Every piece of machinery has operational conditions. A weed whacker is very effective for whacking weeds, however it has conditions such as requiring oil and gasoline in order to operate. A car is very effective for transportation but it also has conditions such as requiring a hard, flat surface in order to operate. When operating machinery it is important to be aware of the required conditions. If you don’t put oil in the weed whacker or you drive the car on sand, the machinery will lose its effectiveness. Sometimes machinery does not work precisely as it was designed to and special action is required. If someone attempts to operate that machinery without knowing about the special action, again the machinery will lose its effectiveness.
The human body is also a piece of machinery and therefore is also subject to operational conditions. For instance, the human eye requires light in order to function. Often the human eye does not process light optimally and corrective lenses are required. The rest of the human body is also subject to defects. Sometimes human legs do not operate properly and a wheelchair is required. The human body can not function in sufficiently cold temperatures so sometimes a fur coat is required. In these situations not recognizing the conditions of the machinery will again lead to substandard performance.
The human mind is part of the human body and is also subject to operational conditions and defects. A common and well known defect is depression. Millions of human beings suffer from depression. Many modern humans are fortunate enough to have access to medication to treat their depression. These medications are just like corrective lenses, wheelchairs, and fur coats. They correct for a defect and allow the mind to operate more effectively.
Even if you don’t suffer from depression, your brain is still a piece of machinery and it still has operational conditions. If you are not aware of these conditions then you run the risk of limiting your brain’s effectiveness. I would like to focus on one specific aspect which affects many people. This is the human tendency to treat their ideas like property which must be protected. The more they invest in an idea the more reluctant they are to alter or abandon that idea because they feel their investment of time and energy has imbued the idea with value. This tendency is a defect because it can keep people from growing and developing new ideas and letting go of old, outdated ones.
When two people debate they are presenting opposing arguments. This is a wonderful opportunity for both people to refine their perspectives by sharing their positions with each other. Opposing viewpoints need not be mutually exclusive and two people who disagree on a topic can have a lot to offer each other regarding that topic. Person A has a chance to put their ideas to the test and see how those ideas stand up to criticism. Person B is in the same position. Ideally they can both walk away with a more refined understanding of their own position.
The problem arises when people refuse to change their position to allow for new information or perspective, even when their own mind is telling them to do so. They take their mind’s wavering as an attack and they double down on their position. This is because their idea is precious to them and they don’t want it to be destroyed. When their mind gains new information or perspective which it considers valid and contradictory to its current position they freak out.
A study was done to illustrate this phenomenon. During the Bush/Kerry election, scientists gathered test subjects from both the far left and the far right. In isolation, these subjects were exposed to blatantly contradictory statements spoken by their preferred candidates. The scientists monitored the brain activity of these subjects as they processed this information. There was brain activity indicating an internal argument. This brain activity was then shut down by the “conscious” part of the brain and dopamine was released (dopamine is a neurotransmitter which essentially translates to “you did a good job”). The subjects were rewarded by their own brains for cutting off the debate which threatened their established position.
All human beings are all subject to this phenomenon. The only way to minimize its influence on our lives is to be vigilant for it. If we are conscious of this behavior then we can take steps to correct for it. Just like corrective lenses can bring eyesight into focus, conscious awareness of the quirks of the natural thought process can bring a new level of focus to the human mind.
Ideas are not property. They are not absolute nor divine and they should always be subject to change. The value you place on your ideas should come from their strength and their strength alone. If new information weakens your idea then you should lower the value of the idea in correspondence to its strength, rather than increasing your defense. If ideas lose too much value you should be prepared to abandon and replace them.
I subscribe to the theory that cats can not speak English. I believe this very strongly as I feel there is overwhelming evidence to support it. If I were to walk through my front door and be greeted with “Hello there!” from my cat, this would directly conflict with my currently supported theory. My first conclusion would probably be that I had gone crazy. But if I were to then bring my neighbor over and he confirmed that yes, the cat is speaking English, there would be no other explanations available and I would have to abandon my theory that cats can not speak English. It would be absurd for me to continue insisting that cats can not speak English. Despite all of the evidence which made my position so strong moments earlier, the introduction of an actual talking cat has completely destroyed it. But pretending that it hasn’t been destroyed will only keep me from moving past it. I would just keep denying the evidence right in front of my face because I was too proud to accept that I had been wrong.
This is a silly and extreme example but it applies to more conventional scenarios. If I am arguing a point (say a political one) and I am presented with information that directly conflicts with my point, that would be the time to amend my position to account for the new information. This could mean dropping my position entirely and adopting a new one. But human beings tend to have trouble doing this. They feel invested in their ideas, like their ideas have some intrinsic value and must be preserved even as they’re being torn apart. Some people will come up with any explanation, no matter how absurd, to preserve their idea in the face of conflicting information. This is a natural reaction and it is because of the way our brains are wired. But it also limits growth and advancement and we are best off if we correct for it.
My point is not that anytime someone presents you with a perspective which is not your own you need to adopt theirs. When you’re presented with new information which conflicts with your current position you should process it and see if it carries any weight in your mind. If it doesn’t then you can respond with your reasons why it doesn’t. But when it does hold water it’s in your best interest to recognize and acknowledge this and to incorporate the new information into your perspective.
When you’re discussing/debating/arguing a point with someone else, be aware of how you are really feeling. If you are presented with information that makes a lot of sense to you and conflicts with your current position, allow that new information in and see where it takes you. Allow yourself to let go of outdated ideas and embrace new ones. I’m not preaching any specific ideas of any kind. You are free to believe whatever you believe. But just try to make sure that it’s what you really believe and not just something you’re clinging to because you’re too invested in it to let it go. Don’t feel threatened by information which contradicts your beliefs. Give it a chance and perhaps it will lead you to an even stronger belief.
No comments:
Post a Comment