The prospect that one’s empirical arguments will be shown to be false creates the identity-threatening risk for her that she or others will come to form the belief that her group is deluded and, in fact, committed to propositions inimical to the public welfare. In addition, the certitude that empirical arguments convey — ‘it’s simply a fact that . . . ‘; ‘how can they deny the scientific evidence on . . . ?’ — arouses suspicions of bad faith or blind partisanship on the part of the groups advancing them. Yet when members of opposing groups attempt to rebut such arguments, they are likely to respond with the same certitude, and with the same lack of awareness that they are being impelled to credit empirical arguments to protect their identities. This form of exchange — the signature of naïve realism — predictably generates cycles of recrimination and resentment
Not all that difficult to appreciate the conclusions to be drawn from those debate “strategies”, is it? I’m reasonably confident that those expressions of my own biases and certainties about the facts I present in any discussion where agreements is lacking does not make me unique in that regard. A moment’s reflection by any us will bring back a recollection or two of similar behavior on our parts or by those who’ve disagreed with us on any number of issues great and small.
Human nature is hard to change when dealing with humans!
It’s certainly not “wrong” for us to protect and defend the groups with whom we share common bonds or associate in some fashion—socially, politically, or professionally. Those interactions form the basis of our own identities, so it’s difficult to be overly critical of the foundation upon which we build all of our relationships.
If my team, club, family, friends, company, organization, party, etc., etc. etc. is wrong, I’m wrong. Who wants to have that internal dialogue on a regular basis? It’s thus just a short step away from doing what we can to validate the values and beliefs of our groups because it simultaneously reinforces our own self-worth. Human nature….
So while this is not an issue of being by any definition worthless as an individual, locking ourselves into the endless loop of “you have no idea what you are talking about whereas I have all the facts on my side to prove how wrong you are” offers comfort at the occasional expense of our long-term well-being. While there may be some unease in the process of distancing ourselves from anchored beliefs and values and conclusions as we open ourselves to different insights and perspectives, more information enabling us to make better decisions is not exactly a situation to avoid at all costs!
As our national challenges grow more onerous by the day, a moment’s pause to appreciate that that above-referenced endless loop is nothing but an endless loop of “recrimination and resentment.” Hard to see how that advances us as a society or affords much of an opportunity to perform some actual problem-solving while we still have the means and options available.
We could just keep doing more of the same and then deal with it all when we’re in full-blown crisis over climate change, or economic distress, or energy supply restrictions, or cultural disputes, or any of a hundred other pressing matters. That’s a choice. It sucks, but it’s a choice.
On the other hand, providing ourselves with more opportunities today so as to provide ourselves with even more opportunities tomorrow wouldn’t be such a bad option to consider, even if sacrificing a bit of knee-jerk certainty was the price paid.
Top Comments Submission Made Easy
|