Self-Reinforcing Ideas
by Joseph Rowlands
We're in a war of ideas. If we intend to change the sick elements of the culture, we have to attack the ideas that are behind them. And to do that, we need to understand why people hold on to bad ideas. It's not enough to understand why these ideas are wrong, and it's not enough to understand what the correct alternative is. If we don't understand what motivate people to accept them, we'll be stuck in an impotent framework of screaming "evasion" every time someone disagrees.
In this article, I don't want to go into why people might accept a bad idea in the first place. There are so many possibilities that one article would be completely insufficient. Instead, I want to explore why some ideas stand the test of time.
When it comes to good ideas, it should be obvious why once accepted, you continue to believe them. A correct idea gives you some understanding of how something in the world works. Every time you use the idea to explain something, your confidence in the idea increases. The feedback you get is always positive. Every use of the idea underscores its validity. In other words, the idea is self-reinforcing.
Unfortunately, it's not just good ideas that are self-reinforcing. There are several ways in which bad ideas can persevere. In my article Self-fulfilling Prophecies, I discuss one kind of self-reinforcing idea. In that article I showed that a belief that results in inaction doesn't get the regular feedback of a bad idea. If you try something and fail, you have reason to reevaluate your idea. But if you decide something will result in failure before you do it, you never get feedback from reality that it would have worked. Due to the lack of trying, the evidence will never contradict your belief. In this way, the idea is self-reinforcing.
In another article titled Fundamental Premises, I explain that certain philosophical ideas, because they're used to interpret all of the evidence, are also self-reinforcing. The evidence is seen through the worldview, and thus is interpreted to conform to it. Every time you interpret something with one of these premises, the idea is more integrated into your worldview.
And finally, in my article False Dichotomies, I discuss how dichotomies, because they seem to represent all possibilities, are self-reinforcing. But this is actually a case of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Because a person believes a false dichotomy to cover the full range of possibilities, he assumes there can be no other answer. By never attempting to see another choice, he gets the constant feedback of never seeing another choice.
So we can see that there are actually two different kinds of reinforcements possible. One hinges on evidence, while the other hinges on lack of evidence. The one without evidence uses the lack of negative feedback as a support for the idea. The one with evidence is based on incorrect interpretations of the data. By misinterpreting the evidence, the feedback that should invalidate the theory is not only neutralized, but actually seen as supporting the theory.
By understanding why these ideas persevere, we can also understand what it takes to fight against them, and what the challenge is. In the case of a self-fulfilling prophecy, you need to show that it can be done. This is easy in the case of something like a false-dichotomy, where you need only show what the alternative is to show that there is one. In other cases, it can be tougher. You have to try to show that their assumption is wrong. If they think they can't do something, you can show them others who can do it, or you can do it yourself. By showing them a similar case, they might accept that as enough evidence to warrant giving it a try. For instance, if they think they can't ride a bicycle, you can find some child to show them how easy it is. By making what seems to be a valid example, and showing that it does in fact work, you may convince them that there are reasons to doubt the belief.
The interpretation reinforcement is tougher to counter. They don't just have lack of evidence contradicting the idea. They think they have evidence that supports it, and possibly a lifetime of it. After years of what they believed to be positive feedback, they'll have a hard time giving it up. One necessary strategy is showing them an alternative theory that explains the same evidence. It's not enough to just point to flaws in their theory. They'll need some explanation for the evidence. They'll be more likely to doubt the flaws in the theory than doubt the theory. This is just as if someone told you that sense-perception was flawed and an invalid method of gaining knowledge. Even if you didn't understand how to argue them, you'll probably dismiss their arguments as some kind of puzzle you can't solve, before throwing away everything else that you know.
The point here is only that bad ideas stick around for different reasons. It's not always intellectual dishonesty. It's not just evasion. Sometimes there are strong reasons why people stick with bad ideas. If you want to successfully counter an idea, you have to understand its particular hold on a person. Only by identifying the problem can you work towards a solution.
Discuss this Article (22 messages)
|
