...In other words, if people start with a particular opinion or view on a subject, any counter-evidence can create "cognitive dissonance"--discomfort caused by the presence of two irreconcilable ideas in the mind at once. One way of resolving the dissonance would be to change or alter the originally held opinion. But the researchers found that many people instead choose to change the conflicting evidence--selectively seeking out information or arguments that support their position while arguing around or ignoring any opposing evidence, even if that means using questionable or contorted logic.

That's not a news flash to anyone who's paid attention to any recent national debate--although the researchers pointed out that this finding, itself, runs counter to the idea that the reason people continue to hold positions counter to all evidence is because of misinformation or lack of access to the correct data. Even when presented with compelling, factual data from sources they trusted, many of the subjects still found ways to dismiss it. But the most interesting (or disturbing) aspect of the Northwestern study was the finding that providing additional counter-evidence, facts, or arguments actually intensified this reaction. Additional countering data, it seems, increases the cognitive dissonance, and therefore the need for subjects to alleviate that discomfort by retreating into more rigidly selective hearing and entrenched positions. [emphasis mine]

Part of the reason, according to Kleiman, is "the brute fact that people identify their opinions with themselves; to admit having been wrong is to have lost the argument, and (as Vince Lombardi said), every time you lose, you die a little." And, he adds, "there is no more destructive force in human affairs--not greed, not hatred--than the desire to have been right."

[...]He points to the philosopher Karl Popper, who, he says, believed fiercely in the discipline and teaching of critical thinking, because "it allows us to offer up our opinions as a sacrifice, so that they die in our stead."

A liberal education, Kleiman says, "ought, above all, to be an education in non-attachment to one's current opinions. I would define a true intellectual as one who cares terribly about being right, and not at all about having been right."

What's interesting (to me) how closely the discourse stuff is how closely it matches up with the reading that I've done about survival: that what gets people into increasingly worse trouble is an inability to process new information, and that there's a correlation between being able to experience wonder even in dire situations--that cognitive dissonance thing--and being able to see the situation as it really-and-truly is.

All of which, in combo with other observations/experiences, leaves me wondering (and I'm bookmarking the Atlantic article to read when I have more time, so I'll feel silly if it turns out that this is addressed in it!) whether that kind of thing can be taught/learned. Although I guess that's what cognitive behavioral therapy is all about?

(Reply) (Thread)

The Atlantic article is more descriptive than prescriptive, except to suggest the bit I quoted about learning to consider opinions as distinct from identity. I'd like to believe that much can be taught/learned, at least to some extent.

But I wonder how much of this is just how we're wired. Because I've seen some pretty rational people unlearn their intellectual distance pretty quickly in groupthink situations. Been there myself. I'm curious to know about the reading you've done about survival -- it sounds like you're talking about social psychology, cognitive bias, that sort of thing?

I tend to think that politics today is in essence pretty much the same as politics throughout history, but surely some of the extra-moronic nature of the USA's current political climate must be a response to information over-saturation. The steady bombardment of data from all over has got to take a toll on our ability to process it well. No wonder people retreat into dogma and cling to a few simple ideas.

At a guess, I'd say another factor that's specific to modern life is an dearth of stable community and close attachments, so that shallow communities formed around things like political affiliations become our substitute families. Identity within these groups becomes so vital to our sense of self that we discard whatever is inconvenient to it, etc.

eta: Oh, and of course online discussion is a whole nother animal, really the height of opinions-as-identity. But I guess that's kind of a separate topic.

eta AGAIN because well, not so much separate, since a whole lot of debating styles are getting learned/honed on the internet and then transmitted into the wider discourse.

Edited at 2009-10-22 05:42 pm (UTC)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This is a wonderful post and the video is incredible.

Very few people think aloud in front of others like this. Very few people say they might be wrong. AMAZING video. Thank you.

(Reply) (Thread)

He's such a smart guy, and he's consistently acted on his belief in the value of conversation with anyone, but you know -- it's not a question with an easy answer. He seems to be sincerely grappling with it. Penn Jillette is just awesome.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I saw that video yesterday and found it extremely moving, too. I don't know that I'd ever seen Penn that vulnerable.

(Reply) (Thread)

Me neither -- sincere, yes, but usually with a layer of slick performance over it. Along similar lines, I never would have cast Tom Smothers as the catalyst for emotional catharsis? It's a strange and wonderful world.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)