Liminal Thinking: Create the Change You Want by Changing the Way You Think

by Dave Gray

Between 2003 and 2005, researchers conducted a series of studies comparing how Democrats and Republicans interpreted facts about the war in Iraq.1 The researchers were interested in what happens when people encounter new information, especially when it contradicts their existing beliefs. The original invasion was justified in no small part by the Bush administration’s claim that Iraq was concealing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a threat to the United States. The U.S. did not find any WMDs, and as the war continued, it seemed increasingly unlikely that WMDs would be found. Neither Republicans nor Democrats challenged these facts. But they had very different interpretations. Democrats concluded that the WMDs had not existed. Republicans concluded that Iraq had moved the WMDs, or destroyed them, or that they had not yet been found. When it became increasingly clear over time that no WMDs would be found, Republican explanations shifted to “Well, there must have been a reason or we wouldn’t have gone in!”