Self-examination and revision of opinion. Does it happen and with whom?

[Jim]

Having challenged my own acceptance of some things, I wonder why people cannot do that for larger issues that they have taken the time and passion to object to. Is it the volume and complexity of the subject matter? Is it the time it would take to learn even the basics? Is it a reliance on a particular mindset that takes in and evaluates information on an emotional basis rather than an analytical basis? Is it some combination of those? Is it how personal an issue is for a person? Is it something I have not even considered?

Hasn’t that ever happened to you? Haven’t you ever put time and passion into objecting to something, without challenging your views about it? What were your reasons for it? Are you thinking that some other people might have reasons for not challenging their own views, different from any of your reasons?

I’ll try to think of examples of when I’ve done that, and what my reasons were.

 

[Jim]

Having challenged my own acceptance of some things, I wonder why people cannot do that for larger issues that they have taken the time and passion to object to. Is it the volume and complexity of the subject matter? Is it the time it would take to learn even the basics? Is it a reliance on a particular mindset that takes in and evaluates information on an emotional basis rather than an analytical basis? Is it some combination of those? Is it how personal an issue is for a person? Is it something I have not even considered?

I looked at the OP again, and one of your questions was “Is there a difference to the application, amount, extent, and quality of self-examination between groups that hold views based on evidence as opposed to those based purely on faith?”

I have some questions.
- What do you think you might learn by dividing people into those two categories, and asking for people’s personal opinions about that? Are you trying to learn something about prejudices across belief divides?
- Are you thinking that there might be some kind of cause and effect relationship between self-examination, and whether views are based on evidence or purely on faith? If so, it might be better to search for research about that, than to ask for people’s personal opinions about it.
- How would you sort people into those categories? What would you need to know about a person, to decide which category they are in?
- How would you measure the application, amount, extent, and quality of self-examination of each person, to compare them?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hasn’t that ever happened to you? Haven’t you ever put time and passion into objecting to something, without challenging your views about it? What were your reasons for it? Are you thinking that some other people might have reasons for not challenging their own views, different from any of your reasons?

I’ll try to think of examples of when I’ve done that, and what my reasons were.

I am not really looking to set anyone up. My questions are general and asking about observations others have made. I have given examples of my own actions and those of others that I have seen. I did not name names.

If you are that passionate about something don't you think it is something you should be familiar with?

I could not say what reasons people have and whether those reasons would be different from any I may have or have had. That is part of the reason I have questions. I am assuming there are some key reasons, but there are likely many reasons. What are some of the key reasons for this? Is it because, like my example, they wanted to believe? Is it something else?

I am not necessarily talking solely about challenging a person's own views either. Reviewing and verifying information is not necessarily a challenge to your views. It could be if those views are based largely or entirely on poor logic, poor understanding or false information. But even where the overall views are intact, using incorrect information could change how things are argued or result in a person realizing that there really isn't an issue. It could impact credibility too.

There are plenty of stories that relate to this that I heard as a child. One that was told to me in church was about a mother that did not want her son to play in a construction site. When the boy asked his mother why, she said it was because there were bears in there. His friends all laughed and told him there were no bears, so he played there and got seriously hurt. There are a number of lessons in that story, but decisions made on false information and the outcomes are certainly one of the lessons.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I looked at the OP again, and one of your questions was “Is there a difference to the application, amount, extent, and quality of self-examination between groups that hold views based on evidence as opposed to those based purely on faith?”

I have some questions.
- What do you think you might learn by dividing people into those two categories, and asking for people’s personal opinions about that? Are you trying to learn something about prejudices across belief divides?

No. I am trying to figure out how to get the correct information to different people that appear to assimilate information differently and wondering if that is possible in some case and why.

- Are you thinking that there might be some kind of cause and effect relationship between self-examination, and whether views are based on evidence or purely on faith? If so, it might be better to search for research about that, than to ask for people’s personal opinions about it.

It may be, but like you, I have posted my questions here regarding topics that interest me. I have looked at other information, but since we are in the field, this is like field research.

- How would you sort people into those categories? What would you need to know about a person, to decide which category they are in?

I am curious about the experiences of others and any thoughts they may have for practical application. I am not conducting formal research. I am not sorting people.

- How would you measure the application, amount, extent, and quality of self-examination of each person, to compare them?

I wouldn't, because I am not conducting formal research. I am asking questions to see what others have experienced, concluded or any insight that others may have. This is very qualitative and not a rigorous examination. If the observation is that people are using fake news, conspiracy theories, poor information, confused understanding and false information in attacking views different than there own, would you not be concerned and interested if there were patterns that might lead to resolution of the issues that lead to the observations? I may find that my observations are not that good and this is not going on, but from what I have experienced in debates and discussions over 25 years, I would bet against that.

Why the third degree? Are you seriously interested in these things or is there more to it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I looked at the OP again, and one of your questions was “Is there a difference to the application, amount, extent, and quality of self-examination between groups that hold views based on evidence as opposed to those based purely on faith?”

I have some questions.
- What do you think you might learn by dividing people into those two categories, and asking for people’s personal opinions about that? Are you trying to learn something about prejudices across belief divides?
- Are you thinking that there might be some kind of cause and effect relationship between self-examination, and whether views are based on evidence or purely on faith? If so, it might be better to search for research about that, than to ask for people’s personal opinions about it.
- How would you sort people into those categories? What would you need to know about a person, to decide which category they are in?
- How would you measure the application, amount, extent, and quality of self-examination of each person, to compare them?

What if, in looking outside at the scientific literature, I discover a publication or a number of publications that support the assertion that people do fall into groups based on how they use information, what that information is and how they apply it? Should that be ignored or should it be discussed? I have seen some similar discussions raised along those lines, but not about whether people review the information they base their positions on or whether the review those positions to see if they align with the best information.

Do you think it is a good idea that as much as 20% of voters may be casting their votes based on conspiracy theories? That is a significant number of voters and could easily be decisive in an election. Shouldn't we know why these people are doing that and if they ever bother to verify the information and modify their political opinions as a result?

I am not trying to change the world here or call anyone out. Just get people thinking about it. That may be all it takes for some. I never thought about it much when I was younger. It was after debating for some years and reading outside material that I began to consider it was an issue worth asking questions about. For myself as well as others.

 

[Jim]

Why the third degree? Are you seriously interested in these things or is there more to it?

Sorry. Thank you for answering my questions. I’ll be trying to think of examples from my own experience, and what my reasons might have been.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hasn’t that ever happened to you? Haven’t you ever put time and passion into objecting to something, without challenging your views about it? What were your reasons for it? Are you thinking that some other people might have reasons for not challenging their own views, different from any of your reasons?

I’ll try to think of examples of when I’ve done that, and what my reasons were.

What do you think? If someone is using information that you know to be poor or indicating that they do not understand what they stand for or against, wouldn't they be better off knowing? If you are debating them, wouldn't that make the debate and understanding more useful?

There is no reason to think that reviewing the validity of information would change someone's overall view. I am not suggesting that knowing geology better is going to result in people becoming Christian or running away from it. That is taking my questions way too far and outside of any useful scope. But if a person is arguing using the evidence of geology and that information is so far off that it makes no sense, wouldn't it be better that they know that. Does a person have some personal responsibility in vetting the information they use? Does it help cement an argument if a person claims to possess knowledge, but everything they assert and state indicates otherwise?

I am not suggesting that atheist or theists re-evaluate their entire belief system. What I am interested in is information that is used, how it is used and if there are patterns to that use. Is the observation that there seems to be some pattern valid? Have other people seen this too? Is it relevant to only certain types of disagreements? If they exist, is there a way to frame debate and discussion to get around that without being a jerk or coming off as arrogant? Is it simply that we have to recognize that some people do not evaluate the information they use and will use anything, so we just ignore them?

Is it wrong to want to know that there may be differences? Would knowing it help to reach people where differences are identified?

This may be getting well outside the scope I had in mind for the questions I asked and it may not be something that can be mined deeply here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry. Thank you for answering my questions. I’ll be trying to think of examples from my own experience, and what my reasons might have been.

I answered them to the best of my ability as someone that is not an expert in any field of human behavior or psychology, but still capable of making simple observations and asking questions. I was happy to answer them. I hope that those answers were useful.

To me it is very interesting, but digging deeply may be beyond the capabilities of this thread. It would be nice just that people think about it and maybe apply a little critical thinking to the information they use before they use it.

I know that out of date information can be applied by accident even when at one time it was valid. This is another example of using information that has become lower quality due to a lack of awareness of new information. This is not just a possibility, but I have seen it happen. While likely unintentional and easily fixed by others that are aware of the new information, it still falls in the same basket of review. That idea would not have occurred to me, except that you asked such good questions it came to mind while formulating answers to them. So, I appreciate your questions as well. The exchange has been beneficial to me and I hope that is mutual.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry. Thank you for answering my questions. I’ll be trying to think of examples from my own experience, and what my reasons might have been.

I actually liked your in depth line of questions in encouraging to think more on this. I was just concerned that I may have angered you in some way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry. Thank you for answering my questions. I’ll be trying to think of examples from my own experience, and what my reasons might have been.

There is a very famous example in entomology that was a long-held view.

The monarch butterfly that is so well-known to most of us, has sequestered toxins in its body from the milkweed that is its food supply and these make them unpalatable to birds. The bright orange color that people love and recognize is actually a warning saying, "Danger, Do Not Eat". There is a another species of butterfly called the viceroy that has the same color and very much looks like the monarch. For a very long time it was a common example in science education that the viceroy was edible to predators, but in mimicking the monarchs warning colors it was pretending it was nasty tasting. About 25 years ago, some entomologists realized that no one had tested this and it was assumed to be true, but not verified. Upon testing, they discovered that the viceroy is unpalatable to bird predators. Examination of the body chemistry verified that it too harbored foul-tasting toxins. Mimicry remains a valid description, but the type of mimicry was not the type that it was believed to have been for over 100 years. Not a major change, but a major issue regarding how that information had become widely recognized, yet untested and ultimately incorrect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hasn’t that ever happened to you? Haven’t you ever put time and passion into objecting to something, without challenging your views about it? What were your reasons for it? Are you thinking that some other people might have reasons for not challenging their own views, different from any of your reasons?

I’ll try to think of examples of when I’ve done that, and what my reasons were.

I was reviewing my responses and your posts and the question you ask above is an important one and I thought I would give an additional response to it.

That question covers something that seems to me to extend outside of the bounds of simple review of information and into an area where a person might be knowingly, perhaps passively, allowing information they know to be questionable or false, to persist in a debate or discussion. Like recognizing that what they said may not be the truth, but they let it stand rather than point it out or retract it.

I am not sure it fits in directly with review and revision as I have been describing it for this thread, but certainly is an important point to consider. It seems to be the sort of thing that I would expect in politics or political debates, but is not confined to that type of debate and discussion alone.

If a person has doubts about the information they are using, but still feels strongly about there position, I could see this sort of action taking place. I cannot think of a specific example that comes to mind, but it is probably not unique to any one position of the many familiar topics of debate.

 

[Jim]

What do you think? If someone is using information that you know to be poor or indicating that they do not understand what they stand for or against, wouldn't they be better off knowing? If you are debating them, wouldn't that make the debate and understanding more useful?

There is no reason to think that reviewing the validity of information would change someone's overall view. I am not suggesting that knowing geology better is going to result in people becoming Christian or running away from it. That is taking my questions way too far and outside of any useful scope. But if a person is arguing using the evidence of geology and that information is so far off that it makes no sense, wouldn't it be better that they know that. Does a person have some personal responsibility in vetting the information they use? Does it help cement an argument if a person claims to possess knowledge, but everything they assert and state indicates otherwise?

I am not suggesting that atheist or theists re-evaluate their entire belief system. What I am interested in is information that is used, how it is used and if there are patterns to that use. Is the observation that there seems to be some pattern valid? Have other people seen this too? Is it relevant to only certain types of disagreements? If they exist, is there a way to frame debate and discussion to get around that without being a jerk or coming off as arrogant? Is it simply that we have to recognize that some people do not evaluate the information they use and will use anything, so we just ignore them?

Is it wrong to want to know that there may be differences? Would knowing it help to reach people where differences are identified?

This may be getting well outside the scope I had in mind for the questions I asked and it may not be something that can be mined deeply here.

I would like very much to go into all of that more deeply with you. All that you said in that post interests me passionately.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would like very much to go into all of that more deeply with you. All that you said in that post interests me passionately.

That is my interest too.

This all started out of frustration over the observation that I was getting the exact same assertions, arguments and poor evidence from many different opponents to the theory of evolution. It was as if I was arguing with the same person using many different names.

It is not the ideology of a person that I am concerned with or even consider critical. It is those people that take extreme versions of whatever ideology they have embraced and then insist it be applied as explanations and reasons for the physical world or actions in the physical world. As I said, this could be in any human endeavor and I have seen examples in religion, politics and economics in large numbers. And from progressive, conservative and totalitarian political positions. Not so much from those that tend to be more libertarian. That observation may be a result of a limited data set, poor observation or it could be correct. I do not know.

I may or may not be here much or at all for a bit, but don't let that stop you from posting. I will be looking for them.

 

[Jim]

I may or may not be here much or at all for a bit, but don't let that stop you from posting. I will be looking for them.

I’ve been going in circles, trying to think of something to say that might help. I can think of some possible reasons for the attitudes and behavior that you’re wondering about, but before I discuss those, I would like to try to clarify our aims and purposes in discussing it, if that’s okay with you. Why is that behavior a problem for you? From studying your posts, it looks to me like the problem for you is that the behavior you’re wondering about gets in the way of other people knowing what you think you know. You’re trying to find out the reasons for that behavior, so you can find some way to get around it.

Is it just for people to know what you know, as an end in itself, without any aim or purpose beyond that? From what you’ve said, it looks to me like like there might be some other aims or purposes. For example, for the right president to be elected, or to stop some interpretations of the Bible from influencing public policy. Am I understanding that right? Can you think of any other possible reasons for wanting other people to know what you know? Maybe just generally, the more people know, the better?

I’m in a completely different place. I see people thinking that they know something, as a problem in itself, and part of what gets in the way of people learning from each other and from experience. Part of the light that I see in science, which people might learn from the human stories behind the revolution in physics, is not to think of our views and ways of thinking as things that we know, but only as models, mental devices that facilitate learning how to do things and make things. Another part of the light that I see in science is that it can be part of learning to know and love God. I see people thinking that they know things from science, and using that as an excuse and camouflage for unloving attitudes and behavior, as just as much a part of the problem, hiding the light in science and repelling people away from it, as people thinking that they know things from their scriptures.

My interest in the issue of people clinging stubbornly to their views, is not from wanting them to know what I know. It’s from wanting to help change that behavior. Also, now that I think of it, maybe because I think it gets in the way of what I’m trying to do. Also, understanding it better might help keep me from being confused and distracted by it.

 

[Jim]

I may or may not be here much or at all for a bit, but don't let that stop you from posting. I will be looking for them.

I’m ready now to try to answer your question. I’ve been thinking about times when I had a theory, and I didn’t like seeing possible counter-examples. For example, most of my life I’ve had some kind of theory about Who Rules The World. If I saw something poking holes in my theory, all I wanted to do was try to patch them up. The reason for that might have been because I liked my story, and maybe I was proud of it. I feel like there was more to it than that, but I can’t find words for it.

Another possible reason I see for people clinging to their views is because sometimes they use them to excuse unloving attitudes and behavior towards others, and giving up those views would mean some things they said and did were wrong.

Another reason I see for people clinging to their views is that they think they have to endorse those views, to feel welcome in some social circle.

A few days ago I had some new ideas about why people do what they do, and a thought came to me that I will never stop having new ideas about it. I need to learn to think about what to, without knowing everything there is to know about that.

 

[Martin]

I think some people take their opinions much too seriously. Opinions are just opinions, they can and should change in the light of new experience. They don't define who a person is.

 

[Jim]

What if, in looking outside at the scientific literature, I discover a publication or a number of publications that support the assertion that people do fall into groups based on how they use information, what that information is and how they apply it? Should that be ignored or should it be discussed?

If that was part of some honest and responsible research, I wouldn’t object to it. I will say though, that I don’t think that any honest and responsible research would have any interest in defining groups of people that way. I still don’t see how defining groups that way is relevant to how to communicate with people when their attachment to their views is getting in the way. In fact, I think that it creates useless distractions fro that purpose. Besides, I wasn’t objecting to grouping people according to how they use information, what that information is and how they apply it. What I was objecting to was imagining some groups of people who hold views based on evidence, and some other groups of people who hold views based purely on faith, picturing them as mutually exclusive and opposed to each other, and inviting people on your side of an imaginary dividing line to make depreciating speculations about the character and capacities of people on the other side.

 

[Jim]

What if, in looking outside at the scientific literature, I discover a publication or a number of publications that support the assertion that people do fall into groups based on how they use information, what that information is and how they apply it? Should that be ignored or should it be discussed?

If that was part of some honest and responsible research, I wouldn’t object to it. I will say though, that I don’t think that any honest and responsible research would have any interest in defining groups of people that way. I still don’t see how defining groups that way is relevant to how to communicate with people when their attachment to their views is getting in the way. In fact, I think that it creates useless distractions fro that purpose. Besides, I wasn’t objecting to grouping people according to how they use information, what that information is and how they apply it. What I was objecting to was imagining some groups of people who hold views based on evidence, and some other groups of people who hold views based purely on faith, picturing them as mutually exclusive and opposed to each other, and inviting people on your side of an imaginary dividing line to make depreciating speculations about the character and capacities of people on the other side.

 

[Jim]

@Dan From Smithville Just now I went back and read all the posts in this thread, and now I’m regretting what I said about my objection to some things you said.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’ve been going in circles, trying to think of something to say that might help. I can think of some possible reasons for the attitudes and behavior that you’re wondering about, but before I discuss those, I would like to try to clarify our aims and purposes in discussing it, if that’s okay with you. Why is that behavior a problem for you? From studying your posts, it looks to me like the problem for you is that the behavior you’re wondering about gets in the way of other people knowing what you think you know. You’re trying to find out the reasons for that behavior, so you can find some way to get around it.

Is it just for people to know what you know, as an end in itself, without any aim or purpose beyond that? From what you’ve said, it looks to me like like there might be some other aims or purposes. For example, for the right president to be elected, or to stop some interpretations of the Bible from influencing public policy. Am I understanding that right? Can you think of any other possible reasons for wanting other people to know what you know? Maybe just generally, the more people know, the better?

I’m in a completely different place. I see people thinking that they know something, as a problem in itself, and part of what gets in the way of people learning from each other and from experience. Part of the light that I see in science, which people might learn from the human stories behind the revolution in physics, is not to think of our views and ways of thinking as things that we know, but only as models, mental devices that facilitate learning how to do things and make things. Another part of the light that I see in science is that it can be part of learning to know and love God. I see people thinking that they know things from science, and using that as an excuse and camouflage for unloving attitudes and behavior, as just as much a part of the problem, hiding the light in science and repelling people away from it, as people thinking that they know things from their scriptures.

My interest in the issue of people clinging stubbornly to their views, is not from wanting them to know what I know. It’s from wanting to help change that behavior. Also, now that I think of it, maybe because I think it gets in the way of what I’m trying to do. Also, understanding it better might help keep me from being confused and distracted by it.

It is not just knowing what I know, because my personal knowledge and perspective has its limits too. But that there is something to know that goes beyond the emotional need to support what is believed and seeking any remedy to provide that support. The belief I am talking about are those concepts associated and often in opposition to concepts where there is a strong base of known information that has logical and rational explanations. Using those things closest to me, I see people making assertions that have no factual basis to counter issues that are based in facts. In addition, the logic of the thinking employed to support those assertions is often flawed and full of fallacies. The appearance is that these people feel their core belief is being challenged and out of fear, ignorance and desire, will readily accept information that is erroneous. They want to believe it, because they see it as opposing a view they consider to be dangerous. Considering how often the same erroneous information resurfaces makes it difficult to accept that it has been reviewed and compared to what is known in science. In most cases, it is also clear that proponents of that propensity do not understand the science they are in opposition to or that it really says nothing about their core beliefs.

Discussions and debates are supposed to help inform us and when one side is repeatedly suggesting to the other side that they need to seek better sources to base their arguments on, and this is so obviously rejected without review it can be frustrating.

My concern over this and the problems it causes are the perpetuation of erroneous information and that it is perpetuated by, perhaps well-intentioned, people that keep the cycle of ignorance alive by continually turning to it.

Common sense and popular knowledge have their place and are sometimes useful sources of thinking and information, but they can also be places were a lot of poor logic and false ideas thrive. Often popular knowledge about historical figures or events does not reflect information that is the result of scholarly research. Washington did not chop down a cherry tree. Billy the Kid was not a criminal mastermind that had shot 21 men before he was 21.

Perhaps much of this information has no direct impact on our daily lives and a person can live successfully without ever knowing much science or specific facts of science, but the process of replacing valid knowledge with erroneous information does not stop in one place and can take place at any level. Even levels that do impact the daily lives of people. Really, there is no way to stop it, but there are ways to manage it and minimize it. Getting people to think about the information that they believe to be true and review it for verification is one way to do that.

I think the problem is far larger than getting people to know what I think I know. I do not think that it stops with me, just because I think I know something.

I will probably have to leave it here for now and come back later to add more.