This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What is it that you guess someone is thinking when s/he holds an opposing view to yours? What's the hang up ? Choose your favourite topic.
What is it that you think someone is thinking when s/he hold an opposite opinion to yours on your most strongly held belief? If you give them credit for being intelligent and sincere what do you think the obstacle might be to seeing things the same way- on global warming, on terrorism, on plutonomy, on education?
Do they know something that you don't?
Are they just stubborn or under educated on the topic?
Are they putting too much weight on one set of facts?
Are they protecting something that they hold dear?
Are they failing to integrate an important piece of intormaiton?
Do they have an advantage for themselves in holding that opinion?
Please share any reasons or insights of your own.
Closing Statement from Debra Smith
There are 10 steps.
Most crucial is the tenth so it is where I begin:
10. That still small voice that starts to niggle and ask us if it is WE who have the rigid schemas or stereotypes of flaw in the logic. What signals us to an invalid schema? Where the conversation (and our personal growth) goes from there is determined by how we answer this- the BIG question.
1. Our understanding of misalignment usually dawns to us in stages.
2.If we are not in instant alignment we usually assume that we have not expressed ourselves clearly or that we are talking about different things. We remind ourselves that words are inaccurate things and try harder for better metaphors or better logic.
3. We assume we would agree if we were on the same page.
4. We have individual styles of communicating with some believing that you speak less when you know more and others believing that you should keep trying to change the words, the metaphors and the logical approach.
5. We may reach a stage where we remind ourselves that no one knows the definative truth. We ask if their information is accurate, is it salient to the discussion is it an important piece of the puzzle.
6.But -confirmational biases creep in and we begin to feel as " I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" Now I can easily confront myself- language still can be a precise, perfect tool. We try some more.
7. We begin to suspect that something else is at work in this process. We may start to feel emotions like anger, frustration, or sadness. We wonder what's wrong with us or our communication abilities or what's wrong with them?
8. We start to wonder about their world view. What is there schema like? How do they construct their world view?
9. We wonder how diligently they have constructed their world view. We may wonder about their built in traits - are they an introvert or an extravert, are they by nature open to information. are they conscientious in gathering the information and is it valid, are they basically an agreeable person or a curmudgeon Or maybe they're just plain neurotic?
10.
Henry Camp
Debra Smith 200+
One request for clarification:Make sure you share with them what you get from them accepting (?)
I don't understand that part.
Debra Smith 200+
In a recent conversation about Palestine on this site, I thought a debater was arguing in a very narrow way for one party and against another. Astime went on he slowly revealed that he had deeply studied the tactics and the beliefs of one side. He demonstrated to me that he was deeply concerned that many people had a misconception about how benign a force that the world was dealing with.
While I have not been entirely won over to his perspective- this situation made me realize that I needed to give him time to focus and sharpen his argument for it to be fully expressed.
I think he made assumptions that those who were arguing with him were focused on the same vision he was and that we were naive and reckless in our approach to the situation.
This leads me to reask my questions:
What is it that you guess someone is thinking when s/he holds an opposing view to yours? What's the hang up ? Choose your favourite topic.What is it that you think someone is thinking when s/he hold an opposite opinion to yours on your most strongly held belief? If you give them credit for being intelligent and sincere what do you think the obstacle might be to seeing things the same way- on global warming, on terrorism, on plutonomy, on education?
Do they know something that you don't?
Are they just stubborn or under educated on the topic?
Are they putting too much weight on one set of facts?
Are they protecting something that they hold dear?
Are they failing to integrate an important piece of intormaiton?
Do they have an advantage for themselves in holding that opinion?
Please share any reasons or insights of your own.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
I am also paritiviptaing in that conversation and like the way differences have been gandled..even very controversial statements have been responded to with euqanimity and tajken heda on insteda of being ignored
It's beeen edifying..time consuming..but edifying ..
I think that conversation has beena model of how civility can work to surface truth and bring clarity.
I joined that conversation to learn..I often do that and I did learn agreat deal through the many links provided and as you note the edepth of expertise of many participants. t allowed me to do some serious thinking and to a rrive at aperspective that is informed .
I thin kit worked because it has been a process..an ongoing inuriy and exchnage rather than effort to reach a consensus. I certainly feel that my investment there was worthwile and that I learned a lot not just about the palestine-israeli conflict but about ways of navigating strong differences of opinion civily.
Debra Smith 200+
I agree that it is a wonderful , civil and enlightening conversation but you have forgotten the parts that were deleted it seems.
Helen Hupe 30+
Debra Smith 200+
http://youtu.be/YICLgFnCntU
Or if you prefer the original anthem here is Tom Petty's version:
http://youtu.be/nUTXb-ga1fo
Debra Smith 200+
Now you are invited to look at all the logic and the steps ( which may not be in lock step for everyone or anyone) so far to see where you agree andwhere you disagree.
We have come up with a tenth step though and that is:
10. That still small voice that starts to niggle and ask us if it is WE who have the rigid schemas or stereotypes of flaw in the logic.We ask ourselves what would signal us to such an invalid schema?Where the conversation (and our personal growth) goes from there is determined by how we answer this- the BIG question.
Julie Ann 10+
To use an analogy, suppose you have a pet dog and I have a cat. You think that your dog is the only true animal, I think my cat is the only true animal. The reality is that someone else may have a budgie, or a fish, turtle, worm, spider, iguana, whatever. They are all valid animals and this menagerie is only a tiny fraction of all the animals, known and unknown, that make up the animal kingdom. Then we can see groupings as birds, reptiles etc or threads of similarities between dinosaurs and birds, for example.
I suppose this also includes the many negative and destructive ideas. The outcomes of those are apparent but I don't always understand the reasons. Maybe they are part of the human reality but it would be nice if they were not.
Debra Smith 200+
The point of this dialogue is to explore the reasons behind the urge to change someone else's opinion and to discover the stages we go through to make the thought processes more immediately obvious for some of us who are not so egoless. If you have a chance to read through the thoughtful voices on this thread - I think you will see some great insights and people taking responsibility for their approach.
Julie Ann 10+
Also, ideas are dynamic and the fluidity arises from the constantly changing input and individual awareness. The input may include discussions which present different viewpoints and which they may need time to process, integrate with other input and adjust the viewing angle, so to speak. So, at any given moment in time, one set of ideas may prevail, and another set may prevail at another time, but that adjustment comes from within and may take time.
So in short, the influences and the individual behind the ideas are most fascinating. I hope this is not too muddled :-) Cheers.
Debra Smith 200+
Julie Ann 10+
Debra Smith 200+
Debra Smith 200+
Julie Ann 10+
Julie Ann 10+
Debra Smith 200+
My point in relating this story is that I think I pushed his schemas too hard- so hard in fact- rather than let them break- he "took his ball and went home' - that is how I rebuffed him at the time. He was upset, angry, defensive-- and I should have seen the signs-- but I rebuffed him and now he is no longer here. I was enjoying the exchange and the battle of wits and I was not sensitive to his experience.
My additional quetion to keep this discussion vital is: to all of you in the context of this discussion :If you are arguing GLOBAL WARMING (insert favourite topic here)- what do you think the other person's conviction is that stops them from seeing your 'reason". Please try to do the same for your favourite topic- What is it that you assume the other person is defending- is denying or is convinced of that you keep pushing against???
Debra Smith 200+
1. Our understanding of this phenomenon usually dawns to us in stages
2.If we are not in instant alignment we ususally assume that we have not expressed ourselves clearly or that we are talking about different things. We remind ourselves that words are weak and inaccurate things and try harder for better metaphors or better logic.
3. We assume we would agree if we were on the same page.4. We have individual styles of communicating with some believing that you speak less when you know more and others believing that you should keep trying to change the words, the metaphors and the logical approach.
5. We may reach a stage where we remind ourselves that no one knows the definative truth. We ask if their information is accurate, is it salient to the discussion is it an important piece of the puzzle.
6.But confirmational biases creep in and we begin to feel as Alan Greenspan put it " I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"Now I can easily confront myself- language still can be a precise, perfect tool, Greenspan's words convey the idea perfectly! We try some more.
7. We begin to suspect that something else is at work in this process. We may start to feel emotions like anger, frustration, or sadness. We wonder what's wrong with us or our communication abilities or what's wrong with them?
8. We start to wonder about their world view. What is there schema like? How do they construct their world view?
9. We wonder how diligently they have constructed their world view. We may wonder about their built in traits - are they an introvert or an extravert, are they by nature open to information. are they conscientious in gathering the information and is it valid, are they basically an agreeable person or a curmudgeon Or maybe they're just plain neurotic?
10
Tim Colgan 50+
I'm watching a course on the American Civil War. Although I always had an interest in history, wars always seemed like the wrong thing to study. But this course is informative in surprising ways.
Here's one class (under an hour) that is particularly interesting:
A Southern World View: The Old South and Proslavery Ideology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRfByLRO5xs
If anyone is interested in watching and discussing it please do.
What makes it particularly interesting are the descriptions of how people built up rationalizations for slavery.
Hope to hear from you
Debra Smith 200+
So that we can get maximum input and bring the insights all together would it bother you if I start a new post with it? I think the fthread ormat is too poor and complicated for people to find this.
Please do not think for one minute that I am saying it doesn't belong on the thread here- it absolutely does but it has so much to offer I want to exploit its whole potential.
Tim Colgan 50+
Debra Smith 200+
If you change your mind- i'd be willing to post it.
natasha nikulina 50+
When i am facing an opposing view,my first guess- we don't understand each other, we are talking about different things,if I managed to convey my idea, s/he would probably agree. And also, I try to keep in mind famous Lao Tzu's words:
" He who knows does not speak; who speaks does not know."
It helps you to understand that, actually non of us is a proud possessor of truth, and speach is a clumsy thing, a badly made tool, but it's what we have, so ''be humble though" .
I remember words from Rebecca Saxe Talk, which pleased my "confirmation bias"
as Alan Greenspan put it " I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"
Now I can easily confront myself- language still can be a precise, perfect tool, Greenspan's words convey the idea perfectly! : )
Debra Smith 200+
Am I right in apprehending that you find the process to be in stages? Excellent addition to the conversation!
Most of us seem to feel that it is initially just a matter of the right words. When my kids were tiny and they were trying to tell me something and I did not understand what they were saying i would tell them that my brain did not yet understand the picture in their brain and then I would ask them to try to use different words so that I could see the picture too.
Most of us agree in theory that 'none of us is the proud possessor of truth' and yet in practice most of us can bruise 'the other' with the appearance that we are pretendng we do. In reality- I think this part goes back to words. Many who appear dogmatic are simply trying to lay out what they know so that it can be compared in the light of day to what 'the other' knows. That is -if they are still open at all.
I loved the insight that you share about basic philosophy, Natasha! So often literature affects us profoundly- especially if we read it when we were young. Other experiences affect us too. For example when I was young I couldn't comprehend why intelligent women loved soap operas. In my judgmentalness of youth- I decided that every 'soap opera' problem of life could simply be solved by expressing your feelings and speaking clearly.- YIKES- not quite the solution after all!
You, however, absorbed the message that the wiser person was the one who did not speak. Fascinating isn't it that we can be so impacted to behave in opposite ways by something that impacts our hearts and minds at just the right time?
My only problem with the Greenspan quote is that in my observation many people do clearly understand what was said- the owner just doesn't open up sufficiently to understand that their words did not have the impact that they hoped they would. 'You don't understand me" is the cry of every adolescent and perhaps that can be applied to human development.
Helen Hupe 30+
Debra Smith 200+
That is a great stance. Are you always able to maintain it? Many of us have things we are hugely interested in and have spent many years studying so that we are working hard to find valid new pieces to the puzzles we love. We end up having a lot of ideas and love to discuss them with others who have different views.
Helen Hupe 30+
Debra Smith 200+
Thanks for joining us, Helen and for your insights.
Zdenek Smith 100+
One is lack of information about what is being discussed. People make assumptions or use common sense to create their beliefs. This can be relatively easily solved by looking together for more information and discussing the findings but it can be harder to do so for historic events with less evidence.
Second problem is how people come to believe that x is the truth. Basically, people have different thresholds of how much evidence they need and what kind of evidence they require in order for their mind to start believing in something. For example, some people believe in miracles while others do not. These people differ in how much "evidence" they need to make a conclusion about whether something is a miracle or not. It is then very difficult to prove to someone that there is no miracle because of the low threshold they have in accepting miracle as a fact? For some, a picture with a fuzzy "ghost" is all they need.
I hope that makes some sense.
Most likely there are other things that affect this.
Good topic =)
Debra Smith 200+
Genuine thanks for your insights.
Deb
Zdenek Smith 100+
I mentioned how some people don't need much proof or evidence to believe in something. I also realized that sometimes it is the other way around.
For example, a few conspiracy theorist do not believe that NASA landed on the Moon. They don't believe despite the enormous size of evidence from all fields of science, from actual samples brought back, from scientists around the globe that participated or observed that mission and from world powers like Russia who would never recognize this if it was not a fact.
I am still trying to understand why these people believe that the Moon mission videos we have happened in Hollywood studio? Do they have a hidden agenda? Do they want to feel important that they know something we do not? What do you think? =)
How can you make them believe?
Debra Smith 200+
Evidence is an important part of what we are considering here. What is considered evidence and what is enough evidence? It really appears to have different criteria for many people. This is in part why I am so grateful for my educaton. I do not think that you have to be educated to be wise but I think education sure helps many of us learn how to think critically. I also helped me to be OK with just not knowing the answer. I just chalk it up to not having enough data. It doesn't mean that i am stupid or unworthy- there's just not enough data. I have gotten very comfortable with saying "i don't know."
This may be odd but I think it often has a lot to do with people's sense of authority. Some people will not trust anything from 'official sources' while others trust them implicitly. Some people blindly follow authority while others will follow anything from any other unofficial source.
In our knowing personal experience can be over or under estimated just as it can be for everyone else.
Zdenek Smith 100+
I think it should be taught in schools that saying "I don't know" is acceptable or even encouraged if one does not have enough knowledge or understanding.
Tim Colgan 50+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Debra Smith 200+
Tim Colgan 50+
The confirmation bias aspect seems like part of a bigger picture. It seems that what we all do is construct a story in our mind that explains life to us. Each aspect of that story is a piece of a puzzle. If any piece is threatened, then we will need to reconstruct the whole puzzle. So we do what we can to sustain each element just as it is.
What do you think?
Debra Smith 200+
Debra Smith 200+
Tim Colgan 50+
Debra Smith 200+
This is also where the anxiety and or pain can arise. It takes something that hits and breaks those filters to change our minds unless it comes from some hugely credible source which can simply be a major epiphany. It is often referred to almost spiritually as: seeing the light.
Tim Colgan 50+
Which gets back to my point. Can we think without narratives? Or substitute symbols. Can we think without symbols?
Debra Smith 200+
Addition; Tim- I do think that some people doing science at the cutting edge of their field can experience a reversion to a sort of openness that takes them back to a way of thinking that can be very accomodating to new information. It is as though a few reach a stage of getting a more powerful microscope so that there is more room to see the spaces where new things fit. -Another metaphor- I know.
Debra Smith 200+
Tim blackburn 30+
on another note i think we NEED some form of symbols to rationalize the world around us.
Debra Smith 200+
I am not familiar with Terrence McKenna. Can you tell us who he is and what filed he is in? The idea you present is interesting though.
I invite you to tell us more about symbols and rationalizing the world.
Tim Colgan 50+
But with that model we could think not so much as untangling, but simply as fine tuning of the filters.
Debra Smith 200+
.Addition: Tim, I have been going about my work thinking about your ideas and questions about symbols. What if at the very end of the neuronal branch dedicated to a concept or group of concepts there are the inputs that are subliminal- in precise meaning below the threshhold- are milling about- something someone said, a bit of reading you once did, a bit of stimulus your brain isn't sure how to categorize- and they coalesce in a metaphor- or a first guess at what something is or could be? Maybe it is in metaphor because it is the language of image before we learned to talk? This might be just ramblings so just flush it out of your mind if it isn't helpful.My own research in psych and neuro had to do with 'gut reaction' and what that actually was in terms of what was happening in the brain. My Honours Thesis advisor was the head of the computer science department and we did some fascinating stuff.
Edit:
A link to Ramashandran talking about synesthesia (courtesy of Krisztian - with thanks)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb-fjxmyTJc
second half:
http://youtu.be/8zIkWOnhRRY
Debra Smith 200+
Revision: I am SLIGHTLY acquainted with Kandinsky's work through a documentary I once watched about his life. Would you happen to have access to an image or a poem that we could share here? It would be great to have that included in the discussion to see if it infomrs our ideas of the affects of synesthesias.
Did you ever experience synesthesia? Most people still have some residual even if we never notice it. For example when asked to draw something like the sound Uluuulu- almost everyone draws a curvy shape. If asked to draw a shape for Wittgenstien it would likely be much sharper and pointier. I would love to hear any experiences you or acquaintences have had pertaining to this.
Debra Smith 200+
Please- anyone who is reading- jump in and help us to play with these ideas!
Debra Smith 200+
I would invite you to illustrate or add to any of the threads I start with anything- video,poetry or art that you choose to anytime because I know it would add so much to all of our experiences and broaden our knowledge and understanding.
There is a great book that will help you understand much more about your experience if you ever wish to explore it. It is called "The man who tasted shapes"
EDIT: The name of the author is Richard E. Cytowic, MD. It is an easy read of less than 250 pages.
Debra Smith 200+
I wish we could have the pictures open in the midst of the discussion so that our brains could have this food for thought.
More than that, the vividness that I can see must be magnificent in real life. It must have been wonderful to stand before the canvasses.
I wish you pale blue spots in the glare of morning lights when you wake up!
Debra Smith 200+
I hope it is alright that I cut and posted your first posting about Kandinsky to a new thread that I have started on synesthesias. I did not post your next and more personal expression but I hope that you will join there too and add those experiences if you are comfortable to do so. I think the artists among us need a place to colour our world and this thread might be a start.
Tim Colgan 50+
The brain adapts to some foundational principles such as these to build up higher level constructs. Perhaps the same filter structures are used for stimuli of different types (color, shape, sound, etc). Thus the phenomena of synesthesia. Metaphors upon metaphors leading to complex thought.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate.html
Debra Smith 200+
I have to cogitate on it for awhile but let's add the idea that the mind is never tabula rasa. It comes with a temperment at least. There is a lot of credible evidence that the brain is prewired for tendencies toward (OCEAN) openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion/intraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
Debra Smith 200+
Thanks!
Tim Colgan 50+
Tim Colgan 50+
Let's continue the line of reasoning and see if we can work our way back to your original question.
So, again, our brain is a complex adaptive filter which is programmed by experience to recognize basic elements - shapes, colors, smells, sounds. And further programmed to create more complex filters which use these elements as building blocks to recognize more complex things - trees, horses, houses, etc. In software there's a concept called object-oriented programming which does a similar thing. Simple objects are combined in a hierarchical fashion to construct more complex objects.
Does this make sense so far?
Debra Smith 200+
PS I loved the Tabula Media Rasa - it really made me think back to my latin classes 9 million years ago.
Tim Colgan 50+
Think about the ride home. Normally we cruise along in autopilot. The outputs to the conscious mind are only the exceptions to the typical trip. A bird flying across our view. A car stopping suddenly in front of us. But our adaptive filter has internalized the standard route and only deviations from the norm are addressed. And the filter has absorbed every sensory pattern. The images. The feel of each curve. The smells at each stage.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Now take it to a higher level. Apply the filter to our world-view. Our internalized map of life.
Debra Smith 200+
This is a great boon to allowing the brain to grow and to use energy wisely. It also represents an interesting development in our thought process.Initially stimuli from the environment can be - sub limen- below threshold. When they demand enough attention of us they reach threshold or limen.
Then we divert attention to the issue at hand- you didn't ay much attention to routes when your Mom was driving. Then it is our turn and suddenly we wondered HOW THE HECK DO WE DRIVE? Do you remember first getting behind the wheel? I initially wonderd how I could steer AND put on the directional signal!
Once we get to mastery (mastery is that rut I was referring to or a pathway so worn in the brain that all the neurons just fire in sequence) it appears that we begin to allow those stimuli to go back below the limen of attention. Just as you said, only the exceptional things then drag attention to the activity.
OK - Your turn!
Debra Smith 200+
You bring up a very important observation. Did you know that many Native Americans are phenomenal at working at great heights? That is believed to be because the were raised in the woods (I am not sure it remains true in this generation- I learned this 25 years ago). Stucies indicated that their brains were formed by the environment in which they grew up and it allowed them to have no fear of heights and to be able to be stable and confident on the small beams.
This speaks, I think to your point about grids within grids. Those grids shape us just as we shape them. Maybe it is a self verifying and closing processes.
Great stuff- keep your insights coming!
Zdenek Smith 100+
My understanding is that the further we go back in time, the more rigid kind of thinking we will encounter (with some differences between cultures and places).
For example, early people had many rules and traditions to protect a way of life because certain rituals and rules worked for them for centuries and allowed them to survive. For example, cattle was part of family's wealth so a great deal of effort went to pass all information about what exactly to do with cattle, how to trade it, what to expect when a women was to be married (how many cows were traded) and so on. National Geographic has some great stories about tribes in Africa that do so even today.
Also, people were afraid of many natural phenomenas like illnesses and disasters so they had strict rituals and rules to follow in order to please gods or minimize the risks.
In this century people have access to array of information and they learn so much more about the world (Wikipedia, TED, blogs, Twitter and so on are a few examples) which allows them to change their beliefs (not everyone does). Workplace is also changing at ever greater speed. Unlike in the past where most people had one or two jobs their whole life (or attended their little farm/field) nowadays people change job even every year. In personal life the impact of smart phones, the way we communicate with each other and government forces people to constantly adapt. That change seem to be increasing over time.
Of course, there are exceptions in both the past and in the present. Today, some people try to resist change by not using the Internet much, moving out of larger cities and going back to nature. However I see most people are making more connections, engaging in changing the world through science or social media?
Perhaps you are more referring to freedom people in the past theoretically had to discover unknown paths or places that no one ever went? =)
Tim Colgan 50+
Assuming there is an external reality, do we really internalize reality or merely build an internal model of it? And what is our model built of? Isn't it merely an heirarchical, or perhaps a mesh of simpler elements (shapes, words, stories, etc...)? And can we say that our model is true? What does it mean to be a true model?
In science a true model is one which can predict an outcome. Couldn't a true model of reality be defined as one which yields desired results? In science every model has it's limitations. Newtonian physics yields to quantum physics yields to ___? In life every model has it's limitations. Myth yields to religion yields to enlightened self interest yields to ___?
And the thing is that even today Newtonian physics is useful much more often than quantum physics.
In the end, I don't think there is any universal, true model of reality. But I like mine. And I'll defend it against anyone who can take me on.
Debra Smith 200+
I agree that we can only model the external reality- after all we only have one tiny peephole view into the universe from one lonely place in geography. How could we have more than a model?
Everything we do not experience first hand is even more removed from 'felt knowledge' (have you come across that phrase in your reading?)I think our model is a matrix built within the physical limitations of our endowments. If our Mom's ate well and were not poluted with toxins we have a pretty good shot of getting a good set of organs including a healthy brain. Some of us will inherit a brain that is bigger in some areas, more well developed in others and less fertile in some areas. Within those endowments we begin to layer the heirarchy you refer to. Guesses and metaphors are layered on the structure that we have. Metaphor and words interact and reinforce each other.
As to your quesiton about a true model- I guess I think its a lot moe like art. It is a representation of the universe. It is an impresionist or a Picaso or a Coubert but it is not a photograph and it is not a 3d hollogram.
Edit: Well maybe it is a hollogram!!!
Your serve!
Tim Colgan 50+
I think our rigidness evolved out of necessity. Yet a life of spontaneity is such an appealing thought. And there is definitely much need to think outside the box to solve the world's problems.
How do you think we can achieve balance?
Tim Colgan 50+
That's about all I had to say on this topic...
... but there is one thing I might add.
Perhaps Revett's model is newtonian and your's is quantum. But it seems like he's had a lot of success at achieving his goals with his model. And you've had a lot of success at achieving your goals with your model.
Debra Smith 200+
Tim Colgan 50+
Helen Hupe 30+
Kristofer Björnson 10+
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqONzcNbzh8
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
Debra Smith 200+
Can you share any insights into your experiences with cogntive dissonance or with attribution error either personally or by experience with others? I would be fascinated to know what you think the blockage or the gap is between your point of view on the most important opinions you have and someone who holds an utterly contrary view?
PS My MA is in Social Personality Psych and I completed the requirements for Neuroscience as well.
Kristofer Björnson 10+
In addition I have allways loved to read books, searching for information on the internet, following (but not so much contributing to) discussions on forum boards, etc. And all this information gathering together with the accomanying change of views have not so much felt very unconfortable. Except that maybe some questions I have thought about during for example my education in physics sometimes shaked my intuition about the world to the point of nausea.
But apart from the completely world view changing exeptions I don't think it has been very uncomfortable to change my view on things as long as I havn't taken an explicit stance on the subject. However, I think that the more uncomfortable situations are those times I find myself wrong on something I explicitly have stated to believe to be true. An obvious explanation for why that might be is that I have to admit to someone else that I were wrong, but I think there is something more to it. Because I have a feeling that having explicitly stated it, also makes it harder for me to change my opinion even without expressing that I have changed my opinion. Moreover, even if I have explicitly stated something to someone I maybe even won't meet again I have a feeling that it would be harder for me to change my opinion. I can´t think of any examples from my life that confirms this at the moment, but I think it has some relevance as to when it would be difficult for me to change my opinion.
These thoughts are all a bit vauge and just an atempt to reflect upon myself. Maybe you have some intersting insight here?
Debra Smith 200+
You have shared that you were a child who really gathered a lot of information to make any decision about how you felt or what you believed. This is consistent with being an introvert which is one of the traits that scientist believe is born with a child. An introvert is usually more quiet and tends to really think through what they believe and holds his own counsel.
When you are sufficiently certain of your thoughts and decisions you are ready to share it with the world. If the ideas are not really central to your life they are easily added to subtracted from or changed.
You have noticed that the harder part is when you have put your weight of belief on something and new information threatens that interpretation. THIS is exactly what we were talking about in terms of schema destruction and a great illustration of it. You are also bringing in fresh point that there is something to do with the fact that you stated it publically. -This is also an additional piece of the puzzle!
Do you believe that as a child you were trying to take your first verbal steps with certainty and now to appear uncertain or wrong has a big impact on how you percieve yourself?
Sincere thanks for the strength you demonstrate with your openess and transparency with us. Your insights are moving this discussion forward
Kristofer Björnson 10+
My style of communication have therefore much changed from not saying anything, into saying "what do you think", "what if it is like this", "I have had this experience, have you had the same", "I think this is an interesting view point", and so forth.
I don't know. Maybe this is nothing other than a precautious strategy for avoiding cognitive dissonance because I often avoid to state any opinion in this sense.
This doesn't mean that I never state any opinions, but just that I tend not to as long as it seems more productive to discuss things more generally.
Debra Smith 200+
previous experience
salience
imporance of the perceived outcome
information available
HORMONES!
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Debra Smith 200+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Debra Smith 200+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
what if the other person denies a certain viewpoint not based on its correctness or incorrectness, but because it is inconvenient. if it was true, it would hurt his/her self image, feeling of safety, calmness of the soul or be disruptive to their life in some other way.
in this case, convincing that person is next to impossible, the arguments will be dishonest, evasive, aggressive, personal, dismissive, and so on.
Debra Smith 200+
When these are my guesses it always make me wonder at some distant corner of my mind if I could be doing the same thing. When the conversations devolve in the way you describe do you end up feeling as rotten as I do?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
however. interesting question that what if we do the same. how to detect that? how can one detect such denial in oneself? it is even possible, or we deny the fact that we might deny something? if you understand what i mean. is there any training for that? a little ring in the head?
Debra Smith 200+
The tricky thing is that schemas can sit side by side in our brain and an experience in one domain- the issues of free market for example can inflence the schemas about how we fit in the world, or how communication should work. Whenever we internally use the word "should' we are probably dealing with a pretty rigid schema. Please take a look at what I have shared here to see if it makes sense and give me your feedback!
Tom Comerford 50+
When someone appears credible and rational, then I want to hear his or her rebuttal of my opinion. Only then am I challenged to learn more, analyze more, and possibly change my opinion. I really value those interactions.
Debra Smith 200+
Comment deleted
Tim Colgan 50+
Debra Smith 200+
Yikes- do I do that? I guess 7 years of training gets into your pores.
Tim Colgan 50+
Debra Smith 200+
Tom Comerford 50+
"Have you seen a psychiatrist?"
"It's hard to know -- it's not like they walk around with signs."
Debra Smith 200+
If I were a cow I could wear a bell around my neck but what do you do in cyberspace to declare yourself: Debra Smith- curious question asker?
Comment deleted
Tom Comerford 50+
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
Edit: It just occurred to me that your answer was a great example of utterly rejecting the premise of the debate- which may be quite a valid stance. So here I surmise that you must have information that I do not have or recognize that leads you to conclude that my premise for asking my question is invalid.
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
Edit: 'What is it that you think I am thinking' is the question I am asking reformated. It seems to me that the above information indicates that you are suggesting that your approach is more ideal than the one I take is. I take no offense whatsoever and I ask in curiousity. Do you assume that I simply need enlightenment in the ways you have studied and in the admirable commitments that you have made?Would you say that you are wedded to your current practice as being the ultimate approach?
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
But your response is so perfect for illustrating my point. You do not even allow me to have my own approach. Strong opinions are what you express in some areas like plutonomy and I listen to your greater knowledge and your corrections but must I yield entirely to your way of doing things?. The approach you present is far from nonjudgemental as you claim. You communicate frustration, desire for control and dominance over me and the way I conduct my experience of the world. You seem to be guarding people from me.Would it not be true to assert that you think TED conversations would be better off without someone with an approach like mine? You do not even answer my questions -ever. Why would you choose to engage me over and over again if you did not feel some compulsion to stop or to steer my opinons?
That's OK if that's what you feel because I am entirely OK with both of us having fun and I am not going anywhere and asking questions to understand is my approach.
Isn't it possible that you and I have different purposes under the sun? Couldn't you be looking at that Atlantic and I a wheat field? Couldn't I be the blind man with the elephant's tail and you equally blind and having a leg?
Tim Colgan 50+
TED 10+
If you have any questions or concerns please email us directly at conversations@ted.com and we'll be happy to respond to you.
Thank You,
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
What next? Will you eventually claim the right to censure and edit all TED talks? Please do make your complaint sooner rather than later because it would be good to have a ruling on whether or not your school of thought is the only one that will be permitted here on TED. It is assuming the proportions of the thought police.
Andrea did not counsel me, respectfully she does not claim the credentials, Lindsay you have taken her words out of context. That thread failed due to lack of leadership and it ended up with 'CENSURE' for no less than 5 people over all.
I have allowed you to dictate to me and to others which threads of honest dialogue should be removed thus editing or altering the records. You are free to remove any threads of which you are author- it is not my choice however, because I think people should stand by their thoughts, revise them or apologize- but I cannot imagine how you think that you should control others in that way. I will however- in fairness- remove all references to your name. I hope that is acceptable- It is a courtesy that was not extended to me.