked the sources, even made a snazzy little chart with color-coded bars and everything. You're armed with solid, objective data—cold, hard, undeniable truth. Then you share it with your sister, best friend, or partner…And they respond with a concerned expression and say, “Yeah, but I read something different, and honestly, I just don’t think that’s true.” Suddenly, your well-researched truth feels like it just bounced off a brick wall of emotional loyalty. 

What just happened? Welcome to the tug-of-war between objective data and contradictory information delivered by someone close to you—a psychological and social battlefield where logic often finds itself outmaneuvered by trust, intimacy, and shared identity.

Objective data is persuasive because it’s supposed to be impartial. Numbers don’t lie. If 97% of climate scientists agree on global warming, or if randomized controlled trials show a medication works, we expect people to believe it. Data gives the illusion of authority, precision, and universality. It says, “This isn’t my opinion—it’s the truth.” And when people are open to it, that can be powerful. Good data can change minds, shift policy, and spark innovation. But here's the catch: Data doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It lands in the messy terrain of human emotion, values, culture, and—most potently—relationships.

Now imagine someone you trust deeply—someone you share holidays, heartbreaks, and inside jokes with—tells you something that goes against what the data says. Even if what they say is vague, anecdotal, or factually wrong… you might feel more inclined to believe them. Why?

Because their voice doesn’t come alone. It’s wrapped in emotional history. It speaks in a language of shared understanding and loyalty. That person isn't just giving you a different perspective—they’re sending a social signal: “If you believe this, you're with me.” And humans are wired for being with. Evolutionarily, tribal belonging often mattered more than objective truth. The tribe protected you. The truth didn’t.

Think about it: If your best friend says, “I don’t trust that vaccine—it just came out too fast,” they’re not publishing a medical paper. They’re expressing fear, maybe shaped by a tangle of social media, stress, and personal stories. Telling them, “Actually, here’s the CDC’s Phase III trial data…” might be correct. But it might also feel—to them—like you’re rejecting them, not just their point. And in return, their rejection of your facts might feel like they’re ignoring your intelligence. This is how good people talk past each other.

So, Who Wins? In pure logic? Objective data. Every time. But in real life? The winner is often the person you care about more than the facts. That’s not because people are dumb. It’s because we are social. We don’t just evaluate truth in our heads—we weigh it with our hearts.

What do we do? We start by recognizing that persuasion isn't just about truth—it's about trust. If you want someone to believe good data, you might need to become the familiar voice. Share facts gently, wrapped in empathy, not superiority. Make it safe for someone to listen without feeling betrayed. And if someone you love believes something untrue, resist the urge to steamroll them with charts. Instead, start with connection. Find shared values. Be curious. Show that you care more about them than about winning the argument. Because sometimes, the only thing more persuasive than truth… is love that listens.

Have you ever changed your mind because of someone close to you—even if the facts weren’t on their side? Or vice versa? Regardless of whether you are the one who’s trying to change someone’s mind, or they’re trying to change yours, I remind you now of the song I keep on singing about contextualism. To briefly recap: Contextualism is the idea that thoughts, feelings, behaviors, actions, and experiences don’t have a single, universal meaning. Instead, their meaning depends on the external situation and your internal situation. Therefore, before you get into a shouting match with someone with whom you disagree, decide whether the context is suitable for rational reconciliation. If it isn’t. tactfully withdraw from the situation. and decide whether you want to reengage at a more opportune time or never.