It is well known amongst psychologists that human beings are inordinately and irrationally fond of their own ideas, even after they have been roundly disproved. It’s at its most ugly in global warming and other debates where denialists are to be found in large numbers but, once you start looking for it, you will see it everywhere; especially in your own behaviour.
Ever had an argument where deep down you knew you were wrong but couldn’t admit it? Ever suggested an idea at a meeting and then been annoyed when it was barely noted, even though you really knew it wasn’t very good? Have you ever said “no” without thinking to a request from a child and then resorted to “because I said so” when they asked why?
We can’t help being so enamoured of our own opinions but, once we accept that it is the case and that it is unhelpful, we can use new strategies to improve how we communicate.
I first heard the suggestion that we should all have “strong beliefs, weakly held” from Bob Sutton, and it goes hand-in-hand with his suggestion that we should “fight as if you’re right, listen as if you’re wrong”. The idea is that we should fight passionately for what we believe in, but that we should also be prepared at every stage to listen to the opposing view point and change our opinions if we are shown to be wrong.
It’s a fantastic view, and it is one that is growing in popularity. Certainly, the world would be a better place if we all subscribed to it. There is a problem though: it only works if all the parties in a debate are using it. If they aren’t, their interpretation of the other people’s motives will coloured by their own habits and the weak holder of the strong view risks appearing to be an arrogant loud-mouthed arse.
We weak holders of strong views need to bear that in mind, because we won’t get our point across if the other person has walked off in disgust.
Here is a nice relevant titbit to add in:
Whilst the majority tends to wear down the minority in the long haul, it is also true that the majority must justify and explain a consistent minority.
If you want to make a change, and feel like the only voice, stick to your guns and pick your fights. Picking the right fights make you credible ~(not a trouble maker and somehow different from most folk), sticking to your position makes you consistent and not unreliable.
Oddly, this latter point contradicts ‘strong beliefs weakly held’ doesn’t it?
Actually, I think it strengthens the position! If you are only holding onto your view weakly, and STILL the majority are unable to argue you out of it, then you really must be onto something.
I certainly feel that way about prison reform, where all I see is people screeching for revenge and using the word “liberal” as an insult. If even one of those folk could back up their shrieking with evidence to show their opinions are better for society, I’d reconsider. It’s easy to consistently hold a minority view when every time you try to instigate proper debate the other side explodes.
There is something I think I understand about people generally and that is that we are all processing vast amounts of information about the world through a ‘veil of perception’. I am sure that in the science of simple things, many confounding variables can be omitted and facts can be implied based on sound evidence. Most folks however, are not really interested in the very big or very small, they are interested in the very complex (people and society).
Now, the combination of complexity and impossibility of seeing people’s motives and past lead us to make guesses all the time about others. Much of this reasoning is hard wired I’d think, in order to give us a head start, and these trends can be investigated in psychology.
Back to the point*: since we cannot reliably determine the actions of others and the nature of societal issues for what they are objectively, we often depend on others to act as part of a collective. Rationale: other people in our ‘in-group’ people act as eyes, ears and brains for us. We can trust our in-group members and by comparison, mistrust out-group members. The reactions of others often demonstrates whether you are considered an in, or an out group member. The secret of persuasion lies in being accepted as an in-group member in order to influence its members. You always want to be in the in-group, but again, by definition this means you need to take a stand against the in-group’s out-group members, us versus them if you like.
Someone skilled at rhetoric will be able to convince the public that they belong to the in-group of a vast majority, and the out-group is a tiny, irrational minority. Such tactics win votes. Each side will alienate the opposition in this election. Bush rallied against them terrorists in his reign. Obama sold himself as a man for the people.
I guess this explains your opposition: you liberal, criminal lovin’ weirdo cannot be trusted by honest, law-abiding common folk. That is as far as many people reason, they trust the beliefs of their in-group and do not need to reason further than that, there are millions of other issues that may require their attention. By suggesting that they are ignorant for following such principles, you dig a deeper grave for your cause with these people, but strengthen your bond for those who are already in your in-group.
Anyway, in regards to the initial post, Strong beliefs weakly held. Sure, take a stand, and know when to cut your losses in a losing battle. You always want to be ‘in’ at work, and this makes perfect sense if you are ever to have any influence at all. On the internet? Well, I imagine there are so many groups to belong to, or not, then the importance of having influence in any particular group is comparably low.
*Well almost, I think I deviated somewhat again:)