Taking a Public Stance: A Mental Trap
Voicing a public stance is a one-way ticket into cognitive psychology's trap. It leads to confirmation bias. The moment you say, "I lean slightly conservative," your mind starts aligning with every conservative standpoint.
Cognitive Inertia: A Silent Force
Once you sway a bit to the right or left, cognitive inertia kicks in. You keep going; there's no turning back. This explains why people often vote along party lines, even on disjointed issues.
Beyond Party Lines: The Data Dilemma
Gun control, progressive taxes, immigration - they aren't intrinsically linked. Yet, we vote as one due to groupthink. But shouldn't we examine evidence?
Guns vs Swimming Pools: An Unusual Comparison
Take guns and swimming pools, for instance. Which one claims more lives? Surprisingly, it's swimming pools. But guns, designed to harm, invoke more fear. It's an emotional decision, and that's okay, as long as we recognize it.
The Hidden Environmental Side
Consider hunting versus farming. Hunting deer in a healthy ecosystem with a gun is arguably more eco-friendly than plowing a field for monoculture. The overpopulation of deer due to predator loss is another issue that hunting addresses. We're talking about data and evidence, remember?
Media's Role: Playing the Fear Card
The media typically highlights gun violence, downplaying issues like swimming pool deaths. Fear sells. But if this means progressing and addressing other issues, should we accept stricter gun laws like Europe, Australia, or Canada? They do see less gun violence.
Making Sense of Tragedy
Swimming pools claim more lives, but does that discount the tragedy of each life lost to gun violence? Absolutely not. Maybe if we were smarter, we'd tackle swimming pools first, but let's admit, we're not always logical.
The Reality of Control
Ridding criminals of guns is a tall task. But guns are just an example. The crux lies in prioritizing evidence-based policies and practices.
Conclusion: Choose Data, Not Fear
It's time to set emotions aside and embrace data for informed decisions. If we let fear dictate our opinions, we risk losing sight of what truly matters. Are you ready to challenge your biases and make evidence-based decisions?
Grammarly and Microsoft Word have it wrong! Deleting words like "I think" and "I believe" isn't always the best advice.
Believe it or not, the data you're banking on to back your stance may not be as convincing as you perceive. Interestingly, the other side believes the same about their data. Once you're committed to a side, say, on welfare reform, it becomes increasingly easy to embrace arguments from the same influences.
So, are your guys the honest ones while their guys are just spinning tales? It's an emotional journey, one that spans decades. Once upon a time, when you were 20, you were a free thinker. But now? Now, you're echoing propaganda. A professor nudged you to choose a side, pen down a persuasive essay, and here you are, decades later, shackled by cognitive bias and inertia. You're no longer a free thinker.
Asserting "I think," "I believe," or "the evidence suggests" isn't as compelling, is it? But dare to use these phrases, and you risk your grades, your promising career, and societal respect.
So, you took a leap of faith, stated your point as fact, and assumed the mantle of infinite wisdom. You did it for the grade, for that diploma, but at what cost? You traded your sense of wonder and independence for a pawn's role in an extremist vision of the future. Fast forward to now, and your once agile mind is shackled. And the person assigned the opposite viewpoint all those years ago? You're at odds with them now.
You've been groomed to be a missionary for your side. I've been there. As a young person, I was advised to be a missionary for the Mormon church. I was told to listen to archaeologists affiliated only with BYU.
Mormon leaders discouraged learning about confirmation bias, the cognitive trap, and the importance of sharing your testimony with others. They emphasized "knowing" the Church is true and following feelings, what they called the "fruit of the spirit." They advised against reading about controversial topics like plural marriage, Joseph Smith's wives, the priesthood's stance on race, and American Indian DNA.
But are political parties, like Republicans or Democrats, any better than the Mormon church? Do they guide you to an unbiased analysis of the pros and cons of each issue? Or are they, like the Church, pushing propaganda?
It's all about the talking points, the selective data supporting their side, the insistence of their rightness and the other's wrongness. Everyone is playing the game of manipulation and propaganda.
Don't expect Republicans or Democrats to build a fair platform that brings all their data together, judged by independent referees. No, they'd rather maintain separate websites, each championing their cause, each saying, "look here, here's why we're right and they're wrong." Meanwhile, the other side brings forward contradicting data.
So, what's your take? Are we merely pawns in this game of right vs. wrong? Are you ready to question your beliefs and biases? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
It seems like nobody's up for the challenge. Truth doesn't seem to be the priority, but winning does, given that they've already pledged allegiance to what they perceive as the best side. This echoes back to a poignant quote by Abraham Lincoln.
During the Civil War, a supporter told President Abraham Lincoln, "The Lord is on our side!" implying their cause was just and had divine backing. Lincoln, however, saw it differently. His response? "My main worry isn't whether God is on our side, but rather, I'm more focused on ensuring we're on God's side, for that's always the right side."
In essence, he advised against overconfidence in believing we're the righteous ones with divine support. The emphasis should be on doing what's morally right and just, regardless of the circumstances.
Fast forward to our time, and we have become more cognizant of cognitive pitfalls such as confirmation bias, cognitive inertia, groupthink, and the illusion of echo chambers. Lincoln's wisdom still holds water today, and with our newfound understanding, we shoulder an even greater responsibility.
We must strive to incorporate the scientific method into our debates and discussions. Our disputes and disagreements shouldn't be viewed through the subjective lens of personal beliefs or our supposed righteousness. Instead, we need to examine them through a neutral, evidence-based perspective.
We shouldn't pick sides based on emotions, traditions, or biases. Our goal must be to align ourselves with facts and evidence, wherever that may lead us. That way, we can ensure we're on the "God's side," as Lincoln put it – the side that stands for truth, justice, and righteousness.
What we've been trained to do, be it through our education, political affiliations, churches, or virtually any institution, is to focus on the evidence that validates our viewpoint. Unfortunately, this approach is limited, save for those instances where we adopt a transparent, scientific analysis.
More often than not, we're faced with biases echoing from both sides, with no concerted effort to collectively pursue the truth. Sure, you'll encounter contrasting opinions, but they should be presented in such a way that prompts a thorough exploration of the issues at hand. Our debates aren't structured to engage in a vigorous intellectual contest, nor are they designed to systematically evaluate the exchanges. Instead, they're dished out separately, allowing each faction to cheerlead their viewpoints and conveniently skip the real work of conflict resolution, leaving each side with the misguided notion that they've clinched another debate.
The current scenario of having a myriad of separate websites, each featuring its own pro-con arguments, is unproductive, to say the least. We seriously need to cut down on our reliance on countless disparate sources. It would be far more effective if Republicans and Democrats brought their data and arguments to one shared platform. This way, their views can be subjected to an intellectual 'deathmatch' - a survival of the fittest where the most convincing perspective emerges as the winner.
Take the Mormons as another example. They tend to say, "Oh, don't venture off to other websites (like Wikipedia); stick with the Mormon-owned ones." Interestingly, this sounds a lot like what Republicans and Democrats do. Republicans typically tune into Republican-leaning TV networks, while Democrats favor Democrat-oriented channels. Is it any wonder our society is so divided and facing challenges? We need a collective platform for shared understanding, not echo chambers.
Mormons often caution, "Wikipedia and the rest of the world are out to lead you astray; they aim to ruin your spirit. Our world is riddled with temptations, encouraging substance abuse, infidelity, and the abandonment of your spouse. These influences are malevolent, devilish even. For anything related to Mormonism, steer clear of Wikipedia."
Meanwhile, people outside the Mormon faith scoff. "Look at those naive Mormons!" they chuckle. "Can you believe the absurd things they subscribe to?" Yet, without missing a beat, they turn to Fox News or the New York Times, oblivious to the irony. They fail to realize that they are also being influenced, just as firmly locked within their own echo chambers.
So, what's our game plan? It's not a rehash of old tactics; no, it's not merely about resisting propaganda on a personal level. What we need are fresh political strategies where the pros and cons of an argument share the same space. We need to establish a set of rules to govern how we engage in debates and resolve disputes.
So, how do we do it? Well, it's about quantifying the discourse. We count the reasons for agreement and disagreement, and we assign them scores. This isn't just about tallying points; it's about assessing the unique perspectives in play.
Next, we examine how these points link to one another, considering their relative strengths and weaknesses. We group similar viewpoints to avoid redundancy and provide a more coherent narrative.
We also scrutinize the relevance of each argument. If a point is true, does it necessarily lead to a conclusion? Is it unique? If so, does it hold weight, or is it just a bit player in the grand scheme of things?
And there you have it—that's the blueprint. Simple, yet transformative. So, I appreciate your support in this endeavor. Let's step up and make a difference.
Looking forward to witnessing the impact of our collective efforts. Thank you!
No comments:
Post a Comment