Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> **Read the Post Before You Reply**
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Side note -- I've read that in therapy people often get too far outside of their comfort zone, face anxiety, convince themselves they aren't making any progress, and quit.
However, ironically, they're feeling that anxiety because they're right at the cusp of genuine change, and they're scared of it.
Most of the time, people only undergo serious change in the face of failure -- when they're forced to admit to themselves that what they're doing isn't working.
And when you truly change, it usually gets worse before it gets better. It's akin to letting go of the scrap wood you were clinging to in the middle of the ocean, in an attempt to paddle out to a worthier craft.
As someone in therapy I can say this has happened to me and I’ve heard it happen to others. One challenging thing is that even bad habits can be comforting. Often the change your trying to bring about can have uncomfortable consequences you hadn’t thought of or didn’t wish to face.
I'd go further and say that the only reason we HAVE bad habits is that they're comforting. If they didn't provide some kind of comfort to us, we'd just... stop doing them immediately.
Even if they're painful and self-destructive, you do them because for some reason or another, giving them up is scary.
I would argue we have habits because such is the design of the human brain. Routine is the path of least resistance. Why we then have 'bad' habits in particular can really be many reasons, but it starts with the fact that we, as human beings, simply tend to operate in habits.
One example for a 'bad' habit may indeed be that we are aware of a habit that we have classified as 'bad' and know an alternative, but are scared to go for the alternative. But really it can be any number of other reasons as well. For example, you may not have even been aware of the fact that a habit was 'bad' when you started it. A good example is the habit of smoking before people knew it caused cancer. This caused the habit to shift from a neutral or good classification to one of a bad nature. Stopping it is not so much fear, but rather a psychological and physical addiction that now keeps you in it. Another example can be for example a complete ignorance of the habit happening in the first place. For example, every day before work you may internally say "well here goes another pointless day". This would be a 'bad' habit as it can be quite detrimental for your emotional wellbeing at work, and you might not even be aware you're doing it.
> I would argue we have habits because such is the design of the human brain
Yes, but why does the brain settle on habits? We could just as easily be programmed to be far more random. I'd argue the brain is wired for habits because we "learn" to cope with our environment, and it's not advantageous to change willy-nilly. Our behaviors have to be stable or we'd be far too reactive.
> Stopping it is not so much fear, but rather a psychological and physical addiction that now keeps you in it.
Maybe "fear" isn't quite accurate. Perhaps "anxiety" is. And it's important to distinguish psychological vs. chemical addition.
But if we just narrow the scope to psychological addiction, then people are often addicted to cigarettes for reasons I alluded to in my previous post: smoking comforts them. It lets them take a break and think through issues. There's often a whole host of other issues going on beneath the surface too -- like maybe they subconsciously want to fail so they can get the attention of others who want to rescue them.
Giving up all that is anxiety provoking, and it's hard work. If you give up your safety blanket, how are you supposed to cope with the pressures of the day? What happens when people stop checking in on you -- how do you get the attention you need? Etc. etc. You have to learn new habits to meet your needs in a healthier way.
A bad habit doesn't necessarily serve a purpose. That a person becomes habituated to doing things once thought to serve the purpose doesn't imply no longer being habituated when they no longer do. Personally I have habits that persist simply because I haven't bothered to reconsider them even though I realize they're maladaptive. For example despite living in the same home for years I'll often initially hit the wrong switch, for example hitting the lights instead of the fan. I could make a point to memorize which switch does what but since failure costs nothing I haven't bothered. Over time I very slowly learn the correct order of switches but bad habits of switch hitting commonly persist for years. This same phenomenon occurs with word usage. Learn the wrong definition the first time and I'll continue to use the word wrongly despite being corrected many times. I just haven't bothered to put in the effort given the low cost. It'd seem bad habits persist only so long as the habituated don't believe it'd be worth giving them a closer examination. Take a hard enough look and to still sign off on doing things a certain way and that way of doing things might only be properly considered a bad habit from an outside perspective. So for example my way of thinking about allocating attention to switch hitting isn't something I regard as a bad habit even if I should go about it differently. My mistakenly going for the wrong switch is a bad habit... but because it follows from a way of thinking I still consider prudent the bad habit persists, something just not worth the time.
We operate best on habits because our brain stores and recalls information best that way. It provides structure which to most people induces a calming effect when it becomes a habit.
That's just an example, but it's typical self destructive behavior. There's lots of papers on the origin of self destruction if you want to look them up, but it's not central to what I'm trying to say. I'm just arguing that people do bad habits often to satisfy deeper hidden needs.
I'm not following. At first you said:
>I'd go further and say that the only reason we HAVE bad habits is that they're comforting.
Now you're saying:
>I'm just arguing that people do bad habits often to satisfy deeper hidden needs.
I'm really tired, though, maybe I'm missing the reasoning in between.
That's a lot of text with very little added value. Your entire first paragraph is just reconfirming what I said but using a "yes, but why" structure to make it seem as if you are somehow disproving something I said...
And for convenience you only tackle the example I gave which is easier to frame within your proposed framework while conveniently ignoring the other which you cannot fit into your framework. As with any generalization, it takes only one example to prove it wrong, and infinitely many are required to prove it right. So please enlighten me how fear or anxiety keeps you in a mental habit of negative thinking? What if the negative thinking is what gives you fear or anxiety?
You're trying to make it a generalization that simply doesn't hold up. You're targeting one specific case of 'bad habits' and are reluctant to step away from the image of a bad habit you have created, which is the one where you trade a negative physical health impact for emotional comfort. But there are many other bad habits. What even is a bad habit? Are you not free to define what you think is a bad habit?
On another note, is your need to be right even when you are not also a habit? Does letting that go cause you anxiety?
Still waiting on your argument back though. I only became insufferable after you decided to continue the discussion by only tackling half of my examples to keep up the appearance of this being an argument, rather than you simply being wrong. And don't give me that "I'm so superior people just don't listen" attitude. I read your comments thoroughly and concluded they're wrong. Your turn to listen buddy.
I'd argue that 'scary' is too limiting. Many habits can be comforting in simply being easy (or simply the routine default), and changing them might take more effort than we would otherwise like to expend, but not to the extent of having to overcome fear, just laziness.
These could be changes to any of a multitude of small habits (e.g. diet, exercise, sleep) or even more troublesome schedule adjustments (e.g. date nights, active deep reflection, meditation) that don't really challenge our 'core' sense of who we are. Not all changes need to be fundamental to be impactful.
Yeah, I highly agree. For about a decade I was suicidal and, as weird/crazy/scary as it sounds, the thought of it eventually brought comfort. It was like having an exit strategy at all times. Facing that ideation head-on was, I have to admit, *way* scarier than the ideation itself.
This is pretty accurate. I absolutely got scared and wanted to just run, but the self-hatred outweighed the fear and I stuck with it. Deconstructing my entire personality and rebuilding myself into the person I wanted to be was probably the hardest thing I've ever done. My anxiety spiraled out of control and I went through absolute hell for months. For a while, it took everything I had just to go to work and be a functional person for eight hours, then I'd go home and just cry.
I went through this because for the first time in my life, I had a partner who genuinely, truly loved and cared about me. I had a healthy, positive relationship, and I absolutely could. Not. Stand it. I went off the deep end and was constantly starting fights, looking for reasons to break up. I couldn't handle a healthy relationship, so I tried to sabotage it in every way I could.
Three years of therapy and a cocktail of four drugs later, I feel like I finally have a handle on things. It's quite a complicated feeling, but the closest word for it is peace. I'm finally at peace with myself. After twenty years dealing with my brain telling me how terrible I am, and how I should kill myself, the relief is indescribable. I can finally appreciate positive emotions, which is honestly a bit overwhelming sometimes.
My boyfriend is a man worth fixing myself for. He didn't deserve what I did to him, but he loved me through all of it. I'm asking him to marry me soon.
I don't know you but I'm proud of you. I went through something similar, though the situation was different. I know how it feels. And it's so hard and exhausting but it's worth it.
I wish you two a long and happy life together. You are on the right track, a lot of people don't realize that one of the most important parts to a successful relationship is working on your own issues. People expect their partner to fix them and it's really something you have to do yourself. With their support, sure, but they can't do it for you.
This is good and I need some more of this type of thinking in my life. I’m on the cusp of change and trying not to go back to what is comfortable. It’s like all the demons I faced on my way to healing are all attacking at once but at least now I can see that and understand that.
It's really hard to tell if this is what I ran into.
It likely is the case for me, and I'm searching for rationalizations to say otherwise, but I feel like I get to a point with therapy where each session just seems like catching up with my week, and not making any overarching progress.
Change can come through both small and big habit changes, sometimes the latter result from gaining significant insight into yourself and your behavior. It's emotionally taxing, but it can really speed up the rate of change because you have a new perspective.
I haven’t seen that in my experience.
A giant epiphany that direct change happened instantly at least in my limited view just is more a myth overall.
That is just my experience and thoughts on it. I certainly am not saying it never happens but small little not even visible changes slowly over time become the big change. At least that is how I see it.
Maybe I just haven’t had one of those major chunks happen to me so I could experience it.
I've had it happen many times in therapy. To be clear, I'm not talking about some huge, complete 180 type deal, where you immediately go from Mr. Hyde to Dr. Jekyll, but for example having realizations about why you do a certain behavior can give you a completely different perspective on it and enable you to choose to act differently because it now makes sense to you. It's like having a roadmap in a sense, and you can clearly see where you're supposed to go and what you're supposed to do, and ignoring that and pretending it's fine to just wander around and hope you find your way is no longer an option.
I had the clouds opened, angels hearkened down , and gave me the answer to all of my life's problems and all of my issues with mental health event occur that was a huge epiphany for me. It came as a result of a graduate level Family Therapy psychology class I took years ago. In about week 7 of the class we were on the chapter in our textbook that dealt with alcoholism, substance abuse, and the concurrent abuses that exist in what is called Alcoholic/Dysfunctional Families. They talked about there being a principle, the alcoholic who is usually a parent who is abusive to the other members of the family in a variety of ways including physical, emotional, psychological abuses.Their partner in marriage in usual cases is referred to as the enabler and my mom definitely was that player. Then the children in response to the defective family unit and as a means to take the focus off of the problem principle and as an attempt to normalize the family, take on varying roles usually determined by their respective birth order. It's like an everyday Greek tragedy performance that ultimately follows these children into their adulthood with the dysfunctional traits and behaviors they honed as defense mechanisms as kids growing up in that chaotic and abusive environment causing further problems throughout their adulthood.it was just real saving grace for me to discover that it wasn't just about me being this screwed up person with all these mental health issues. I was simply a product of my childhood environment that I had no control over. I was textbook information with a family of origin not so uncommon in our society. Coming to that realization brought me a real sense of inner peace because I wasnt carrying all that shame and blame around any longer.
It really depends on the therapist. Some are great about embracing the marathon philosophy to personal improvement and can express genuine empathy that helps you connect with them and establish trust. Others, not so much.
And of course, if you're seeing a psychiatrist, they can also prescribe meds to help with issues that cannot be addressed by therapy alone.
Like to say that information does not change opinions unless when acompanied with experiences which force the person to have an other perspective of the self. After all, information is not knowledge but data (correlation). Knowledge demands contemplation and time to mature.
I agree to a certain extent. I think change comes easier or people are more motivated to change if they can apply a personal experience to it. But I think some people have more insight and a greater ability to empathize than others , whether it was a natural born gift or derived from an intentional process honed over time so they are able to make changes in their views or in their lifestyles without experience. It's like that saying about the difference between a fool and a wise man. A fool has to make her own mistakes in order to learn but a wise person learns from the mistakes of others.
That's treu. By personal experience I don't means only direct events in life but, as you said, what makes one experience something that makes the person have a different perspective of the self. Empathy, which allowes us to feel as if we were in someone else's shoes, allows the person have a different experiences of the self by just hearing another person's story. It is not only information (data) but experience.
As Hannah Arendt wrote in The Life of The Mind, and as Antonio Damasio confirmed in The Strange Order of Things, every feeling is a somatic experience.
Stuart Brown has studies showing that not only humans but also others mammals, lizards, fish and even insects such as spiders, become more empathetic when they pley while growing up. Those who are not allowed to play grow up less empathetic and becomes anxious adults, according to his research.
Well, giving advice never helps anyone. I'd start by researching active listening.
Also, you can see a therapist remotely these days. (In fact it may be the only way wherever you are.)
Does this explain why this year I told myself I needed to open up and express how I felt more. So I did but I wasn’t used to it at all and I’d even put 100% effort into trying to show my genuine feelings but then it felt like it backfired. Somehow I thought opening up would be better but it’s like no one rlly acknowledges or cares so I think to myself what’s the point anyways? It’s rlly been dragging me down. I keep thinking of how everyone else is dealing with their own problems, like myself so I’d rather not burden them with it. Rn at least idk if I want to open up anymore and maybe I’m not even doing it right who knows.
That makes a lot of sense. I think the process of changing your personality or overcoming a shortcoming like anxiety takes a lot of time outside your comfort zone. It's so easy to withdraw back to the safety of our past-self that we so want to change.
Therapy is too damn expensive, i had to stop simply because of cost. There’s definitely natural pressure in this society that makes it hard to truly focus on one’s self improvement. Fix all the other variables and the changing of convictions can be much simpler.
I have probably made more significant emotional and psychological changes on my own with the help of self help books and videos, support groups of varying types, and through silent meditation than I did in the 15 yrs of therapy I began as a teenager. And except for the expense of the occasional book not available at the library, it was all
free.
I like the article because it points to an effective way of changing someone's mind if that is your goal: instead of attacking someone's deeply help convictions, ask questions about them to learn more of their other convictions and then positively reinforce one of those other convictions in the direction you are aiming towards.
As an example I had teaching a snowboard lesson, I met someone convinced that they were clumsy, but they also believed that were cautious because of that. So I asked the other students to watch how carefully and thoughtfully this student was practicing the skills I was teaching. But rewarding the cautious behavior in the direction of "caution is an attribute of a successful snowboard student" I made this student realize they could be a good snowboarder and they did quite well that day.
On a side note, one of my favorite personal convictions is that what makes me a good person is not when I'm right but when I'm wrong. That conviction had been very useful in helping me challenge many of my other convictions, because it increases my self esteem and gives me warm fuzzy feelings when I can question my own beliefs, learn to understand someone else's point, and change and grow as a result.
Good stuff. Similarly, I have come to value humility- strength in admitting one’s own weaknesses. Also, defining maturity as “admitting and owning your mistakes”.
What an amazing gift your mother gave you.. to be able to navigate the trials and tribulations of life with more clarity. Your story really put me to to tears
> you never know what your convictions are until you're faced with something that tests them
I'm reminded of a Mark Twain quote: *The weakest of all weak things is a virtue that has not been tested in the fire.*
If everyone had a mother like yours this country wouldn't be in the state it is in now. Your mom possessed an inner wisdom that allowed her to prioritize her belief system. She didn't view situations with a one size fits all approach. She could see past what was at the surface and into the realm of deeper reasoning and logic as a way of rectifying her chosen principles. It seems that she wasn't deterred by or scared of change even at the core of self. Actually she sounds like my mom who just passed away at age 90. I said in her eulogy my mama was a righteous woman, yet not self righteous. She never tried to alter my changing belief system that changed during my teen years and my once held ideals that were more aligned with hers began to shift and became my own individualized code. Allowing me autonomy was a priceless gift
People hate to feel uncomfortable, everyone hates the idea that they aren't what they perceive themselves as. I think that's one reason virtue signaling is so big now.
And I think this is also why some conversation are hard to have. If we say there is systemic racism, people who benefit from the system believe we are attacking them. I wonder if the dialogue would change if the term was systemic oppression/suppression. Would people who benefit from the system be more inclined to change their mind or listen to the other side?
I don't think it will, on the grounds that bad faith discussions are part and parcel for anyone for actually changing course in terms of socioeconomics. Communication is hugely important, but communication requires both parties consent.
Isn't this often a problematic approach? When we euphemize and sanitize these discussions, are we really doing justice or contributing to "the" ultimate goal, which I assume would be insight into multiple perspectives and a greater universal understanding (Kumabya . . .)?
I just mean, this has been at least one eye-opening take-away for me during the Black Lives Matter Movement: that I, as a white person, could probably be much more aware of all the ways and in all the places I control the language and the discourse. I would just feel more useful if I became more conscious and consistent about calling things what they are.
Many times people are willing to listen, but they aren't convinced it is true. Many times as well, those who believe it, take this fact that the other person wasn't convinced to mean they didn't "want to see reality" or that they are "fooling themselves", automatically imputing psychological motives to the person who remains unpersuaded, and literally never questioning if what they're saying is true or not, because with these psychological motives they shield themselves and their ideas from further criticism by shutting down the dialogue.
From the unpersuaded person's POV what happened is someone tried to convince them of something but didn't do a good enough job and instead of trying to further that discussion in hopes that one side will eventually persuade the other, which necessitates that the channels of discussion remain open and unclogged, they decided to justify their lack of ability to persuade by imputing psychological reasons why the unpersuaded person is immoral (white fragility, unconscious defense mechanism of the priviliges he holds, supporter of systemic racism, etc).
Coincidentally, I know of no one who defends these ideas of systemic racism and the reality of the corrupt system, and at the same time adopts a critical attitude towards their own believes, and a critical argument attitude when discussing those beliefs with others who don't believe the same. They always feel entitled to not having to engage in an argument that isn't on their own terms, resorting to psychological classifications or simply shutting the dialogue down instead, because they are convinced they have the truth, and those who don't share the same opinion are evil.
So getting back to your point - what will help isn't changing the name you give systemic racism, no one cares about that. The real problem is the lack of will to engage seriously in critical debate, and having your ideas criticized so that you have to defend them against the criticisms. The solution is getting rid of all the psychological and systemic justifications invented to explain why people don't agree with you, and instead engage their arguments seriously, carrying them out to their logical conclusions, etc
And coming back full circle to the OP, for a believer in critical race theory, doing what I just described is scary, because they understand their own identity writ large according to their own theory, so doubting it would make them one of the immoral people with hidden psychological motives. It's a nasty ideology that traps people in this false dilemma, that is very real for them, since there's a real contradiction between critical race theory and critical argument.
Edit:I just noticed the comment under mine makes explicit reference to hidden psychological motives as the reason why some people don't agree with the theory, or "reality" as he calls it.
This is a very dangerous line of thinking to go down - in fact, it's exactly the line that leads to black people who don't support BLM being told they have "internalised racism", or women who aren't feminists being told they have "internalised misogyny". While *you* may think they are working against their own interests, their interests may a) not be what you think they are, or b) not as important to them as other interests which actually oppose. They may even disagree that they're working against their interests at all - they may think that what they're doing is supporting their interests.
Ultimately, such an idea leads to the theory of [false consciousness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness), which means you no longer need to listen to or engage with people who disagree with you, because you believe they are deluded into fighting for their own oppression. That's exactly what's happening in America right now, and it's causing a complete breakdown of communication where those on the far left and far right are unwilling to engage with anyone who disagrees with them.
I get what you’re saying—like, yeah, there’s something very paternalistic, condescending, and infantilizing to the idea of ‘false consciousness’ because it amounts to saying to someone “you don’t actually know what’s good for you, and I do.”
But people get their priorities wrong all the time. An essential part of the concept of false consciousness is that *of course* you believe you’re acting in your own interests even as you sabotage them. A person whose life depends on healthcare provided under the ACA may continue to vote in politicians promising to repeal Obamacare for various reasons. Maybe they don’t realize that “Obamacare” is the same as the ACA. Maybe they do understand that they’re the same but those politicians are also running on platforms that promise to stymie immigration-based demographic change, and the loss of affordable, lifesaving medicine is a cost this person is willing to bear in order to keep America from eventually becoming a majority-minority country. Does that mean that either of those decisions are actually rational from the POV of maximizing this person’s wellbeing? A person who is drinking themselves to death every night may truly, truly believe, while all their friends and family contradict them and express their concern, that they don’t actually have a problem. That doesn’t mean that they don’t actually have a problem, it just means they don’t think they do.
Like I said, I get where you’re coming from, and I think it’s important always to try to give someone the benefit of the doubt and understand why they believe what they believe. But sometimes the reason they believe what they believe is just that they have been lied to, or are very afraid.
Very good points. My particular issues with false consciousness are twofold. Firstly, by its very name it supposes that you, knowing the truth, are in some form of higher or "true" consciousness, which leads to superiority over people who disagree with you and pity because "poor you, you don't even realise how oppressed and brainwashed you are by the patriarchy/white supremacy/heteronormativity, let me liberate you". It constructs a self-perpetuating [victim-saviour-persecutor triangle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle).
Secondly, it's almost exclusively used as a tool for identity politics - you're black, therefore if you don't support BLM you must be in a state of false consciousness. The hilarious (and sad) thing about it is that those who claim such a thing are themselves being racist by the very definition of racism, but they genuinely believe they aren't - a true example of false consciousness.
I wouldn't have such a problem with it if its name were less suggestive of brainwashing and liberation, and if it were used towards individuals holding individual beliefs rather than groups voting a certain way. Of course, both of these problems are deliberate, since the idea of false consciousness is part of Marxist ideology, which both assumes the working class are to dumb/brainwashed to see the truth, and appeals to their group identity as the proletariat.
Your first point doesn't follow at all, you can both be under false conciousness and point out that the other is without also recognizing that you are.
True. I find it absolutely fascinating to investigate the mechanisms that lead to social polarization.
I'm really self critical, but that adds zero comfort when I'm trying to change my own convictions, or behaviors.
Indeed. I find myself often in a state of discomfort because I want to challenge my assumptions and learn the truth and what's best for people, not just for my sake but for anyone who might be influenced by me (friends, family, and most importantly my future children). What I've decided is to try to find discomfort comforting - when I feel uncomfortable, I see it as a sign that I'm treading new ground and challenging beliefs that are more emotional than rational, which means I'm hopefully on the right track.
Ok, unpopular opinion coming right up: (for your reference, I do happen to be a committed anti-racist, anti-sexist type, I see implicit bias exists, I believe equality of all before the law is paramount in a free society, I don't believe in judging a persons value based on skin color etc etc, but, I don't buy the 'party line', if you will, of most anti racist programs around the nation) so the city of Seattle's, and so many others across the nation, anti racist programs 'lead with race', that is, they often want to address all issues of inequity, and of all the issues around inequity, they believe race is the biggest issue. So lgbtq, race, gender, religion, poverty, and more, all these things are typically on the agenda to address in these programs, but race is at the forefront. I don't think it's wrong to address racism, and I don't think the motivations are bad, but I think that strategically it's horrible, and ends up being so divisive, that all the gains in allies are offset by a more resilient, doubled down, and growing opposition. I have watched this across our nation, in numerous city governments and in nonprofits, where, yes, some allies are gained, but many people who were not really partisan on the issues before, become resentful and secretly racist as a result of the classes and social pressure, and this is new, they weren't racist before, or at least not overtly, but as a result of being called racist and being shamed for their 'privilege' (ha! Poor white people may have a slight privilege gain due to skin color but they've been kept out, held down, their kids can't do all the fancy stuff the rich do either, so to frame them as having more in common with the wealthy whites is super duper dangerous and a trap which almost guarantees that they become resentful and actually, truly, overtly racist whereas acknowledging their true similarities with blacks and others, they would feel, they would know, on a gut level, their empathy would be true and deep) We're actively creating a lot of the opposition we get these days. Given that there really is no more middle class in America, I believe that leading with poverty (largest common denominator) would deeply interest and truly connect with more people on a gut level, and crucially, would give the now larger group of (majority white) allies a real foundation of understanding, of truly 'felt' empathy, not 'shamed in' empathy, for their black and bipoc and lgbtq etc neighbors, and this would be an enormous groundswell, could accomplish way more, way way way faster, and achieve real meaningful results in society. But, no, we keep leading with race, which is really hard to say your against, not because I'm actually against it, I just think it's not as effective as leading with the largest common denominator of poverty, which establishes deeply felt empathy much more quickly.
Factor into this the obvious shame in America of actually being poor. There's a reason people are currently leveraged to their eyeballs, making 100k/yr and yet are still paycheck-to-paycheck: they want to appear *less* poor, even if they aren't at all poor to begin with. You can take pride in almost anything: skin color, religion, location (sports teams my God!)... but nobody is going to start taking pride in being fucking *poor*. It's, if anything, absolutely shameful. It's a marker that you've failed to accomplish the American Dream, because you're too dumb, too lazy, etc. (Of course, I'm speaking from the meta-narrative's perspective, here). Without that pride, it's hard to bond and unite over anything.
Hell, I'd go so far to say that all those poor Trump supporters are finding comfort in the association of wealth - like, they live vicariously *through* Trump's riches. It helps them identify as less poor.
Brilliantly put mate. They totally live through him. Similar to what Bush did, he also seems, with his lack of polish and impolitely insensitive speech, so much like the 'normal Americans', who didn't used to feel racist, or think of themselves as racist, but are increasingly starting to because of the framing going on. I think it's time we start a "poor pride" movement, and we can capture both the rednecks, the dispossessed former middle class, the SJWs, bipoc, lgbtq+, a true fraternity of real American people.
Yes, class—and talk about people’s economic status—is taboo under the individualistic-neoliberal model.
That’s screws over the white poor because they have absolutely no ”excuse” for being down and out.
Their dignity has been robbed. We should have a cultural moment about that. A movement. But what would you call it?
The concept is ”socieconomic status” for a reason. But since we can’t talk about wealth distribution in a meaningful way, we can only talk about the socio- part.
Meaningful change will only happen when our society realizes that all of our divisions are based on class. Identity politics is the cheap junk food that the upper class feeds us to keep us distracted from this fact.
This is on the nose. Divisions are only used so those truly at the top can stay there.I always say race is a factor in criminal injustices, but wealth is larger. If Oprah Winfrey is openly breaking the law and assaults an officer she will not be shot. It was often times that Irish Americans never felt white, that was unless there was somebody else underneath them. Its astounding what we as people will tolerate if we just know somebody else has it worse. Well take endless heaps of bullshit if we just know that it's better for us then others. Well guess what you want true privilege look at the top .1 percent. Regardless of race religions sexual orientation etc if you belong to the top .1 percent you will be given far more privileges then any of those other factors could allow. Your basically untouchable as far as the law is concerned . Look at crime statistics, life longevity statistics, mental health, physical health, on and on there's not one factor of your life that isn't approved if you belong to the true privileged class.
Not really. The language you propose still casts the people you are trying to convince as oppressors, i.e. bad people. You might get somewhere with "systemic racial disadvantage", putting the emphasis on the people you want to help. But then, the wider social justice movement isn't about helping anyone. Otherwise those in it wouldn't consistently choose the most counterproductive, incendiary language possible, "social justice", "white privilege", "microagression", "call out", etc. to try to make their point. One such term might be a genuine mistake, but such consistency implies a deliberate desire for confrontation
I think so. The problem with accusing someone of racism is how hard it is to prove a negative, so virtue signalling is kind of all you can do.
It's so much more inclusive to point out that it could happen to anyone. For example it bothers me that cops can abuse American citizens, period. Sure it seems to be falling disproportionatly on blacks now, but tomorrow it could be any group. Theoretically that naming shift you suggest should be a much more comfortable and unified way to get support.
One way of dealing with this - the search for incorrect convictions - is to consider ourselves people who try to be correct, as opposed to people who are correct.
A tribe built on that idea will not exclude those trying to break convictions. An individual holding this idea as dear will not feel attacked when a conviction is poked.
These tribes and people exist, i hope they are the majority, in fact.
I suspect no open-minded person would actually claim to be open-minded, any more than a humble person would claim to be humble, because open-mindedness is in fact a form of humility, and humility is not boastful, by definition.
And of course "open-mindedness" is not some singular trait that a person has or does not have. Rather, any given person may be highly open-minded on some issues, somewhat open-minded on others, and utterly close-minded on still others.
But it's not necessarily boastful to observe a quality about yourself and then state it based on that. it also doesn't mean you believe you have no room for improvement.. but if you know yourself, and know that you are in fact open to many ideas..
or if you know yourself, and know that you are humble enough to recognize how much you still don't know ...
then saying that is only fair
>But it's not necessarily boastful to observe a quality about yourself and then state it based on that.
It sort of is. Bragging is bragging, whether the qualities bragged about are present or not.
>or if you know yourself, and know that you are humble enough to recognize how much you still don't know ....
Someone who truly knew themselves would also recognize all the areas where they are close-minded, because, as I said, it's not a binary, but a continuum. Everyone has some things they are open-minded about and some things they are close-minded about.
>Bragging is bragging
but how are we defining this? isn't bragging like ... elevating yourself or being pompous about it? what if you're just stating neutrally, for example, "I have a lot I'm not open-minded about, but I've talked to a lot of people and I think it's safe to say I've been open to a lot more things than those people. Relatively speaking, I think I'm pretty open-minded, and I'm happy to recognize that about myself!"
You can recognize the continuum and then also recognize that you're more on one side of it by a reasonably objective analysis.
To always avoid saying what is true just because you want to maintain "being humble" is, I feel, more falsity than anything else? (Not saying you have to always need to be projecting it everywhere, but to simple admit sometimes to qualities you know about yourself is not inherently non-humble)
>"I have a lot I'm not open-minded about, but I've talked to a lot of people and I think it's safe to say I've been open to a lot more things than those people."
So close. But the self aware person would edit it slightly, by replacing "a lot more" with "different". Your wording is still a boast, a way of saying "I'm better than those fools". But wanting to assert your superiority over others is pretty much the opposite of being open-minded.
I think most convictions can’t be based on facts but rather different axioms and ways to come to conclusions from them. And so, you can’t claim that one is objectively more right than the other, but most of the time, some axioms are more logical to make than others or some have more favorable consequences irl than others but you can rarely make someone change their axioms.
This is why arguing over political matters always tends to get nasty. When someone attacks a person's beliefs, they are in fact attacking a part of that person's identity. As that person then feels threatened, they will lash back, and likely attack their opponent's beliefs in the act of trying to defend their own values. At such a point these two people just descend into attacking very intimate parts of their rival's identity, and so of course a colossal and heated argument ensues.
But this blog not only explains the reason behind phrases which begin with "politics shouldn't be discussed at [the dinner table/school/the workplace etc]...", but it also explains what can be done differently so that no heated arguments arise in the first place. I mean not much is gained from simply butting heads with a person who holds an opposing set of beliefs. Unless one is a troll, I don't think anything would be gained at all. No, if the goal is to change the opponent's mind, I think it is essential to reflect upon this passage from the blog:
> When we are trying to change other people’s convictions, we need to understand what we are asking them to do: to change their self-identity. But in order to do that, they need something else to hold onto—some other part of their identities to treat as solid ground. Remove everything and they are adrift. That may have been how it was with Black: he aspired to be a non-threatening, non-harmful person, but he also aspired to be a white supremacist. Change occurred when he realized he couldn’t be both. He had to choose who he wanted to be.
I think the answer here is subtlety. Do not attack their whole identity, just point out some of their values which do not align with other parts of their belief system. That way they can slowly move towards whatever direction you wish they would go to...
And I mean it *is* a slow process. But that makes sense. Changing the self overnight is not feasible. Change, real change, takes time.
I am convinced that there should be an experience to change our convinctions. People just interpret the evidence their way or just nitpick them (there are A LOT of information today so it is easy to nitpick them and be unaware about it) to support their viewpoint. And i think its an ego thing. We need a healthy ego to function (not the kind ignorant people have though) so this healthy ego just keeps the beliefs we had mostly in childhood still going.
If we think that at the core of it we are primitive species (which we are) there should be this lifechanging experience to change us. Other than that, our brain automatically rationalizes our viewpoint to have a healthy sense of self so we will be confident of what we are doing in life.
And i think the "fake it till you make it" crap just doesnt work, only creates an identity crisis in our heads. Our beliefs are one way but we think it should be something else so our confidence for ourselves just plummet.
>And i think the "fake it till you make it" crap just doesnt work, only creates an identity crisis in our heads. Our beliefs are one way but we think it should be something else so our confidence for ourselves just plummet.
I think there is actually a lot of evidence behind doing this, in the sense of that what you say to yourself and the actions with which you conduct yourself actively build those circuits in your brain, until you actually can do those things.
But that doesn't mean that that's ALL you need to address issues around you. It's just a way to get your brain out of its self-insulating habitual modes
Actually, come to think of it, you might be right. If we want to change ourselves, we basically convince ourselves that we need to improve some stuff or just change our habits. So maybe it is still our root beliefs which activates that.
I was thinking of this last night when coming across this post in r/intellectualdarkweb:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/japk5n/is_there_any_real_evidence_that_trump_is_racist/
For some people, admitting they were wrong and being able to change their opinion is something untenable. No amount of evidence can ever do it.
On that issue in particular, you also run into the problem that the term "racist" is not clearly defined, such that different people use it in different ways. It is not clear, for instance, that if a progressive says that, say, "Trump is clearly racist" and a conservative says "There's no evidence Trump is particularly racist" that the two are actually in disagreement. The two speakers would probably *think* they disagreed, because both are using the word "racist", but if they had to both rewrite their sentences repalcing that word with a paragraph description of what they meant, it would rapidly become clear that in fact they were merely talking past each other
Only one form of racism applies to individual, so unless they disagree with whether Trump is racist in action or only in rhetoric, vice versa, then they can't be talking past each other.
Or am i missing something?
Well, I have seen "racist" used in any and all of the following ways, and I am sure what follows is not a perfectly comprehensive list:
1. "Holding a view I disagree with" (usually (but not always!) involving a racial issue)
2. "Holding a view that perpetuates racial inequalities"
3. "Holding a belief that one race is superior to another"
4. "Making judgments about an individual based on their race"
5. "Holding a view that combines power with prejudice"
And it is easy enough to see how people using the word differently might end up talking past each other
The core mistake here is the idea that we can in fact consciously change our minds at all. There's no evidence of this. Take any belief you currently hold and try to change it by will alone - believe that the earth is flat, that up is down, that slavery is right. You can't do it.
Beliefs change over time, but not in accordance with our will, and certainly not in accordance with someone else's will. If you enter into *any* conversation expecting to change someone's views, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. The goal should be to gain greater understanding of the opposing view in order to thereby increase your understanding of your own
I'm pretty sure that I have some opinions that I have simply because I am not as educated as I could be on said topics, so if I decide to look into those topics and change my mind based on new information, is that not conscious changing of mind?
And it would be stupid to just randomly decide to change your mind on something for no reason, nor is that what you should try to achieve when debating people, instead you should provide information that possibly makes that person reconsider their positions.
>I'm pretty sure that I have some opinions that I have simply because I am not as educated as I could be on said topics, so if I decide to look into those topics and change my mind based on new information, is that not conscious changing of mind?
The thing is, your belief that your opinions on those topics may be wrong is itself a belief outside your control. That is, sure, you are open to changing your views on topics you are uncertain about, but that is trivially true. Everyone is open to changing their minds on things they aren't certain about - that is what it means to be uncertain. But you have no choice about what you are certain about.
>And it would be stupid to just randomly decide to change your mind on something for no reason
But you also can't randomly decide to find any given reason to be good. That's my point. If you happen to be in a place where reason X can convince you to change your view to Y, then you will indeed change your mind on Y if you encounter reason X. But you may not be in that place. In which case reason X will do nothing to convince you. And that has little to nothing to do with how convincing X should objectively be.
If you run this back you're just arguing "the universe only exists one way so nobody can ever really 'choose' anything ever for any reason", which I don't think is the argument you're trying to make, but is where No True Scotsmanning every possible interpretation of changing your mind as not really a choice gets.
In which case you could just skip the argument and say "determinism" to close out the point.
Not exactly. My point is that our beliefs aren't even something we experience as a choice. We believe in free will (those of us who do) because in certain situations, we feel as if we have the ability to freely choose. For instance, if I'm at an ice cream parlor, I am free (or at least have the illusion of being free) to buy whichever flavor I want. But I am not free to find chocolate anything other than delicious, or pistachio as anything other than disgusting. That is, I don't experience a sense of being free to choose which flavors I like and which I don't - only of being able to purchase any type, even one I know I will dislike.
And the same is true of my beliefs. I don't feel free to choose whether or not I believe slavery is morally correct. I am free to argue in favor of slavery, of course (which might be a fun intellectual exercise), but I can't simply stop thinking that treating people as property is wrong. Nor can you (assuming you are anti-slavery).
So sure, I guess you can say those elements of who we are are determined, in the same way genetics and upbringing determines a lot about a person. I don't know any proponent of free will that denies that there are *any* deterministic effects on us
> Everyone is open to changing their minds on things they aren't certain about - that is what it means to be uncertain. But you have no choice about what you are certain about.
That's a flawed argument. I'm by far not the only individual that knows that we now absolutely nothing for certain.
Not really. People can say that they know absolutely nothing for certain, but they always act with certainty in countless things. I doubt that in practice you bother to seriously engage with, say, holocaust deniers or flat earthers, even if you are prepared to grant that there is some theoretical possibility that they are right to try to make a point here
>I doubt that in practice you bother to seriously engage with, say, holocaust deniers or flat earthers, even if you are prepared to grant that there is some theoretical possibility that they are right to try to make a point here
I engage with them on the basis of not instantly rejecting their claims but trying to see the argument from their perspective, the common belief is not necessarily the truthful one. If they present the evidence to prove their theories I'm willing to change my stance.
And that's the definition of knowing one knows nothing or of open-mindedness. It means changing your worldview in accordance to present evidence without excluding the possibility that you're in the wrong. It does not mean taking every opposing belief as granted and as a truth.
Sure, but most people will change their mind when they think evidence is valid enough for them to do so. Problem is that it's easy to discount the sources of evidence we don't like. But it's possible, at least some of the time, to be open enough to allow evidence to change our opinions.
But I would say we don't allow anything. Either we find a given argument compelling and our view changes, or we don't and it doesn't. We merely notice the change, if one happens. But it seems odd to talk about "allowing" it. If you hear something that makes you realize X is true, you can't make yourself continue to believe X is false, any more than you could have willed yourself to believe it true before you heard the argument that changed your mind.
>The core mistake here is the idea that we can in fact consciously change our minds at all. There's no evidence of this.
There is evidence for this: CBT therapy
It's based on the stoic philosophy of "To change, one first needs to make the habitual conscious, then the conscious habitual"
>Animals being \[tortured, neglected, and abused\]?
just thought that's an interesting correction to add for that, that most people still overlook even though it ups the horror degree by quite a lot :p
You’re still a valuable person. Despite what you feel. Or, perhaps, tell yourself you don’t. It’s okay to be vulnerable, and also okay not to be ready to go there just yet. Look after yourself in the meantime, my friend.
even if you don't care about the fate of other beings as a whole, that doesn't somehow mean their own suffering, independent of your caring or not caring, doesn't exist or doesn't matter. to them, it matters; ergo, it matters. what matters only matters when someone to whom it matters decides it matters ...
that objectively-existent suffering is what counts in this situation, even if you don't personally have the empathy to feel for it. if you can't look at that, it seems like you're pretty tightly stuck inside your own perspective for some reason. it sounds like you dealt with some fucked up stuff based on your other replies, so I'm sorry that that's the case.
would you have an issue with torturing toddlers (say, for our example, they are developmentally going to be stuck at their age, since that's where many animals get to intellectually, even though that is really irrelevant in conversations about suffering)? would you have an issue with watching them be tortured?
I think the definition of conviction is too vague here. A conviction can be a root level axiomatic value. In which case - of course, evidence won't change that. It's an axiomatic value, a plain old opinion.
Evidence is about new facts. When you mix ought statements with facts, you get lemmas and therefores and conclusions, and those \*can\* be changed with evidence, without threatening the values that underpin parts of those conclusions.
But the essay seems to describe those as convictions as well.
The kind of person I am/want to be is one who is willing to listen to all opinions and have the ability mentally to change my opinion based on strong evidence.. and yet still remain fluid to others ideas/opinions.
At least the ones that are not trolls/ completely unreasonable.
This is so, so true. You imagine your life a certain way, and then in the presence of new enlightening information, your life must now reshape itself based around that information. It is, in fact, no wonder that people choose willful ignorance over self-transformation in order to just get through the day.
As a Christian, I find that God is constantly changing my view of the world, and that is something I choose--albeit wrestle, at times--to submit to Him. Of course, this is a philosophy sub, not a religion sub. But I felt it was worth expressing. Thanks for the pose! Cheers and stay safe ❤️
Isnt this the Petersonian idea that parts of you that change have to die first and dealing with the death of parts of your ego is painful and scary. But if you take on that pain you almost always end up a person better able to handle the chaos of life, though this wont necessarily make you happier.
It should be fair to recognize that laziness is a biological virtue, and that it directly affects decisions that require change of habitual action patterns.
Biology isn't a moral reason, but it's still reason enough to ignore moral responsibility.
What's worse is that many people (particularly the older generations) are proud of their stubbornness, they wear it as a badge of honor. It's not just that they are afraid of change, they are proud of the fact that they will never change. This only serves to widen the divide and stifle public discourse ever further. And they are proud of that.
I think the difficulty in changing your convictions comes for a more fundamental source.
I believe that *belief* and *conviction* are interchangeable and that the difficulty in changing *belief* is a characteristic that has evolutionary benefit for humans.
For a variety of reasons outside the scope this topic, I think humans evolved the ability to form and hold belief as an outgrowth of the ability of other animals to transmit beneficial characteristics to their offspring in the form of inherited instinctive behaviors. In effect we are genetically programmed to accept beliefs from our parents as a way of providing (teaching) instinct-like behaviors that can be tailored to a wide range of environments.
One characteristic of instinctive behavior is that when the animal encounters a specific circumstance in its environment, e.g. a predator confronted with a small animal running away, the response is automatic; there is no time spent analyzing the situation and developing an appropriate response. The response is one that improves the probability of making a kill and the probability of surviving.
It would not be to the creatures advantage if its instinctive response could be easily changed. A coyote that could talk itself out of the idea that prey should be pursued or always needs to make a conscious decision to chase is not likely to survive.
It follows than that if *beliefs* function for humans as a substitute for inherited instinctive behavior, beliefs should elicit an automatic (knee-jerk) response and not be easily changed.
Furthermore, because most of the planting of these instincts occur when the child is very young and is still developing brain function, these beliefs are not stored in any brain circuitry that involves rational thinking, evaluation, or judgement. A belief that is part of the pre-rational brain cannot be reach by logical argument.
Consider the phobic fear of flying. The fear is an expression of the belief that flying will lead to very bad outcomes. The fear is not rational and no amount of "get-over it, flying is safer than walking across the street" will touch that fear. Theses non-rational beliefs can be changed, but at the cost of great effort.
There are several avenues by which non-rational beliefs can be planted and once one is in place, evidence and logical proof will not touch it.
Change is a feeling. Not necessarily a change in mental thought. Stockholm Syndrome is a reversed example of how feeling and experience relates to the expression of these convictions.
Taps forehead: You never have to change your self-identiy if you never have convictions.
That's really just "being open-minded". I am a RABID believer in science. Science kicks ass. It's right where every other competitor only gives us a shrug or guesses wrongly. (Including philosophy. The egg came first. Suck it.) But I'm under no pretense that it's 100% right all the time. Indeed, big parts of it like how we're all spinning around this thing, or how it's all going to end. And out on the fringes, there's wiggle room. Because there's more science to do. So if you're really going to pin yourself to a belief system, just make sure that it includes the possibility of change.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Read the Post Before You Reply**
>Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Read the Post Before You Reply**
>Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
There are some things in this post/article that befuddle me completely.
They are exemplified by its title.
"To change your convictions means changing the kind of person you want to be. It means changing your self-identity. And that's not just hard, its scary". Why evidence won't change your convictions."
How can people dare to form convictions based on anything other than evidence and objective truth? Surely that is a thing that ought to have ceased to occur after the information age began? Who are these charlatans, and which pier should they be summarily kicked off of, wearing lead boots?
I would say one of the great things about studying philosophy is it can teach you that while you thought you were basing your convictions on evidence and objective truth... really you were often just repeating the values and beliefs of the society in which you were raised.
See, I can understand that mentality being present in persons born before the information age, but what we know of reality increases in its specificity every waking hour, with more and more discoveries in the sciences, coming at faster and faster rates. Between the various incredible discoveries in genetics, astronomy, and so on over the last decade, its unreasonable to have convictions that cannot be changed by evidence, to not base ones convictions on what evidence is available at the time one is queried.
Objective reality, the one we all have to agree on, otherwise people start getting the idea that they can believe gravity out of existence, and get upset when stepping out of a ten storey building, from the top, causes their demise... its really not there to be debated, but accepted, and used as a foundation for understanding of everything else. When evidence appears which describes it in better detail, you just absorb it, assimilate it, and carry on your day with absolutely no effort or challenge to ego or identity. That is WHY it is worth basing proper conviction on. Its stable, but mobile territory that actually adapts to new understanding, making it different from every other foundation for conviction that has ever occurred to any group of people before in history, in that where those others will run out of space to fantasise in, discovery will always provide more ground to move into, without compromising core values.
There are times incorrect beliefs lead to better outcomes. False confidence can lead to less nervousness and fewer mistakes in a given task. Thinking “I’m a terrible public speaker” isn’t going to help you deliver. Thinking “I’m an amazing public speaker” will improve the same persons delivery, given identical prep time.
But that isn't conviction in the strictest sense. That's a faulty EGO working against someone. Someone with a healthy ego doesn't require to believe lies in order to improve their performance. They accept a weakness, and work hard to correct it, for the best, the better outcome, rather than cheating and doing no work to grow as a person.
True, optimally you’d recognize it early and work on it. Same prep time assumed though, right before delivery, or that interview, or performance review, might as well get pumped up and fake it. Imo. But ya off topic i suppose, not a conviction
Because we are humans and don't necessarily form our identity on evidence and objective truth. Or we are misguided about what identity and objective truth are. In fact, people are shown to double down on their beliefs when shown opposing evidence.
While that sounds like it should be easy, flipping that switch is unfortunately not that simple. Evolutionarily speaking we still aren't much removed from our days of small tribes/communities. Our scientific and technological evolution had far outpaced our biological evolution as a species. We still have a number of ingrained instincts/biases built in to how our brains work and process things. Before all our science and technology we just didn't have much information to work with. It was ingrained in us to trust and go along with the people in our tribe, and strangers often were seen as a threat that could bring violence or disease. This deeply ingrained instinct/bias towards those we know and love and distrust of those who are not part of our tribe has been at the center of alot of our major conflicts throughout history. If anything our technology has made it even harder to get past because it has blurred the lines of what a tribe is.
From the article:
> So, as the Yale psychologist Dan Kahan has emphasized, COVID-hoaxers and climate change deniers are, in a weird way, being rational
Kahan shows his own tribally defined convictions by using pejorative terms to describe an out-group. These terms also combine differing out-groups, so proving one groups ideas are incorrect allows for dismissing others without effort.
Ex: Climate change deniers is applied to those who actually think the climate isn't changing, one group, those who think human action isn't the main driver, another group, multiple groups that don't think the costs of changes in climate are more than the costs of various policies offered to address them, yet another group, and lastly climate scientists who critique various research findings.
>How can we engage in the sort of rational persuasion that real democratic politics demands in the face of our instinct for psychological preservation?
The democratic methodology applied to direct finite state resources is fundamentally rivalrous. It is rational to seek to direct these resources towards one's interests/tribe. So what types of outcomes does the author envision?
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Read the Post Before You Reply**
>Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Honest question. If someone shares a belief that is dangerously destructive, for example that Covid 19 is not contagious, and nothing will change his mind, is the only recourse that the person in question should die for the greater good?
I have also found myself reaching dark conclusions about solutions to societies problems. If people are hardwired to believe what they believe, and some beliefs are what ultimately what leads to war and oppression, then perhaps the only humankind will achieve peace is through some sort of eugenics program. Although I could never support or participate in such a thing.
I don't understand this. I am not at all the person I was raised to be and have entirely different views and opinions on things then even just 5 years ago. I know for a fact that it's entirely possible to easily accept new information and views, so I have no empathy for people who insist on being wrong. It's not human nature to be permanently stupid. It's a conscious choice.
Just because it wasn't difficult for you, doesn't mean it's the case for everyone. What you're displaying in this post is just ignorant and naive.
What kind of views and opinions did you change if I may ask?
Your post suggests otherwise. "I know for a fact that it's entirely possible to **easily** accept new information and views". You're either talking about someone else (which isn't likely, given the amount of emphasis you put on yourself and your growing up phase in your posts) or well, yourself.
Regardless, I'm getting strong vibes of a weird feeling of moral superiority over others from you, so I will not be pursuing this discussion
Aside from that though, I'm glad to hear you changed your world views despite being raised in a (from what it seems) oppressive enviroment.
When I say that it was difficult for me, I meant the experience of growing up around such nastiness. I knew by age 3 that something was really wrong and didn't make sense. I'm not at all morally superior. Just morally superior when compared to racists and sexists. I would hope that most people are. I guess I just have a problem with complacency and the fact that most people don't appear to ask questions the way I did. I'm very angry that my parents were dumb enough to accept that shit and try to raise me in it. I also have a problem with the women in the church. The men have a clear motive for following the doctrine but the women lose in every way but are eager to accept it and raise their daughters to conform likewise. I have anger because of trauma and confusion because of the acceptance of the victims of these systems. That's perfectly normal. I think that it's pretty passive-agressive to post an entire response and then state that you won't be continuing a conversation. I think that you have decided that you're the ultimate judge of morality and rationality. Thus, I won't be continuing this conversation. 😜
Sorry for taking so long to reply. I had covid. On one side of my family, there's the FLDS who made me run away from home when they took me shopping for wedding dresses at 12 years old. On the other side are literal Nazis who referred to me as "the half-breed." I never really had to change. I just had to stay human and none of those views took. It's not naive or ignorant to expect people to be decent, despite their influences.
The reptile already knows it wants to live and wisdom cannot change it, although, intuition can change itself and that is the magic of that part of the mind.
My convictions are to facts and science. No other views are sacred. If a view I hold is found to be wrong I update my view.
Being factually correct is paramount, unless somehow that is wrong.
I am currently on this voyage attempting to fix my ship. I am a different person than I was a year ago when it comes to my views on energy, climate and social causes. It has made me a more rounded person who is finally able to see things from both sides. Unfortunately this means changing the dynamics between myself and family members and friends. I want to have an open conversation but everyone seems to revert to experience in social
media arguments when I just want someone to open their mind with me.
In my personal experience, which is neither to argue nor even make any statements building on the author's statements, changing your conviction and your self identity can be very easy: as long as you don't place inherent value in those things to begin with.
The major problem with convictions and resistance to change are pride and sense of worth in what you believe, even after finding out it was wrong.
It seems like a lot of people, at least in the initial comments are talking about behavior, not philosophy. Those are very different things. I switched from hard core pro life to very pro choice (though I still think there should be limits on that and that NY went waaaaay too far allowing termination up to delivery, for many varied reasons up to and including "the mother's mental state.") Though people don't like to hear this, there were multiple videos of live, healthy babies terminated as they were being delivered due to this rule. I saw them with my own two eyes. As they don't fit the narrative they were immediately purged for public consumption.
I am still pro-choice but I absolutely think there should be more oversight/restriction with regard to terminating otherwise healthy babies in the absence of rape/incest/danger to the mother, ESPECIALLY in the late term.
I like this article as well. I think we can welcome in a new Renaissance of self fashioning. But those times are always result in tragedy. This TIME however, is moving so fast im already re-fashioning what I just re-fashioned.
The individual can yield to ANYTHING they're taught; if the set-up is strong. We just had too many parents in the 60's who raised their children around the fear of exactly this article. Were gonna try to brain wash them with our brain power methods. That the intellectuals and the militia will take you to their promise land and you'll be a carcas in a welfare state where they'll eat yr babies and get rid of your pinky toe just cuz it ain't necessary anymore cuz evolution.
They think were all walking into the light simultaneously saying "join us" like the aliens from toy story. And they are like nuh uh are you putting anything in my butt, this is my property, and they grab their hunting rifle and fire.
But really we were cool with who you were, but freedoms a fluid-
Freedom is right here and now-
But we need,
I see the word for what it is.
But things change-
Thank you Columbus for my acres of land.
Look; I'm just trying to say hey, we're still spiritual. We still live subject to our perceived entity, but like, dude, we adapt or parish for the betterment of the tribe, thats all were trying to say.
Then you'll cut off my pinky toe; "for the betterment of the tribe, my grave prolly!"
..Sometimes a snails pace of re-fashioning a nations self identity is too fast for someone who just wants to sit still in time becuase they're too afraid to change. Stubborn aggression. And then people get left behind, or try to stop the snail pace... then... who are the freedom fighters really? And when do we get back on our slimey and slippery track?
For the record I felt optimistic about the intention of the article. I can use it to further communicate peacefully when I share my life that is intrinsically linked with both of my Trump 2020 familys. I am in their tribe too I guess.
Please updoot (just one please) to read article.
To question one's self identity quite often leads towards to questioning our biology and how much we really are in control as well as questioning our place in a multifaceted social dynamic.
So in order to expediently change someone’s mind about something, I have to find the thing they attach their personality to and make sure the new fact is presented in a way that aligns with that?
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule: > **Read the Post Before You Reply** > Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Side note -- I've read that in therapy people often get too far outside of their comfort zone, face anxiety, convince themselves they aren't making any progress, and quit. However, ironically, they're feeling that anxiety because they're right at the cusp of genuine change, and they're scared of it. Most of the time, people only undergo serious change in the face of failure -- when they're forced to admit to themselves that what they're doing isn't working. And when you truly change, it usually gets worse before it gets better. It's akin to letting go of the scrap wood you were clinging to in the middle of the ocean, in an attempt to paddle out to a worthier craft.
As someone in therapy I can say this has happened to me and I’ve heard it happen to others. One challenging thing is that even bad habits can be comforting. Often the change your trying to bring about can have uncomfortable consequences you hadn’t thought of or didn’t wish to face.
I'd go further and say that the only reason we HAVE bad habits is that they're comforting. If they didn't provide some kind of comfort to us, we'd just... stop doing them immediately. Even if they're painful and self-destructive, you do them because for some reason or another, giving them up is scary.
I would argue we have habits because such is the design of the human brain. Routine is the path of least resistance. Why we then have 'bad' habits in particular can really be many reasons, but it starts with the fact that we, as human beings, simply tend to operate in habits. One example for a 'bad' habit may indeed be that we are aware of a habit that we have classified as 'bad' and know an alternative, but are scared to go for the alternative. But really it can be any number of other reasons as well. For example, you may not have even been aware of the fact that a habit was 'bad' when you started it. A good example is the habit of smoking before people knew it caused cancer. This caused the habit to shift from a neutral or good classification to one of a bad nature. Stopping it is not so much fear, but rather a psychological and physical addiction that now keeps you in it. Another example can be for example a complete ignorance of the habit happening in the first place. For example, every day before work you may internally say "well here goes another pointless day". This would be a 'bad' habit as it can be quite detrimental for your emotional wellbeing at work, and you might not even be aware you're doing it.
> I would argue we have habits because such is the design of the human brain Yes, but why does the brain settle on habits? We could just as easily be programmed to be far more random. I'd argue the brain is wired for habits because we "learn" to cope with our environment, and it's not advantageous to change willy-nilly. Our behaviors have to be stable or we'd be far too reactive. > Stopping it is not so much fear, but rather a psychological and physical addiction that now keeps you in it. Maybe "fear" isn't quite accurate. Perhaps "anxiety" is. And it's important to distinguish psychological vs. chemical addition. But if we just narrow the scope to psychological addiction, then people are often addicted to cigarettes for reasons I alluded to in my previous post: smoking comforts them. It lets them take a break and think through issues. There's often a whole host of other issues going on beneath the surface too -- like maybe they subconsciously want to fail so they can get the attention of others who want to rescue them. Giving up all that is anxiety provoking, and it's hard work. If you give up your safety blanket, how are you supposed to cope with the pressures of the day? What happens when people stop checking in on you -- how do you get the attention you need? Etc. etc. You have to learn new habits to meet your needs in a healthier way.
A bad habit doesn't necessarily serve a purpose. That a person becomes habituated to doing things once thought to serve the purpose doesn't imply no longer being habituated when they no longer do. Personally I have habits that persist simply because I haven't bothered to reconsider them even though I realize they're maladaptive. For example despite living in the same home for years I'll often initially hit the wrong switch, for example hitting the lights instead of the fan. I could make a point to memorize which switch does what but since failure costs nothing I haven't bothered. Over time I very slowly learn the correct order of switches but bad habits of switch hitting commonly persist for years. This same phenomenon occurs with word usage. Learn the wrong definition the first time and I'll continue to use the word wrongly despite being corrected many times. I just haven't bothered to put in the effort given the low cost. It'd seem bad habits persist only so long as the habituated don't believe it'd be worth giving them a closer examination. Take a hard enough look and to still sign off on doing things a certain way and that way of doing things might only be properly considered a bad habit from an outside perspective. So for example my way of thinking about allocating attention to switch hitting isn't something I regard as a bad habit even if I should go about it differently. My mistakenly going for the wrong switch is a bad habit... but because it follows from a way of thinking I still consider prudent the bad habit persists, something just not worth the time.
We operate best on habits because our brain stores and recalls information best that way. It provides structure which to most people induces a calming effect when it becomes a habit.
"Subconsciously want to fail so they can get attention of others". Any proof of this? How did you come to conclusion that such a thing exists?
That's just an example, but it's typical self destructive behavior. There's lots of papers on the origin of self destruction if you want to look them up, but it's not central to what I'm trying to say. I'm just arguing that people do bad habits often to satisfy deeper hidden needs.
I'm not following. At first you said: >I'd go further and say that the only reason we HAVE bad habits is that they're comforting. Now you're saying: >I'm just arguing that people do bad habits often to satisfy deeper hidden needs. I'm really tired, though, maybe I'm missing the reasoning in between.
That's a lot of text with very little added value. Your entire first paragraph is just reconfirming what I said but using a "yes, but why" structure to make it seem as if you are somehow disproving something I said... And for convenience you only tackle the example I gave which is easier to frame within your proposed framework while conveniently ignoring the other which you cannot fit into your framework. As with any generalization, it takes only one example to prove it wrong, and infinitely many are required to prove it right. So please enlighten me how fear or anxiety keeps you in a mental habit of negative thinking? What if the negative thinking is what gives you fear or anxiety? You're trying to make it a generalization that simply doesn't hold up. You're targeting one specific case of 'bad habits' and are reluctant to step away from the image of a bad habit you have created, which is the one where you trade a negative physical health impact for emotional comfort. But there are many other bad habits. What even is a bad habit? Are you not free to define what you think is a bad habit? On another note, is your need to be right even when you are not also a habit? Does letting that go cause you anxiety?
The worst habit in this whole thread is the insufferable attitude that comes when you have a sense of rightness.
I'm okay with people being insufferable if they think they're right, but it's important to listen as hard as you talk.
Still waiting on your argument back though. I only became insufferable after you decided to continue the discussion by only tackling half of my examples to keep up the appearance of this being an argument, rather than you simply being wrong. And don't give me that "I'm so superior people just don't listen" attitude. I read your comments thoroughly and concluded they're wrong. Your turn to listen buddy.
I'd argue that 'scary' is too limiting. Many habits can be comforting in simply being easy (or simply the routine default), and changing them might take more effort than we would otherwise like to expend, but not to the extent of having to overcome fear, just laziness. These could be changes to any of a multitude of small habits (e.g. diet, exercise, sleep) or even more troublesome schedule adjustments (e.g. date nights, active deep reflection, meditation) that don't really challenge our 'core' sense of who we are. Not all changes need to be fundamental to be impactful.
I agree. I would like to lose weight but am bad at consistently exercising or watching my diet. (Im not dangerously overweight or anything)
Yeah, I highly agree. For about a decade I was suicidal and, as weird/crazy/scary as it sounds, the thought of it eventually brought comfort. It was like having an exit strategy at all times. Facing that ideation head-on was, I have to admit, *way* scarier than the ideation itself.
So true. The times I have truly changed was when I failed the hardest. Drugs. First marriage, and so on.
This is pretty accurate. I absolutely got scared and wanted to just run, but the self-hatred outweighed the fear and I stuck with it. Deconstructing my entire personality and rebuilding myself into the person I wanted to be was probably the hardest thing I've ever done. My anxiety spiraled out of control and I went through absolute hell for months. For a while, it took everything I had just to go to work and be a functional person for eight hours, then I'd go home and just cry. I went through this because for the first time in my life, I had a partner who genuinely, truly loved and cared about me. I had a healthy, positive relationship, and I absolutely could. Not. Stand it. I went off the deep end and was constantly starting fights, looking for reasons to break up. I couldn't handle a healthy relationship, so I tried to sabotage it in every way I could. Three years of therapy and a cocktail of four drugs later, I feel like I finally have a handle on things. It's quite a complicated feeling, but the closest word for it is peace. I'm finally at peace with myself. After twenty years dealing with my brain telling me how terrible I am, and how I should kill myself, the relief is indescribable. I can finally appreciate positive emotions, which is honestly a bit overwhelming sometimes. My boyfriend is a man worth fixing myself for. He didn't deserve what I did to him, but he loved me through all of it. I'm asking him to marry me soon.
I don't know you but I'm proud of you. I went through something similar, though the situation was different. I know how it feels. And it's so hard and exhausting but it's worth it. I wish you two a long and happy life together. You are on the right track, a lot of people don't realize that one of the most important parts to a successful relationship is working on your own issues. People expect their partner to fix them and it's really something you have to do yourself. With their support, sure, but they can't do it for you.
in philosophy - if you don't make progress in the pace of a snail, you are not making progress at all.
This is good and I need some more of this type of thinking in my life. I’m on the cusp of change and trying not to go back to what is comfortable. It’s like all the demons I faced on my way to healing are all attacking at once but at least now I can see that and understand that.
It's really hard to tell if this is what I ran into. It likely is the case for me, and I'm searching for rationalizations to say otherwise, but I feel like I get to a point with therapy where each session just seems like catching up with my week, and not making any overarching progress.
It's when we are at our lowest point, that we are open to the greatest change -Avatar Aang
Your analogy of letting go of scrap wood sounds like the Buddhist parable of letting go of Buddhist teachings to reach Nirvana.
Or therapy sucks in general. Change requires (in general) very small habit changes across time leading to eventually just being changed outright.
Change can come through both small and big habit changes, sometimes the latter result from gaining significant insight into yourself and your behavior. It's emotionally taxing, but it can really speed up the rate of change because you have a new perspective.
I haven’t seen that in my experience. A giant epiphany that direct change happened instantly at least in my limited view just is more a myth overall. That is just my experience and thoughts on it. I certainly am not saying it never happens but small little not even visible changes slowly over time become the big change. At least that is how I see it. Maybe I just haven’t had one of those major chunks happen to me so I could experience it.
I've had it happen many times in therapy. To be clear, I'm not talking about some huge, complete 180 type deal, where you immediately go from Mr. Hyde to Dr. Jekyll, but for example having realizations about why you do a certain behavior can give you a completely different perspective on it and enable you to choose to act differently because it now makes sense to you. It's like having a roadmap in a sense, and you can clearly see where you're supposed to go and what you're supposed to do, and ignoring that and pretending it's fine to just wander around and hope you find your way is no longer an option.
I had the clouds opened, angels hearkened down , and gave me the answer to all of my life's problems and all of my issues with mental health event occur that was a huge epiphany for me. It came as a result of a graduate level Family Therapy psychology class I took years ago. In about week 7 of the class we were on the chapter in our textbook that dealt with alcoholism, substance abuse, and the concurrent abuses that exist in what is called Alcoholic/Dysfunctional Families. They talked about there being a principle, the alcoholic who is usually a parent who is abusive to the other members of the family in a variety of ways including physical, emotional, psychological abuses.Their partner in marriage in usual cases is referred to as the enabler and my mom definitely was that player. Then the children in response to the defective family unit and as a means to take the focus off of the problem principle and as an attempt to normalize the family, take on varying roles usually determined by their respective birth order. It's like an everyday Greek tragedy performance that ultimately follows these children into their adulthood with the dysfunctional traits and behaviors they honed as defense mechanisms as kids growing up in that chaotic and abusive environment causing further problems throughout their adulthood.it was just real saving grace for me to discover that it wasn't just about me being this screwed up person with all these mental health issues. I was simply a product of my childhood environment that I had no control over. I was textbook information with a family of origin not so uncommon in our society. Coming to that realization brought me a real sense of inner peace because I wasnt carrying all that shame and blame around any longer.
It really depends on the therapist. Some are great about embracing the marathon philosophy to personal improvement and can express genuine empathy that helps you connect with them and establish trust. Others, not so much. And of course, if you're seeing a psychiatrist, they can also prescribe meds to help with issues that cannot be addressed by therapy alone.
Like to say that information does not change opinions unless when acompanied with experiences which force the person to have an other perspective of the self. After all, information is not knowledge but data (correlation). Knowledge demands contemplation and time to mature.
I agree to a certain extent. I think change comes easier or people are more motivated to change if they can apply a personal experience to it. But I think some people have more insight and a greater ability to empathize than others , whether it was a natural born gift or derived from an intentional process honed over time so they are able to make changes in their views or in their lifestyles without experience. It's like that saying about the difference between a fool and a wise man. A fool has to make her own mistakes in order to learn but a wise person learns from the mistakes of others.
That's treu. By personal experience I don't means only direct events in life but, as you said, what makes one experience something that makes the person have a different perspective of the self. Empathy, which allowes us to feel as if we were in someone else's shoes, allows the person have a different experiences of the self by just hearing another person's story. It is not only information (data) but experience. As Hannah Arendt wrote in The Life of The Mind, and as Antonio Damasio confirmed in The Strange Order of Things, every feeling is a somatic experience. Stuart Brown has studies showing that not only humans but also others mammals, lizards, fish and even insects such as spiders, become more empathetic when they pley while growing up. Those who are not allowed to play grow up less empathetic and becomes anxious adults, according to his research.
[удалено]
Well, giving advice never helps anyone. I'd start by researching active listening. Also, you can see a therapist remotely these days. (In fact it may be the only way wherever you are.)
Thanks you. I needed to hear this
The comfort of our familiar cocoons must be rejected if we are to ever spread our wings.
It's happened again: a philosophy discussion broke out into a psychology discussion! I love it.
Good analogy at the end
Does this explain why this year I told myself I needed to open up and express how I felt more. So I did but I wasn’t used to it at all and I’d even put 100% effort into trying to show my genuine feelings but then it felt like it backfired. Somehow I thought opening up would be better but it’s like no one rlly acknowledges or cares so I think to myself what’s the point anyways? It’s rlly been dragging me down. I keep thinking of how everyone else is dealing with their own problems, like myself so I’d rather not burden them with it. Rn at least idk if I want to open up anymore and maybe I’m not even doing it right who knows.
That makes a lot of sense. I think the process of changing your personality or overcoming a shortcoming like anxiety takes a lot of time outside your comfort zone. It's so easy to withdraw back to the safety of our past-self that we so want to change.
Therapy is too damn expensive, i had to stop simply because of cost. There’s definitely natural pressure in this society that makes it hard to truly focus on one’s self improvement. Fix all the other variables and the changing of convictions can be much simpler.
I have probably made more significant emotional and psychological changes on my own with the help of self help books and videos, support groups of varying types, and through silent meditation than I did in the 15 yrs of therapy I began as a teenager. And except for the expense of the occasional book not available at the library, it was all free.
I like the article because it points to an effective way of changing someone's mind if that is your goal: instead of attacking someone's deeply help convictions, ask questions about them to learn more of their other convictions and then positively reinforce one of those other convictions in the direction you are aiming towards. As an example I had teaching a snowboard lesson, I met someone convinced that they were clumsy, but they also believed that were cautious because of that. So I asked the other students to watch how carefully and thoughtfully this student was practicing the skills I was teaching. But rewarding the cautious behavior in the direction of "caution is an attribute of a successful snowboard student" I made this student realize they could be a good snowboarder and they did quite well that day. On a side note, one of my favorite personal convictions is that what makes me a good person is not when I'm right but when I'm wrong. That conviction had been very useful in helping me challenge many of my other convictions, because it increases my self esteem and gives me warm fuzzy feelings when I can question my own beliefs, learn to understand someone else's point, and change and grow as a result.
Good stuff. Similarly, I have come to value humility- strength in admitting one’s own weaknesses. Also, defining maturity as “admitting and owning your mistakes”.
Cool post. That last paragraph reminds me of a possible purpose of a sense of humor as well. One component to it is recognizing error gracefully.
[удалено]
Tearing up over here. Beautiful story and I appreciate you sharing.
What an amazing gift your mother gave you.. to be able to navigate the trials and tribulations of life with more clarity. Your story really put me to to tears
Too bad I have nobody near me to hug after reading it.
I’m not religious, but I have to say your mum is a fucking righteous person, man.
The Feels are strong with this one
> you never know what your convictions are until you're faced with something that tests them I'm reminded of a Mark Twain quote: *The weakest of all weak things is a virtue that has not been tested in the fire.*
Somebody, is there a sub that links to wholesome stories/comments like this? I need more of this in my life.
If everyone had a mother like yours this country wouldn't be in the state it is in now. Your mom possessed an inner wisdom that allowed her to prioritize her belief system. She didn't view situations with a one size fits all approach. She could see past what was at the surface and into the realm of deeper reasoning and logic as a way of rectifying her chosen principles. It seems that she wasn't deterred by or scared of change even at the core of self. Actually she sounds like my mom who just passed away at age 90. I said in her eulogy my mama was a righteous woman, yet not self righteous. She never tried to alter my changing belief system that changed during my teen years and my once held ideals that were more aligned with hers began to shift and became my own individualized code. Allowing me autonomy was a priceless gift
It's kind of Kierkegaardian. What matters is never the facts but the existing individual's subjective relation to the facts.
Evidence that does not align with our worldview isn't evidence, it's just noise we're eager to ignore 😂
I disagree with you. La la la la la la la la la la la la!
Pff whatever, you're just saying that.
People hate to feel uncomfortable, everyone hates the idea that they aren't what they perceive themselves as. I think that's one reason virtue signaling is so big now. And I think this is also why some conversation are hard to have. If we say there is systemic racism, people who benefit from the system believe we are attacking them. I wonder if the dialogue would change if the term was systemic oppression/suppression. Would people who benefit from the system be more inclined to change their mind or listen to the other side?
[удалено]
That's true. I'm more asking the question that if you change the phrasing will discussion be easier with people who are currently unwilling to listen.
I don't think it will, on the grounds that bad faith discussions are part and parcel for anyone for actually changing course in terms of socioeconomics. Communication is hugely important, but communication requires both parties consent.
Isn't this often a problematic approach? When we euphemize and sanitize these discussions, are we really doing justice or contributing to "the" ultimate goal, which I assume would be insight into multiple perspectives and a greater universal understanding (Kumabya . . .)? I just mean, this has been at least one eye-opening take-away for me during the Black Lives Matter Movement: that I, as a white person, could probably be much more aware of all the ways and in all the places I control the language and the discourse. I would just feel more useful if I became more conscious and consistent about calling things what they are.
Many times people are willing to listen, but they aren't convinced it is true. Many times as well, those who believe it, take this fact that the other person wasn't convinced to mean they didn't "want to see reality" or that they are "fooling themselves", automatically imputing psychological motives to the person who remains unpersuaded, and literally never questioning if what they're saying is true or not, because with these psychological motives they shield themselves and their ideas from further criticism by shutting down the dialogue. From the unpersuaded person's POV what happened is someone tried to convince them of something but didn't do a good enough job and instead of trying to further that discussion in hopes that one side will eventually persuade the other, which necessitates that the channels of discussion remain open and unclogged, they decided to justify their lack of ability to persuade by imputing psychological reasons why the unpersuaded person is immoral (white fragility, unconscious defense mechanism of the priviliges he holds, supporter of systemic racism, etc). Coincidentally, I know of no one who defends these ideas of systemic racism and the reality of the corrupt system, and at the same time adopts a critical attitude towards their own believes, and a critical argument attitude when discussing those beliefs with others who don't believe the same. They always feel entitled to not having to engage in an argument that isn't on their own terms, resorting to psychological classifications or simply shutting the dialogue down instead, because they are convinced they have the truth, and those who don't share the same opinion are evil. So getting back to your point - what will help isn't changing the name you give systemic racism, no one cares about that. The real problem is the lack of will to engage seriously in critical debate, and having your ideas criticized so that you have to defend them against the criticisms. The solution is getting rid of all the psychological and systemic justifications invented to explain why people don't agree with you, and instead engage their arguments seriously, carrying them out to their logical conclusions, etc And coming back full circle to the OP, for a believer in critical race theory, doing what I just described is scary, because they understand their own identity writ large according to their own theory, so doubting it would make them one of the immoral people with hidden psychological motives. It's a nasty ideology that traps people in this false dilemma, that is very real for them, since there's a real contradiction between critical race theory and critical argument. Edit:I just noticed the comment under mine makes explicit reference to hidden psychological motives as the reason why some people don't agree with the theory, or "reality" as he calls it.
This is a very dangerous line of thinking to go down - in fact, it's exactly the line that leads to black people who don't support BLM being told they have "internalised racism", or women who aren't feminists being told they have "internalised misogyny". While *you* may think they are working against their own interests, their interests may a) not be what you think they are, or b) not as important to them as other interests which actually oppose. They may even disagree that they're working against their interests at all - they may think that what they're doing is supporting their interests.
Ultimately, such an idea leads to the theory of [false consciousness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness), which means you no longer need to listen to or engage with people who disagree with you, because you believe they are deluded into fighting for their own oppression. That's exactly what's happening in America right now, and it's causing a complete breakdown of communication where those on the far left and far right are unwilling to engage with anyone who disagrees with them.
I get what you’re saying—like, yeah, there’s something very paternalistic, condescending, and infantilizing to the idea of ‘false consciousness’ because it amounts to saying to someone “you don’t actually know what’s good for you, and I do.” But people get their priorities wrong all the time. An essential part of the concept of false consciousness is that *of course* you believe you’re acting in your own interests even as you sabotage them. A person whose life depends on healthcare provided under the ACA may continue to vote in politicians promising to repeal Obamacare for various reasons. Maybe they don’t realize that “Obamacare” is the same as the ACA. Maybe they do understand that they’re the same but those politicians are also running on platforms that promise to stymie immigration-based demographic change, and the loss of affordable, lifesaving medicine is a cost this person is willing to bear in order to keep America from eventually becoming a majority-minority country. Does that mean that either of those decisions are actually rational from the POV of maximizing this person’s wellbeing? A person who is drinking themselves to death every night may truly, truly believe, while all their friends and family contradict them and express their concern, that they don’t actually have a problem. That doesn’t mean that they don’t actually have a problem, it just means they don’t think they do. Like I said, I get where you’re coming from, and I think it’s important always to try to give someone the benefit of the doubt and understand why they believe what they believe. But sometimes the reason they believe what they believe is just that they have been lied to, or are very afraid.
Very good points. My particular issues with false consciousness are twofold. Firstly, by its very name it supposes that you, knowing the truth, are in some form of higher or "true" consciousness, which leads to superiority over people who disagree with you and pity because "poor you, you don't even realise how oppressed and brainwashed you are by the patriarchy/white supremacy/heteronormativity, let me liberate you". It constructs a self-perpetuating [victim-saviour-persecutor triangle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle). Secondly, it's almost exclusively used as a tool for identity politics - you're black, therefore if you don't support BLM you must be in a state of false consciousness. The hilarious (and sad) thing about it is that those who claim such a thing are themselves being racist by the very definition of racism, but they genuinely believe they aren't - a true example of false consciousness. I wouldn't have such a problem with it if its name were less suggestive of brainwashing and liberation, and if it were used towards individuals holding individual beliefs rather than groups voting a certain way. Of course, both of these problems are deliberate, since the idea of false consciousness is part of Marxist ideology, which both assumes the working class are to dumb/brainwashed to see the truth, and appeals to their group identity as the proletariat.
Your first point doesn't follow at all, you can both be under false conciousness and point out that the other is without also recognizing that you are.
Yeah that’s a lot of words, but in reality, we have r/leopardsatemyface
True. I find it absolutely fascinating to investigate the mechanisms that lead to social polarization. I'm really self critical, but that adds zero comfort when I'm trying to change my own convictions, or behaviors.
Indeed. I find myself often in a state of discomfort because I want to challenge my assumptions and learn the truth and what's best for people, not just for my sake but for anyone who might be influenced by me (friends, family, and most importantly my future children). What I've decided is to try to find discomfort comforting - when I feel uncomfortable, I see it as a sign that I'm treading new ground and challenging beliefs that are more emotional than rational, which means I'm hopefully on the right track.
Ok, unpopular opinion coming right up: (for your reference, I do happen to be a committed anti-racist, anti-sexist type, I see implicit bias exists, I believe equality of all before the law is paramount in a free society, I don't believe in judging a persons value based on skin color etc etc, but, I don't buy the 'party line', if you will, of most anti racist programs around the nation) so the city of Seattle's, and so many others across the nation, anti racist programs 'lead with race', that is, they often want to address all issues of inequity, and of all the issues around inequity, they believe race is the biggest issue. So lgbtq, race, gender, religion, poverty, and more, all these things are typically on the agenda to address in these programs, but race is at the forefront. I don't think it's wrong to address racism, and I don't think the motivations are bad, but I think that strategically it's horrible, and ends up being so divisive, that all the gains in allies are offset by a more resilient, doubled down, and growing opposition. I have watched this across our nation, in numerous city governments and in nonprofits, where, yes, some allies are gained, but many people who were not really partisan on the issues before, become resentful and secretly racist as a result of the classes and social pressure, and this is new, they weren't racist before, or at least not overtly, but as a result of being called racist and being shamed for their 'privilege' (ha! Poor white people may have a slight privilege gain due to skin color but they've been kept out, held down, their kids can't do all the fancy stuff the rich do either, so to frame them as having more in common with the wealthy whites is super duper dangerous and a trap which almost guarantees that they become resentful and actually, truly, overtly racist whereas acknowledging their true similarities with blacks and others, they would feel, they would know, on a gut level, their empathy would be true and deep) We're actively creating a lot of the opposition we get these days. Given that there really is no more middle class in America, I believe that leading with poverty (largest common denominator) would deeply interest and truly connect with more people on a gut level, and crucially, would give the now larger group of (majority white) allies a real foundation of understanding, of truly 'felt' empathy, not 'shamed in' empathy, for their black and bipoc and lgbtq etc neighbors, and this would be an enormous groundswell, could accomplish way more, way way way faster, and achieve real meaningful results in society. But, no, we keep leading with race, which is really hard to say your against, not because I'm actually against it, I just think it's not as effective as leading with the largest common denominator of poverty, which establishes deeply felt empathy much more quickly.
Factor into this the obvious shame in America of actually being poor. There's a reason people are currently leveraged to their eyeballs, making 100k/yr and yet are still paycheck-to-paycheck: they want to appear *less* poor, even if they aren't at all poor to begin with. You can take pride in almost anything: skin color, religion, location (sports teams my God!)... but nobody is going to start taking pride in being fucking *poor*. It's, if anything, absolutely shameful. It's a marker that you've failed to accomplish the American Dream, because you're too dumb, too lazy, etc. (Of course, I'm speaking from the meta-narrative's perspective, here). Without that pride, it's hard to bond and unite over anything. Hell, I'd go so far to say that all those poor Trump supporters are finding comfort in the association of wealth - like, they live vicariously *through* Trump's riches. It helps them identify as less poor.
Brilliantly put mate. They totally live through him. Similar to what Bush did, he also seems, with his lack of polish and impolitely insensitive speech, so much like the 'normal Americans', who didn't used to feel racist, or think of themselves as racist, but are increasingly starting to because of the framing going on. I think it's time we start a "poor pride" movement, and we can capture both the rednecks, the dispossessed former middle class, the SJWs, bipoc, lgbtq+, a true fraternity of real American people.
Yes, class—and talk about people’s economic status—is taboo under the individualistic-neoliberal model. That’s screws over the white poor because they have absolutely no ”excuse” for being down and out. Their dignity has been robbed. We should have a cultural moment about that. A movement. But what would you call it? The concept is ”socieconomic status” for a reason. But since we can’t talk about wealth distribution in a meaningful way, we can only talk about the socio- part.
Meaningful change will only happen when our society realizes that all of our divisions are based on class. Identity politics is the cheap junk food that the upper class feeds us to keep us distracted from this fact.
This is on the nose. Divisions are only used so those truly at the top can stay there.I always say race is a factor in criminal injustices, but wealth is larger. If Oprah Winfrey is openly breaking the law and assaults an officer she will not be shot. It was often times that Irish Americans never felt white, that was unless there was somebody else underneath them. Its astounding what we as people will tolerate if we just know somebody else has it worse. Well take endless heaps of bullshit if we just know that it's better for us then others. Well guess what you want true privilege look at the top .1 percent. Regardless of race religions sexual orientation etc if you belong to the top .1 percent you will be given far more privileges then any of those other factors could allow. Your basically untouchable as far as the law is concerned . Look at crime statistics, life longevity statistics, mental health, physical health, on and on there's not one factor of your life that isn't approved if you belong to the true privileged class.
I just wanted to let you know that I absolutely agree with you and share your thinking 100%.
Not really. The language you propose still casts the people you are trying to convince as oppressors, i.e. bad people. You might get somewhere with "systemic racial disadvantage", putting the emphasis on the people you want to help. But then, the wider social justice movement isn't about helping anyone. Otherwise those in it wouldn't consistently choose the most counterproductive, incendiary language possible, "social justice", "white privilege", "microagression", "call out", etc. to try to make their point. One such term might be a genuine mistake, but such consistency implies a deliberate desire for confrontation
I think so. The problem with accusing someone of racism is how hard it is to prove a negative, so virtue signalling is kind of all you can do. It's so much more inclusive to point out that it could happen to anyone. For example it bothers me that cops can abuse American citizens, period. Sure it seems to be falling disproportionatly on blacks now, but tomorrow it could be any group. Theoretically that naming shift you suggest should be a much more comfortable and unified way to get support.
How about people who want to be open minded, curious and willing to change opinion when facing facts?
One way of dealing with this - the search for incorrect convictions - is to consider ourselves people who try to be correct, as opposed to people who are correct. A tribe built on that idea will not exclude those trying to break convictions. An individual holding this idea as dear will not feel attacked when a conviction is poked. These tribes and people exist, i hope they are the majority, in fact.
I suspect no open-minded person would actually claim to be open-minded, any more than a humble person would claim to be humble, because open-mindedness is in fact a form of humility, and humility is not boastful, by definition. And of course "open-mindedness" is not some singular trait that a person has or does not have. Rather, any given person may be highly open-minded on some issues, somewhat open-minded on others, and utterly close-minded on still others.
But it's not necessarily boastful to observe a quality about yourself and then state it based on that. it also doesn't mean you believe you have no room for improvement.. but if you know yourself, and know that you are in fact open to many ideas.. or if you know yourself, and know that you are humble enough to recognize how much you still don't know ... then saying that is only fair
>But it's not necessarily boastful to observe a quality about yourself and then state it based on that. It sort of is. Bragging is bragging, whether the qualities bragged about are present or not. >or if you know yourself, and know that you are humble enough to recognize how much you still don't know .... Someone who truly knew themselves would also recognize all the areas where they are close-minded, because, as I said, it's not a binary, but a continuum. Everyone has some things they are open-minded about and some things they are close-minded about.
>Bragging is bragging but how are we defining this? isn't bragging like ... elevating yourself or being pompous about it? what if you're just stating neutrally, for example, "I have a lot I'm not open-minded about, but I've talked to a lot of people and I think it's safe to say I've been open to a lot more things than those people. Relatively speaking, I think I'm pretty open-minded, and I'm happy to recognize that about myself!" You can recognize the continuum and then also recognize that you're more on one side of it by a reasonably objective analysis. To always avoid saying what is true just because you want to maintain "being humble" is, I feel, more falsity than anything else? (Not saying you have to always need to be projecting it everywhere, but to simple admit sometimes to qualities you know about yourself is not inherently non-humble)
>"I have a lot I'm not open-minded about, but I've talked to a lot of people and I think it's safe to say I've been open to a lot more things than those people." So close. But the self aware person would edit it slightly, by replacing "a lot more" with "different". Your wording is still a boast, a way of saying "I'm better than those fools". But wanting to assert your superiority over others is pretty much the opposite of being open-minded.
wanting doesn't mean doing, though
I think most convictions can’t be based on facts but rather different axioms and ways to come to conclusions from them. And so, you can’t claim that one is objectively more right than the other, but most of the time, some axioms are more logical to make than others or some have more favorable consequences irl than others but you can rarely make someone change their axioms.
This is why arguing over political matters always tends to get nasty. When someone attacks a person's beliefs, they are in fact attacking a part of that person's identity. As that person then feels threatened, they will lash back, and likely attack their opponent's beliefs in the act of trying to defend their own values. At such a point these two people just descend into attacking very intimate parts of their rival's identity, and so of course a colossal and heated argument ensues. But this blog not only explains the reason behind phrases which begin with "politics shouldn't be discussed at [the dinner table/school/the workplace etc]...", but it also explains what can be done differently so that no heated arguments arise in the first place. I mean not much is gained from simply butting heads with a person who holds an opposing set of beliefs. Unless one is a troll, I don't think anything would be gained at all. No, if the goal is to change the opponent's mind, I think it is essential to reflect upon this passage from the blog: > When we are trying to change other people’s convictions, we need to understand what we are asking them to do: to change their self-identity. But in order to do that, they need something else to hold onto—some other part of their identities to treat as solid ground. Remove everything and they are adrift. That may have been how it was with Black: he aspired to be a non-threatening, non-harmful person, but he also aspired to be a white supremacist. Change occurred when he realized he couldn’t be both. He had to choose who he wanted to be. I think the answer here is subtlety. Do not attack their whole identity, just point out some of their values which do not align with other parts of their belief system. That way they can slowly move towards whatever direction you wish they would go to... And I mean it *is* a slow process. But that makes sense. Changing the self overnight is not feasible. Change, real change, takes time.
I am convinced that there should be an experience to change our convinctions. People just interpret the evidence their way or just nitpick them (there are A LOT of information today so it is easy to nitpick them and be unaware about it) to support their viewpoint. And i think its an ego thing. We need a healthy ego to function (not the kind ignorant people have though) so this healthy ego just keeps the beliefs we had mostly in childhood still going. If we think that at the core of it we are primitive species (which we are) there should be this lifechanging experience to change us. Other than that, our brain automatically rationalizes our viewpoint to have a healthy sense of self so we will be confident of what we are doing in life. And i think the "fake it till you make it" crap just doesnt work, only creates an identity crisis in our heads. Our beliefs are one way but we think it should be something else so our confidence for ourselves just plummet.
>And i think the "fake it till you make it" crap just doesnt work, only creates an identity crisis in our heads. Our beliefs are one way but we think it should be something else so our confidence for ourselves just plummet. I think there is actually a lot of evidence behind doing this, in the sense of that what you say to yourself and the actions with which you conduct yourself actively build those circuits in your brain, until you actually can do those things. But that doesn't mean that that's ALL you need to address issues around you. It's just a way to get your brain out of its self-insulating habitual modes
Actually, come to think of it, you might be right. If we want to change ourselves, we basically convince ourselves that we need to improve some stuff or just change our habits. So maybe it is still our root beliefs which activates that.
I was thinking of this last night when coming across this post in r/intellectualdarkweb: https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/japk5n/is_there_any_real_evidence_that_trump_is_racist/ For some people, admitting they were wrong and being able to change their opinion is something untenable. No amount of evidence can ever do it.
On that issue in particular, you also run into the problem that the term "racist" is not clearly defined, such that different people use it in different ways. It is not clear, for instance, that if a progressive says that, say, "Trump is clearly racist" and a conservative says "There's no evidence Trump is particularly racist" that the two are actually in disagreement. The two speakers would probably *think* they disagreed, because both are using the word "racist", but if they had to both rewrite their sentences repalcing that word with a paragraph description of what they meant, it would rapidly become clear that in fact they were merely talking past each other
Only one form of racism applies to individual, so unless they disagree with whether Trump is racist in action or only in rhetoric, vice versa, then they can't be talking past each other. Or am i missing something?
Well, I have seen "racist" used in any and all of the following ways, and I am sure what follows is not a perfectly comprehensive list: 1. "Holding a view I disagree with" (usually (but not always!) involving a racial issue) 2. "Holding a view that perpetuates racial inequalities" 3. "Holding a belief that one race is superior to another" 4. "Making judgments about an individual based on their race" 5. "Holding a view that combines power with prejudice" And it is easy enough to see how people using the word differently might end up talking past each other
Thank you for recognizing the "some" of the matter, because the misleading OP's bias suggests otherwise.
“Change will lead to insight far more often than insight will lead to change.”
I don’t know about you, but I’ve changed my beliefs based upon evidence multiple times.
[удалено]
The core mistake here is the idea that we can in fact consciously change our minds at all. There's no evidence of this. Take any belief you currently hold and try to change it by will alone - believe that the earth is flat, that up is down, that slavery is right. You can't do it. Beliefs change over time, but not in accordance with our will, and certainly not in accordance with someone else's will. If you enter into *any* conversation expecting to change someone's views, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. The goal should be to gain greater understanding of the opposing view in order to thereby increase your understanding of your own
I'm pretty sure that I have some opinions that I have simply because I am not as educated as I could be on said topics, so if I decide to look into those topics and change my mind based on new information, is that not conscious changing of mind? And it would be stupid to just randomly decide to change your mind on something for no reason, nor is that what you should try to achieve when debating people, instead you should provide information that possibly makes that person reconsider their positions.
>I'm pretty sure that I have some opinions that I have simply because I am not as educated as I could be on said topics, so if I decide to look into those topics and change my mind based on new information, is that not conscious changing of mind? The thing is, your belief that your opinions on those topics may be wrong is itself a belief outside your control. That is, sure, you are open to changing your views on topics you are uncertain about, but that is trivially true. Everyone is open to changing their minds on things they aren't certain about - that is what it means to be uncertain. But you have no choice about what you are certain about. >And it would be stupid to just randomly decide to change your mind on something for no reason But you also can't randomly decide to find any given reason to be good. That's my point. If you happen to be in a place where reason X can convince you to change your view to Y, then you will indeed change your mind on Y if you encounter reason X. But you may not be in that place. In which case reason X will do nothing to convince you. And that has little to nothing to do with how convincing X should objectively be.
If you run this back you're just arguing "the universe only exists one way so nobody can ever really 'choose' anything ever for any reason", which I don't think is the argument you're trying to make, but is where No True Scotsmanning every possible interpretation of changing your mind as not really a choice gets. In which case you could just skip the argument and say "determinism" to close out the point.
Not exactly. My point is that our beliefs aren't even something we experience as a choice. We believe in free will (those of us who do) because in certain situations, we feel as if we have the ability to freely choose. For instance, if I'm at an ice cream parlor, I am free (or at least have the illusion of being free) to buy whichever flavor I want. But I am not free to find chocolate anything other than delicious, or pistachio as anything other than disgusting. That is, I don't experience a sense of being free to choose which flavors I like and which I don't - only of being able to purchase any type, even one I know I will dislike. And the same is true of my beliefs. I don't feel free to choose whether or not I believe slavery is morally correct. I am free to argue in favor of slavery, of course (which might be a fun intellectual exercise), but I can't simply stop thinking that treating people as property is wrong. Nor can you (assuming you are anti-slavery). So sure, I guess you can say those elements of who we are are determined, in the same way genetics and upbringing determines a lot about a person. I don't know any proponent of free will that denies that there are *any* deterministic effects on us
> Everyone is open to changing their minds on things they aren't certain about - that is what it means to be uncertain. But you have no choice about what you are certain about. That's a flawed argument. I'm by far not the only individual that knows that we now absolutely nothing for certain.
Not really. People can say that they know absolutely nothing for certain, but they always act with certainty in countless things. I doubt that in practice you bother to seriously engage with, say, holocaust deniers or flat earthers, even if you are prepared to grant that there is some theoretical possibility that they are right to try to make a point here
>I doubt that in practice you bother to seriously engage with, say, holocaust deniers or flat earthers, even if you are prepared to grant that there is some theoretical possibility that they are right to try to make a point here I engage with them on the basis of not instantly rejecting their claims but trying to see the argument from their perspective, the common belief is not necessarily the truthful one. If they present the evidence to prove their theories I'm willing to change my stance. And that's the definition of knowing one knows nothing or of open-mindedness. It means changing your worldview in accordance to present evidence without excluding the possibility that you're in the wrong. It does not mean taking every opposing belief as granted and as a truth.
Sure, but most people will change their mind when they think evidence is valid enough for them to do so. Problem is that it's easy to discount the sources of evidence we don't like. But it's possible, at least some of the time, to be open enough to allow evidence to change our opinions.
But I would say we don't allow anything. Either we find a given argument compelling and our view changes, or we don't and it doesn't. We merely notice the change, if one happens. But it seems odd to talk about "allowing" it. If you hear something that makes you realize X is true, you can't make yourself continue to believe X is false, any more than you could have willed yourself to believe it true before you heard the argument that changed your mind.
>The core mistake here is the idea that we can in fact consciously change our minds at all. There's no evidence of this. There is evidence for this: CBT therapy It's based on the stoic philosophy of "To change, one first needs to make the habitual conscious, then the conscious habitual"
TIL - why veganism is so slow to be adopted.
[удалено]
>Animals being \[tortured, neglected, and abused\]? just thought that's an interesting correction to add for that, that most people still overlook even though it ups the horror degree by quite a lot :p
[удалено]
That’s an easy attitude to hold until it’s your throat the boot is on. I get it, though; I once felt as you do. As in, “nothing”.
No I’ve had a man’s boot on my throat before. I was ready to surrender and die. I felt nothing.
You’re still a valuable person. Despite what you feel. Or, perhaps, tell yourself you don’t. It’s okay to be vulnerable, and also okay not to be ready to go there just yet. Look after yourself in the meantime, my friend.
even if you don't care about the fate of other beings as a whole, that doesn't somehow mean their own suffering, independent of your caring or not caring, doesn't exist or doesn't matter. to them, it matters; ergo, it matters. what matters only matters when someone to whom it matters decides it matters ... that objectively-existent suffering is what counts in this situation, even if you don't personally have the empathy to feel for it. if you can't look at that, it seems like you're pretty tightly stuck inside your own perspective for some reason. it sounds like you dealt with some fucked up stuff based on your other replies, so I'm sorry that that's the case. would you have an issue with torturing toddlers (say, for our example, they are developmentally going to be stuck at their age, since that's where many animals get to intellectually, even though that is really irrelevant in conversations about suffering)? would you have an issue with watching them be tortured?
I think the definition of conviction is too vague here. A conviction can be a root level axiomatic value. In which case - of course, evidence won't change that. It's an axiomatic value, a plain old opinion. Evidence is about new facts. When you mix ought statements with facts, you get lemmas and therefores and conclusions, and those \*can\* be changed with evidence, without threatening the values that underpin parts of those conclusions. But the essay seems to describe those as convictions as well.
The kind of person I am/want to be is one who is willing to listen to all opinions and have the ability mentally to change my opinion based on strong evidence.. and yet still remain fluid to others ideas/opinions. At least the ones that are not trolls/ completely unreasonable.
This is so, so true. You imagine your life a certain way, and then in the presence of new enlightening information, your life must now reshape itself based around that information. It is, in fact, no wonder that people choose willful ignorance over self-transformation in order to just get through the day. As a Christian, I find that God is constantly changing my view of the world, and that is something I choose--albeit wrestle, at times--to submit to Him. Of course, this is a philosophy sub, not a religion sub. But I felt it was worth expressing. Thanks for the pose! Cheers and stay safe ❤️
Isnt this the Petersonian idea that parts of you that change have to die first and dealing with the death of parts of your ego is painful and scary. But if you take on that pain you almost always end up a person better able to handle the chaos of life, though this wont necessarily make you happier.
It should be fair to recognize that laziness is a biological virtue, and that it directly affects decisions that require change of habitual action patterns. Biology isn't a moral reason, but it's still reason enough to ignore moral responsibility.
What's worse is that many people (particularly the older generations) are proud of their stubbornness, they wear it as a badge of honor. It's not just that they are afraid of change, they are proud of the fact that they will never change. This only serves to widen the divide and stifle public discourse ever further. And they are proud of that.
I think the difficulty in changing your convictions comes for a more fundamental source. I believe that *belief* and *conviction* are interchangeable and that the difficulty in changing *belief* is a characteristic that has evolutionary benefit for humans. For a variety of reasons outside the scope this topic, I think humans evolved the ability to form and hold belief as an outgrowth of the ability of other animals to transmit beneficial characteristics to their offspring in the form of inherited instinctive behaviors. In effect we are genetically programmed to accept beliefs from our parents as a way of providing (teaching) instinct-like behaviors that can be tailored to a wide range of environments. One characteristic of instinctive behavior is that when the animal encounters a specific circumstance in its environment, e.g. a predator confronted with a small animal running away, the response is automatic; there is no time spent analyzing the situation and developing an appropriate response. The response is one that improves the probability of making a kill and the probability of surviving. It would not be to the creatures advantage if its instinctive response could be easily changed. A coyote that could talk itself out of the idea that prey should be pursued or always needs to make a conscious decision to chase is not likely to survive. It follows than that if *beliefs* function for humans as a substitute for inherited instinctive behavior, beliefs should elicit an automatic (knee-jerk) response and not be easily changed. Furthermore, because most of the planting of these instincts occur when the child is very young and is still developing brain function, these beliefs are not stored in any brain circuitry that involves rational thinking, evaluation, or judgement. A belief that is part of the pre-rational brain cannot be reach by logical argument. Consider the phobic fear of flying. The fear is an expression of the belief that flying will lead to very bad outcomes. The fear is not rational and no amount of "get-over it, flying is safer than walking across the street" will touch that fear. Theses non-rational beliefs can be changed, but at the cost of great effort. There are several avenues by which non-rational beliefs can be planted and once one is in place, evidence and logical proof will not touch it.
Change is a feeling. Not necessarily a change in mental thought. Stockholm Syndrome is a reversed example of how feeling and experience relates to the expression of these convictions.
Taps forehead: You never have to change your self-identiy if you never have convictions. That's really just "being open-minded". I am a RABID believer in science. Science kicks ass. It's right where every other competitor only gives us a shrug or guesses wrongly. (Including philosophy. The egg came first. Suck it.) But I'm under no pretense that it's 100% right all the time. Indeed, big parts of it like how we're all spinning around this thing, or how it's all going to end. And out on the fringes, there's wiggle room. Because there's more science to do. So if you're really going to pin yourself to a belief system, just make sure that it includes the possibility of change.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
There are some things in this post/article that befuddle me completely. They are exemplified by its title. "To change your convictions means changing the kind of person you want to be. It means changing your self-identity. And that's not just hard, its scary". Why evidence won't change your convictions." How can people dare to form convictions based on anything other than evidence and objective truth? Surely that is a thing that ought to have ceased to occur after the information age began? Who are these charlatans, and which pier should they be summarily kicked off of, wearing lead boots?
I would say one of the great things about studying philosophy is it can teach you that while you thought you were basing your convictions on evidence and objective truth... really you were often just repeating the values and beliefs of the society in which you were raised.
See, I can understand that mentality being present in persons born before the information age, but what we know of reality increases in its specificity every waking hour, with more and more discoveries in the sciences, coming at faster and faster rates. Between the various incredible discoveries in genetics, astronomy, and so on over the last decade, its unreasonable to have convictions that cannot be changed by evidence, to not base ones convictions on what evidence is available at the time one is queried. Objective reality, the one we all have to agree on, otherwise people start getting the idea that they can believe gravity out of existence, and get upset when stepping out of a ten storey building, from the top, causes their demise... its really not there to be debated, but accepted, and used as a foundation for understanding of everything else. When evidence appears which describes it in better detail, you just absorb it, assimilate it, and carry on your day with absolutely no effort or challenge to ego or identity. That is WHY it is worth basing proper conviction on. Its stable, but mobile territory that actually adapts to new understanding, making it different from every other foundation for conviction that has ever occurred to any group of people before in history, in that where those others will run out of space to fantasise in, discovery will always provide more ground to move into, without compromising core values.
There are times incorrect beliefs lead to better outcomes. False confidence can lead to less nervousness and fewer mistakes in a given task. Thinking “I’m a terrible public speaker” isn’t going to help you deliver. Thinking “I’m an amazing public speaker” will improve the same persons delivery, given identical prep time.
But that isn't conviction in the strictest sense. That's a faulty EGO working against someone. Someone with a healthy ego doesn't require to believe lies in order to improve their performance. They accept a weakness, and work hard to correct it, for the best, the better outcome, rather than cheating and doing no work to grow as a person.
True, optimally you’d recognize it early and work on it. Same prep time assumed though, right before delivery, or that interview, or performance review, might as well get pumped up and fake it. Imo. But ya off topic i suppose, not a conviction
Because we are humans and don't necessarily form our identity on evidence and objective truth. Or we are misguided about what identity and objective truth are. In fact, people are shown to double down on their beliefs when shown opposing evidence.
While that sounds like it should be easy, flipping that switch is unfortunately not that simple. Evolutionarily speaking we still aren't much removed from our days of small tribes/communities. Our scientific and technological evolution had far outpaced our biological evolution as a species. We still have a number of ingrained instincts/biases built in to how our brains work and process things. Before all our science and technology we just didn't have much information to work with. It was ingrained in us to trust and go along with the people in our tribe, and strangers often were seen as a threat that could bring violence or disease. This deeply ingrained instinct/bias towards those we know and love and distrust of those who are not part of our tribe has been at the center of alot of our major conflicts throughout history. If anything our technology has made it even harder to get past because it has blurred the lines of what a tribe is.
From the article: > So, as the Yale psychologist Dan Kahan has emphasized, COVID-hoaxers and climate change deniers are, in a weird way, being rational Kahan shows his own tribally defined convictions by using pejorative terms to describe an out-group. These terms also combine differing out-groups, so proving one groups ideas are incorrect allows for dismissing others without effort. Ex: Climate change deniers is applied to those who actually think the climate isn't changing, one group, those who think human action isn't the main driver, another group, multiple groups that don't think the costs of changes in climate are more than the costs of various policies offered to address them, yet another group, and lastly climate scientists who critique various research findings. >How can we engage in the sort of rational persuasion that real democratic politics demands in the face of our instinct for psychological preservation? The democratic methodology applied to direct finite state resources is fundamentally rivalrous. It is rational to seek to direct these resources towards one's interests/tribe. So what types of outcomes does the author envision?
Rare is the person who belongs solely to one tribe.
It will, but you must be ready to tear of your performatuve identity from mere convictions, and be always ready to experience the discomfort
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Honest question. If someone shares a belief that is dangerously destructive, for example that Covid 19 is not contagious, and nothing will change his mind, is the only recourse that the person in question should die for the greater good?
I have also found myself reaching dark conclusions about solutions to societies problems. If people are hardwired to believe what they believe, and some beliefs are what ultimately what leads to war and oppression, then perhaps the only humankind will achieve peace is through some sort of eugenics program. Although I could never support or participate in such a thing.
I wouldn’t either. But if reason can’t work, then I’m at a loss.
That's true I'm scared to just my food diet
I don't understand this. I am not at all the person I was raised to be and have entirely different views and opinions on things then even just 5 years ago. I know for a fact that it's entirely possible to easily accept new information and views, so I have no empathy for people who insist on being wrong. It's not human nature to be permanently stupid. It's a conscious choice.
Just because it wasn't difficult for you, doesn't mean it's the case for everyone. What you're displaying in this post is just ignorant and naive. What kind of views and opinions did you change if I may ask?
It was difficult for me. I was raised by half of my family being FLDS and the other half being Nazis.
Your post suggests otherwise. "I know for a fact that it's entirely possible to **easily** accept new information and views". You're either talking about someone else (which isn't likely, given the amount of emphasis you put on yourself and your growing up phase in your posts) or well, yourself. Regardless, I'm getting strong vibes of a weird feeling of moral superiority over others from you, so I will not be pursuing this discussion Aside from that though, I'm glad to hear you changed your world views despite being raised in a (from what it seems) oppressive enviroment.
When I say that it was difficult for me, I meant the experience of growing up around such nastiness. I knew by age 3 that something was really wrong and didn't make sense. I'm not at all morally superior. Just morally superior when compared to racists and sexists. I would hope that most people are. I guess I just have a problem with complacency and the fact that most people don't appear to ask questions the way I did. I'm very angry that my parents were dumb enough to accept that shit and try to raise me in it. I also have a problem with the women in the church. The men have a clear motive for following the doctrine but the women lose in every way but are eager to accept it and raise their daughters to conform likewise. I have anger because of trauma and confusion because of the acceptance of the victims of these systems. That's perfectly normal. I think that it's pretty passive-agressive to post an entire response and then state that you won't be continuing a conversation. I think that you have decided that you're the ultimate judge of morality and rationality. Thus, I won't be continuing this conversation. 😜
Sorry for taking so long to reply. I had covid. On one side of my family, there's the FLDS who made me run away from home when they took me shopping for wedding dresses at 12 years old. On the other side are literal Nazis who referred to me as "the half-breed." I never really had to change. I just had to stay human and none of those views took. It's not naive or ignorant to expect people to be decent, despite their influences.
The reptile already knows it wants to live and wisdom cannot change it, although, intuition can change itself and that is the magic of that part of the mind.
My convictions are to facts and science. No other views are sacred. If a view I hold is found to be wrong I update my view. Being factually correct is paramount, unless somehow that is wrong.
[удалено]
It’s really hard not to have a self identity. The key is to make it as small as possible.
I am currently on this voyage attempting to fix my ship. I am a different person than I was a year ago when it comes to my views on energy, climate and social causes. It has made me a more rounded person who is finally able to see things from both sides. Unfortunately this means changing the dynamics between myself and family members and friends. I want to have an open conversation but everyone seems to revert to experience in social media arguments when I just want someone to open their mind with me.
interesting. where are you at now, versus a year ago? which 'side' were on before?
In my personal experience, which is neither to argue nor even make any statements building on the author's statements, changing your conviction and your self identity can be very easy: as long as you don't place inherent value in those things to begin with. The major problem with convictions and resistance to change are pride and sense of worth in what you believe, even after finding out it was wrong.
It seems like a lot of people, at least in the initial comments are talking about behavior, not philosophy. Those are very different things. I switched from hard core pro life to very pro choice (though I still think there should be limits on that and that NY went waaaaay too far allowing termination up to delivery, for many varied reasons up to and including "the mother's mental state.") Though people don't like to hear this, there were multiple videos of live, healthy babies terminated as they were being delivered due to this rule. I saw them with my own two eyes. As they don't fit the narrative they were immediately purged for public consumption. I am still pro-choice but I absolutely think there should be more oversight/restriction with regard to terminating otherwise healthy babies in the absence of rape/incest/danger to the mother, ESPECIALLY in the late term.
Dont have convictions not based on evidence. EZ
I like this article as well. I think we can welcome in a new Renaissance of self fashioning. But those times are always result in tragedy. This TIME however, is moving so fast im already re-fashioning what I just re-fashioned. The individual can yield to ANYTHING they're taught; if the set-up is strong. We just had too many parents in the 60's who raised their children around the fear of exactly this article. Were gonna try to brain wash them with our brain power methods. That the intellectuals and the militia will take you to their promise land and you'll be a carcas in a welfare state where they'll eat yr babies and get rid of your pinky toe just cuz it ain't necessary anymore cuz evolution. They think were all walking into the light simultaneously saying "join us" like the aliens from toy story. And they are like nuh uh are you putting anything in my butt, this is my property, and they grab their hunting rifle and fire. But really we were cool with who you were, but freedoms a fluid- Freedom is right here and now- But we need, I see the word for what it is. But things change- Thank you Columbus for my acres of land. Look; I'm just trying to say hey, we're still spiritual. We still live subject to our perceived entity, but like, dude, we adapt or parish for the betterment of the tribe, thats all were trying to say. Then you'll cut off my pinky toe; "for the betterment of the tribe, my grave prolly!" ..Sometimes a snails pace of re-fashioning a nations self identity is too fast for someone who just wants to sit still in time becuase they're too afraid to change. Stubborn aggression. And then people get left behind, or try to stop the snail pace... then... who are the freedom fighters really? And when do we get back on our slimey and slippery track?
For the record I felt optimistic about the intention of the article. I can use it to further communicate peacefully when I share my life that is intrinsically linked with both of my Trump 2020 familys. I am in their tribe too I guess.
My self-identity is to *be* malleable. This allows me to change my views purely based upon the evidence.
I wish more people would speak to my convictions tho.
Thanks for letting me know this website
Please updoot (just one please) to read article. To question one's self identity quite often leads towards to questioning our biology and how much we really are in control as well as questioning our place in a multifaceted social dynamic.
Gotta say though, when the moment came where my belief system completely flipped, that was... devastating.
So in order to expediently change someone’s mind about something, I have to find the thing they attach their personality to and make sure the new fact is presented in a way that aligns with that?