Assumptions; Open-Mindedness; Faith, Etc
May. 16th, 2011 10:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
altarflame"Why Being Wrong is Good for You", by Kathryn Schultz for CNN.com (text follows; actual site is loaded with embedded ads)
Why is it so fun to be right? As pleasures go, it is, after all, a second-order one at best. Unlike many of life's other delights -- chocolate, surfing, kissing -- it doesn't enjoy any mainline access to our biochemistry: to our appetites, our adrenal glands, our limbic systems, our swoony hearts.
And yet, the thrill of being right is undeniable, universal, and (perhaps most oddly) almost entirely undiscriminating. The stakes don't seem to matter much; it is more important to bet on the right foreign policy than the right racehorse, but we are equally capable of gloating over either one.
Nor does subject matter; we can be just as pleased about correctly identifying an orange-crowned warbler or correctly identifying the sexual orientation of our co-worker. Stranger still, we're perfectly capable of deriving satisfaction from being right about disagreeable things: the downturn in the stock market, say, or the demise of a friend's relationship, or the fact that, at our spouse's insistence, we just spent 15 minutes schlepping our suitcase in exactly the opposite direction from our hotel.
Like most delectable experiences, rightness isn't ours to enjoy all the time. Sometimes, we're the one who loses the bet (or the hotel). And sometimes, too, we suffer grave doubts about the correct answer or course of action -- an anxiety that, itself, reflects our desire to be right.
On the whole, though, and notwithstanding these lapses and qualms, our indiscriminate enjoyment of being right is matched by an almost equally indiscriminate feeling that we are right.
At times, this feeling spills into the foreground, as when we argue or evangelize, make predictions or place bets. Often, though, it is just psychological backdrop. Most of us go through life assuming that we are basically right, basically all the time, about basically everything: about our political and intellectual convictions, our religious and moral beliefs, our assessment of other people, our memories, our grasp of facts.
As absurd as it sounds when we stop to think about it, our steady state seems to be one of unconsciously assuming that we are very close to omniscient.
This serene faith in our own rightness is often warranted. Most of us navigate day-to-day life fairly well, after all, which suggests that we are routinely right about a great many things. And sometimes we are not just routinely right but spectacularly right: right about the orbit of the planets (mathematically derived long before the technology existed to track them); right about the healing properties of aspirin (known since at least 3000 BC); right to track down that woman who smiled at you in the café (now your wife of 20 years).
Taken together, these moments of rightness represent both the high-water marks of human endeavor and the source of countless small joys. They affirm our sense of being smart, competent, trustworthy, and in tune with our environment. More important, they keep us alive.
Individually and collectively, our very existence depends on our ability to reach accurate conclusions about the world around us. In short, the experience of being right is imperative for our survival, gratifying for our ego, and, overall, one of life's cheapest and keenest satisfactions.
I am interested -- perversely -- in the opposite of all that. I am interested in being wrong: in how we as a culture think about error, and how we as individuals cope when our convictions collapse out from under us. If we relish being right and regard it as our natural state, you can guess how we feel about being wrong.
For one thing, we tend to view it as rare and bizarre -- an inexplicable aberration in the normal order of things. For another, it leaves us feeling idiotic and ashamed. Like the term paper returned to us covered in red ink, being wrong makes us cringe and slouch down in our seats; it makes our heart sink and our dander rise.
At best we regard it as a nuisance, at worst a nightmare, but in either case -- and quite unlike the gleeful little rush of being right -- we experience our errors as deflating and embarrassing.
And it gets worse. In our collective imagination, error is associated not just with shame and stupidity but also with ignorance, indolence, psychopathology, and moral degeneracy.
This set of associations was nicely summed up by the Italian cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, who noted that we err because of (among other things) "inattention, distraction, lack of interest, poor preparation, genuine stupidity, timidity, braggadocio, emotional imbalance, ... ideological, racial, social or chauvinistic prejudices, as well as aggressive or prevaricatory instincts."
In this view -- and it is the common one -- our errors are evidence of our gravest social, intellectual, and moral failings.
Of all the things we are wrong about, this idea of error might well top the list. It is our meta-mistake: We are wrong about what it means to be wrong. Far from being a sign of intellectual inferiority, the capacity to err is crucial to human cognition. Far from being a moral flaw, it is inextricable from some of our most humane and honorable qualities: empathy, optimism, imagination, conviction and courage. And far from being a mark of indifference or intolerance, wrongness is a vital part of how we learn and change. Thanks to error, we can revise our understanding of ourselves and amend our ideas about the world.
Given this centrality to both our intellectual and emotional development, error shouldn't be an embarrassment, and cannot be an aberration. On the contrary. As Benjamin Franklin once observed, "the history of the errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries."
Through our errors, he felt, "the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities."
To my mind, the healthiest and most productive attitude we can have about error must take as its starting place Franklin's proposition that however disorienting, difficult or humbling our mistakes might be, it is ultimately wrongness, not rightness, that can teach us who we are.
I think (that I'm right about...) it's really, REALLY important for people to be able to admit they're wrong about things. I also think it's sort of empowering to take the viewpoint offered at the end of this article.I've had some serious personal crises over some things I've been hugely, massively wrong about (Things with Bobby will work! I can give birth THIS time!).
Generally I do pretty good with the little wrongs that happen basically every day, and am actually perpetually amused by how many things I've changed my mind about in the middle grade:
-I remember being GROSSED. OUT. ranting about the horror of cloth diapers actually being real in this day and age on a message board once (last 3 kids were only in cloth and I'm some sort of cloth diaper evangelist now)
-there was a time when I talked crap about extended breastfeeding, at least in the whisper to my sister "HOW OLD IS THAT KID??" or laugh at "if they can ask for it in words, they're too old" jokes (Jake stopped on his fourth birthday; Elise is 4 and nursing)
-spent years talking crap about the Catholic Church on a surface level before I delved deeper, learned more and started defending it to everyone on that deeper level. Now I'm asking the deeper questions I've been wishing people would stop asking.
There are lots of these. I thought it was silly to think you could form meaningful relationships through the internet (HAHAHA), I thought I would never contemplate sending my kids to school, I thought Grant and my relationship would always be cake and gravy (but not together...that's gross).
Here is the same CNN contributor doing a talk on the subject...I found her to be kind of irritating in voice and speech mannerisms and such but was still interested enough in what she had to say to deal with it:
I have done the same thing she describes, with the misinterpretation of sign symbols...we have a lot of those sort of things. There are no words for how confused I was by the "boat ramp" sign - http://www.traditioncreek.com/storefront/images/products_signs/int_26.jpg - I wondered allowed if it was some kind of cart rolling onto an upside down alligator once? Yeah. Grant thought that was a riot.
This stuff is sort of timely for me because I think Grant and I both have come full circle to a freaking AMAZING place in our relationship, and we're both sometimes afraid of how to "hold onto it"...and I suspect that maybe we just have to stay in that place of wonderment, without assumptions setting in. I mean we can assume we'll stay married and that we have each others' backs but I'm more speaking of the bajillion little assumptions that take over daily life and get oppressive and terrible.
I also wonder, though, if what this lady is talking about is AT ALL compatible with religious beliefs of any sort aside from, like, Buddhism. It's in pretty much direct opposition to this blog post![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hearts_refuge linked me to, about how doubt is not a virtue. (See, lady, I did pay attention to that...sorry I didn't reply right away, I had many thoughts...) It was really hard for me to deal with though...I don't understand advocating blind faith even though...I get it. It's hard to explain.
And the truth is I really love "big personalities", I love extremists and nutcases and obviously they have to be very confident in their "rightness" to be so entertaining and bold and irresistable.
/my thoughts on this whole thing for tonight
Why is it so fun to be right? As pleasures go, it is, after all, a second-order one at best. Unlike many of life's other delights -- chocolate, surfing, kissing -- it doesn't enjoy any mainline access to our biochemistry: to our appetites, our adrenal glands, our limbic systems, our swoony hearts.
And yet, the thrill of being right is undeniable, universal, and (perhaps most oddly) almost entirely undiscriminating. The stakes don't seem to matter much; it is more important to bet on the right foreign policy than the right racehorse, but we are equally capable of gloating over either one.
Nor does subject matter; we can be just as pleased about correctly identifying an orange-crowned warbler or correctly identifying the sexual orientation of our co-worker. Stranger still, we're perfectly capable of deriving satisfaction from being right about disagreeable things: the downturn in the stock market, say, or the demise of a friend's relationship, or the fact that, at our spouse's insistence, we just spent 15 minutes schlepping our suitcase in exactly the opposite direction from our hotel.
Like most delectable experiences, rightness isn't ours to enjoy all the time. Sometimes, we're the one who loses the bet (or the hotel). And sometimes, too, we suffer grave doubts about the correct answer or course of action -- an anxiety that, itself, reflects our desire to be right.
On the whole, though, and notwithstanding these lapses and qualms, our indiscriminate enjoyment of being right is matched by an almost equally indiscriminate feeling that we are right.
At times, this feeling spills into the foreground, as when we argue or evangelize, make predictions or place bets. Often, though, it is just psychological backdrop. Most of us go through life assuming that we are basically right, basically all the time, about basically everything: about our political and intellectual convictions, our religious and moral beliefs, our assessment of other people, our memories, our grasp of facts.
As absurd as it sounds when we stop to think about it, our steady state seems to be one of unconsciously assuming that we are very close to omniscient.
This serene faith in our own rightness is often warranted. Most of us navigate day-to-day life fairly well, after all, which suggests that we are routinely right about a great many things. And sometimes we are not just routinely right but spectacularly right: right about the orbit of the planets (mathematically derived long before the technology existed to track them); right about the healing properties of aspirin (known since at least 3000 BC); right to track down that woman who smiled at you in the café (now your wife of 20 years).
Taken together, these moments of rightness represent both the high-water marks of human endeavor and the source of countless small joys. They affirm our sense of being smart, competent, trustworthy, and in tune with our environment. More important, they keep us alive.
Individually and collectively, our very existence depends on our ability to reach accurate conclusions about the world around us. In short, the experience of being right is imperative for our survival, gratifying for our ego, and, overall, one of life's cheapest and keenest satisfactions.
I am interested -- perversely -- in the opposite of all that. I am interested in being wrong: in how we as a culture think about error, and how we as individuals cope when our convictions collapse out from under us. If we relish being right and regard it as our natural state, you can guess how we feel about being wrong.
For one thing, we tend to view it as rare and bizarre -- an inexplicable aberration in the normal order of things. For another, it leaves us feeling idiotic and ashamed. Like the term paper returned to us covered in red ink, being wrong makes us cringe and slouch down in our seats; it makes our heart sink and our dander rise.
At best we regard it as a nuisance, at worst a nightmare, but in either case -- and quite unlike the gleeful little rush of being right -- we experience our errors as deflating and embarrassing.
And it gets worse. In our collective imagination, error is associated not just with shame and stupidity but also with ignorance, indolence, psychopathology, and moral degeneracy.
This set of associations was nicely summed up by the Italian cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, who noted that we err because of (among other things) "inattention, distraction, lack of interest, poor preparation, genuine stupidity, timidity, braggadocio, emotional imbalance, ... ideological, racial, social or chauvinistic prejudices, as well as aggressive or prevaricatory instincts."
In this view -- and it is the common one -- our errors are evidence of our gravest social, intellectual, and moral failings.
Of all the things we are wrong about, this idea of error might well top the list. It is our meta-mistake: We are wrong about what it means to be wrong. Far from being a sign of intellectual inferiority, the capacity to err is crucial to human cognition. Far from being a moral flaw, it is inextricable from some of our most humane and honorable qualities: empathy, optimism, imagination, conviction and courage. And far from being a mark of indifference or intolerance, wrongness is a vital part of how we learn and change. Thanks to error, we can revise our understanding of ourselves and amend our ideas about the world.
Given this centrality to both our intellectual and emotional development, error shouldn't be an embarrassment, and cannot be an aberration. On the contrary. As Benjamin Franklin once observed, "the history of the errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries."
Through our errors, he felt, "the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities."
To my mind, the healthiest and most productive attitude we can have about error must take as its starting place Franklin's proposition that however disorienting, difficult or humbling our mistakes might be, it is ultimately wrongness, not rightness, that can teach us who we are.
I think (that I'm right about...) it's really, REALLY important for people to be able to admit they're wrong about things. I also think it's sort of empowering to take the viewpoint offered at the end of this article.I've had some serious personal crises over some things I've been hugely, massively wrong about (Things with Bobby will work! I can give birth THIS time!).
Generally I do pretty good with the little wrongs that happen basically every day, and am actually perpetually amused by how many things I've changed my mind about in the middle grade:
-I remember being GROSSED. OUT. ranting about the horror of cloth diapers actually being real in this day and age on a message board once (last 3 kids were only in cloth and I'm some sort of cloth diaper evangelist now)
-there was a time when I talked crap about extended breastfeeding, at least in the whisper to my sister "HOW OLD IS THAT KID??" or laugh at "if they can ask for it in words, they're too old" jokes (Jake stopped on his fourth birthday; Elise is 4 and nursing)
-spent years talking crap about the Catholic Church on a surface level before I delved deeper, learned more and started defending it to everyone on that deeper level. Now I'm asking the deeper questions I've been wishing people would stop asking.
There are lots of these. I thought it was silly to think you could form meaningful relationships through the internet (HAHAHA), I thought I would never contemplate sending my kids to school, I thought Grant and my relationship would always be cake and gravy (but not together...that's gross).
Here is the same CNN contributor doing a talk on the subject...I found her to be kind of irritating in voice and speech mannerisms and such but was still interested enough in what she had to say to deal with it:
I have done the same thing she describes, with the misinterpretation of sign symbols...we have a lot of those sort of things. There are no words for how confused I was by the "boat ramp" sign - http://www.traditioncreek.com/storefront/images/products_signs/int_26.jpg - I wondered allowed if it was some kind of cart rolling onto an upside down alligator once? Yeah. Grant thought that was a riot.
This stuff is sort of timely for me because I think Grant and I both have come full circle to a freaking AMAZING place in our relationship, and we're both sometimes afraid of how to "hold onto it"...and I suspect that maybe we just have to stay in that place of wonderment, without assumptions setting in. I mean we can assume we'll stay married and that we have each others' backs but I'm more speaking of the bajillion little assumptions that take over daily life and get oppressive and terrible.
I also wonder, though, if what this lady is talking about is AT ALL compatible with religious beliefs of any sort aside from, like, Buddhism. It's in pretty much direct opposition to this blog post
hearts_refuge linked me to, about how doubt is not a virtue. (See, lady, I did pay attention to that...sorry I didn't reply right away, I had many thoughts...) It was really hard for me to deal with though...I don't understand advocating blind faith even though...I get it. It's hard to explain.And the truth is I really love "big personalities", I love extremists and nutcases and obviously they have to be very confident in their "rightness" to be so entertaining and bold and irresistable.
/my thoughts on this whole thing for tonight
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-05-17 05:33 am (UTC)I too changed on a great many things when I became a parent, both in how I treat our planet (becoming more interested in organics, the environment, ect) and others (buying more things fair trade, trying to become less judgmental of other people's choices) and in how I parent. I didn't expect to cloth diaper either, I thought it was gross. I didn't know about any of the benefits of natural birth the first time around, I was a "epidural in the parking lot of the hospital" kind of person, then went on to have a homebirth.
I too laughed at "if you are old enough to ask for it you are too old to have it" breastfeeding jokes, then went on to breastfeed a toddler. One of our favorite games was for her to "pick a boobie!" she'd point and say "THIS ONE!!" all excited like. I never expected to co sleep and yet my two oldest only just started sleeping in their own beds, the youngest still sleeps with us. I didn't intend to babywear as much as I do and yet I wear my 20 month old daily and even my older kids on occasion.
And I certainly never expected to search for the religion that felt right to me for so long. I eventually had a crisis of faith after I left the LDS church and thought long and hard about the things that I REALLY believe in. I found that Reform Judaism was what was right for me all along, as I'd suspected so many years ago. It just IS who I am, so much of it is about praising G-d and living an ethical life in the here and now, not out of fear of hell, but simply because it's the right thing to do. And there is no claim on it being the "only right and true way" but just one of many paths. That's why it speaks to me.
I don't know where I'm going with this..
no subject
Date: 2011-05-17 11:02 pm (UTC)I hope you are well!
no subject
Date: 2011-05-17 11:52 pm (UTC)Prop 8 was one of the things that got me to leave, along with the things I listed above as what I believe to be true. None of those jiive with the LDS church.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-17 11:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-18 12:04 am (UTC)In any case, it was definitely the prop 8 thing that got me to leave. When I voted yes, I felt like I was splitting myself in two. So much of WHO I AM is a bisexual woman, and I felt like I was doing both myself and my fellow GLBT community a major disservice, but at the same time, my bishop was threatening to revoke my temple recommend if I didn't vote yes.
Actually, there is a really good article about this that hit home for me that explains it so much better than I could (being in a position where you are told to believe something that doesn't hit home for you and how that effects one psychologically).
http://www.ldsfreedom.org/node/19
""To trust your mind and to know that one is worthy of happiness is the essence of self-esteem."
Dr. Nathaniel Branden, renowned psychotherapist who pioneered the study of self-esteem.
Many Latter-day Saints do not trust their mind, at least not fully. Why? Because of how they've been psychologically conditioned by Mormonism. Mormonism 'programs' Latter-day Saints to mentally flee from, trivialize, and condemn facts/truths/realities that do not support the LDS Church's doctrines, teachings, and foundational claims. When confronted by faith-disrupting facts, Mormons have a choice: Either they acknowledge the facts and question and doubt what they've been taught, or they ignore or trivialize the facts that conflict with their religious faith.
The psychological result of doing the latter is developing a reputation with one's mind that the individual (you?) cannot fully trust it. If a person won't allow their mind to acknowledge and accept facts/realities that conflict with church teachings and widely-held Mormon beliefs, the individual ends up experiencing/feeling a lack of confidence in their mind, its cognitive processes (e.g., their critical and rational thinking), and the judgments and conclusions that their mind produces. Religious people who do not fully trust their mind typically become psychologically dependent on authority figures (parents, church leaders, etc.) to tell them what is true, right, the will of God, how they should behave, etc."
and
Self-acceptance
Mormonism psychologically conditions Latter-day Saints to split-off and bury aspects of their humanity that are negatively judged by the LDS Church and the Mormon collective/community/'tribe'. For example, many Mormons have serious doubts about the LDS Church being true, Joseph Smith being a true prophet of God, and other church teachings. They want to express their doubts to their Mormon spouse, family members, friends, etc., but they feel that they cannot, so they hide that aspect of themselves, sometimes for years. Some people raised in Mormonism were (and are) physically attracted to individuals of the same sex, but homosexuality has been condemned in the LDS Church for decades, so those individuals conceal the truth about their sexual orientation. The result of splitting-off and burying aspects of one's humanity is a sense/feeling of being in conflict with oneself and not whole. This personal reality can be extremely painful, so much so that some Mormons have committed suicide."
(bolding mine. that part was SO TRUE for me and it's why I left. I found this article way after I left when I was trying to figure out how to remove my name from church records).
no subject
Date: 2011-05-17 08:39 pm (UTC)http://www.thedailyshow.com/news-team/kristen-schaal