http://freakonomics.com/podcast/change-your-mind-rebroadcast/
Alright folks. How likely would you say you actively change your mind? This here is a rebroadcast from an episode of "How to Change Your Mind" in an embarrassingly sad way to relate to Thanksgiving bread-breaking and meeting those people in your family that you really wish you didn't have to. Ring any bells? ... (DINNNNG DOOOOONG)
Ahem! This rebroadcast attempts to recognize the reluctance people have to change their minds, whether that be about policy or which way you orient your toilet paper roll. Why? Because for some ridiculous reason, it is difficult for people to admit that they are wrong. Or worse........to admit that they don't know. Steven Sloman, a professor at Brown University, argues that people have this very peculiar inclination to prove that they know stuff about lots of stuff...and more stuff. He refers to this as the "illusion of explanatory depth". Apparently, people are REALLY FREAKIN' BAD at causal explanations or how things work. Take, for instance, climate change!
How much do you really, REALLY know about climate change policies? (Not a whole lot???). Sloman and a partner replicated the Rozenbilt and Keil experiment, except as it related to climate change and gun control. Participants had so much confidence in their knowledge about climate change policy, it's a wonder how their ego fits through the door on any given day. Amusingly enough, when asked to demonstrate their understanding, they failed. *gasp* Folks! This is about climate change, but it's not REALLY about climate change.
Similarly, when asked about their opinions on climate change, then asked to read an article giving certain facts/information, those with different opinions interpreted things very differently. They even became more extreme in their views after acquiring this "new information". This is because people seek out the information that affirms their viewpoints. Anyone remember the media chapter? Or seminar? Or class in general? Hellooooo school.
The point of this rant is to encourage people to do some self-reflection, myself very much so included. Do people really know anything at all? If so, why are people so blindly confident in their beliefs to the point of extreme loathing (think us v. them mentality). Think really extreme political polarization. What is going on?!?
QUESTION!
~What are some things in your lives that you believed to be true or real (e.g. religion, grades, toothpaste flavor, dog person v cat person, brand of toilet paper, love, drugs, policy, etc.) only to CHANGE YOUR MIND???
~What caused said change?
12 comments:
Well, this blog caught my attention. I think that this reluctance to change can be somewhat of a positive and negative concept. My opinion is that people are reluctant to change because people do not like hear the word "no". Also, people tend to avoid things that results in a negative feedback. For example, people with certain beliefs tend to read a newspaper that talks about their similar beliefs rather than reading something that goes against their belief. In someway this is a defense mechanism in humans and yet it can harm us too. Like Diana said, climate change is a huge issue right now but it might be difficult to have a drastic change because humans are resilient to these negative events that are happening. To be honest, I don't know if our mind will ultimately help us or harm us.
The climate change survey is such an interesting study; it's definitely made me reevaluate what I actually understand. I agree with Anne, people don't like to listen to what goes against their own views. Thus, the most important value we can have is open-mindedness, making sure to not make decisions before we have a strong grasp of the facts. This means really getting to know the topic at hand, not just the title of a news article, before deciding our stance. Only then should we pursue actions based on our viewpoints. In some cases, this may result in more extreme stances, like Diana mentioned, but in other cases it may lead to a more relaxed view on the topic, especially if the person's previous belief was extreme.
Kudos to op for shining light on why we have to be open minded and not just jump on the bandwagon. I think it is so easy to forget and admit that we lack the nuts and bolts of our viewpoints (haha like the picture). My own experience with this? Well, when I started out as a peer counselor, I’d bring up resources for the client early into our conversation. I thought of solutions for the client because I was trying to be helpful, but that’s actually the opposite of what you’re supposed to do. I had to retrain myself on client-centered therapy and accept a method different than my default.
I think this concept of what you really don't know is interesting because it can usually call out people who might be passionate and have a stance on an issue but fail to do their research in the end. To answer your question, when I was younger I believed that GMOs were terrible since all my friends bought organic foods and told me that they were bad. I believed them but when I did a science project on it in middle school I realized that what they told me was false. Now I at least know what my true stance is on the topic and have evidence to back up my thinking.
Speaking of socratic seminars, Socrates is famous for having claimed that he knew what he didn't know: "I know that I know nothing." The ignorance that comes from believing you know more than you do lends itself to dangerous biases, such as confirmation bias and hindsight bias.
I really enjoyed reading this post because it relates to everyone even though we sometimes don't realize it. I think Josie brings up a really good point with hindsight bias, sometimes we choose to only consider the evidence that supports our beliefs. This is true in the example of climate change, as there is a great deal of evidence that it exists and yet people choose to focus on the studies that prove their own points. This leads to an inability to have authentic discussions and learn from each other.
Although I am a staunch advocate for educating oneself on a topic before haphazardly taking viewpoints, I caution against possible gatekeeping that might come with this mindset. It would be unwise to disregard the arguments of those who may be less well-read on a topic than you by questioning them with a statement like, "well, how much do you really know about X topic?" I feel that although people like to preach to others about being open-minded they often fail to apply this to themselves; hence instead of "become open-minded" what people say becomes "become open-minded to my ideas." In some ways, one gains the "nuts and bolts" of their viewpoints by holding their viewpoints in the first place and having them challenged; being opinionated is a learning experience. Nevertheless, fact-checking and accuracy is key.
Adding on from what the others have stated, I think it's great to be open minded, and we need to be open minded. However, being too open minded could pose another problem. Being open minded and allowing ourselves to consider new ideas and ponder on them is great, but being too open minded can prevent one from reaching decisions, and can be equivalent to bandwagoning. Not to mention, people have been reaching conclusions based off of one source, that could be unreliable, and do not come across multiple sources before reaching their conclusion. People have been heavily opinionated, and should learn to be more open minded, listening to more view points and should not have their head screwed in so tight.
Adding on to what other people have said, I think people mostly just agree with what other’s say and don’t come up with their own ideas. People are becoming lazier and lazier as time goes on, not thinking for themselves. Most of the things people believe started from other people. Nowadays, things aren’t really original anymore. I think some people can be swayed so easily, gullible almost, because they can’t think for themselves anymore.
Applying this to politics, it's interesting to note that the most people's political beliefs don't change much throughout their life, and the primary determining factor in people's political beliefs is the influence of their families. I feel like this philosophy on the formation of our "individual" beliefs, should it be taken at face value, can explain a lot of why our current political climate is so toxic and divisive. Self-reflection is extremely important in being open-minded and being receptive to possibly fruitful ideas, but it's equally important to recognize the source of our biases and dispel the sort of notions of infallibility that we have towards them. Our family members believing that a certain candidate is corrupt doesn't give us the excuse to disregard what said candidate is saying.
I feel like having an open mind or at least the ability to change one's mind is is a good thing. Especially in politics, so many people avidly defend their beliefs when they actually don't know very much about them. Still, many are very stubborn about their believes and refuse to admit they are wrong or see things from the other perspective. This not only leads to misinformation, but also contributes to that "I'm right and you're wrong" sort of mentality that has been seen a lot with disagreements related to political polarization. Much of the increasing polarization has been result of all the radical opinions and lack of compromise and information. I feel like if everyone was just a little more open the changing their mind, people would actually end up agreeing a lot more and we'd see less of such a divide in politics.
In response to what Mitchell said, while being open minded can lead to information overload and a subsequent inability to form a coherent opinion, I don't think it has to lead to jumping into whatever bandwagon people have about a topic. It's okay to just say "I don't know" and not pretend you have the answers when you don't, rather than cling on an opinion for the sake of having one. I think it would help if more people had that skill
Post a Comment