I was interested to hear stories of people changing their minds on things. Skip to the end for the question.
The great Max Planck once said:
Really it's impossible to comprehend the behaviour of mankind without knowing this rule. Beliefs often become part of people's identity, and losing them becomes akin to losing a limb.
Under this rule, argumentation between older people serves no intellectual purpose for themselves. Neither will change their beliefs under any circumstances. Extreme examples can go as far as people continuing to believe something even after it's been proven a hoax ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome ).
The purpose of these arguments is only for onlooking younger people. They listen to the arguments of their elders and draw their own conclusions. This then forms their beliefs, which then start the same calcification process.
This also explains the arrogance of teens: largely a self-defense mechanism to send them into the 'market of ideas', versus just accepting the calcified ideas of their parents and teachers, arrogantly issued themselves under the false claim that "old age means wisdom".
My opinion is that this effect stems from limited mental capacity. Every man only has so much mental strength and energy, and it is costly and burdensome to be constantly re-evaluating your beliefs in the face of new information. To a weak mind it would be completely paralyzing - there would be no energy left to make conclusions and take action. Hence he must accept what beliefs he has and roll with them, no matter how flimsy. Even to a strong mind - the effort involved in rewiring a foundation-level belief that was incorrectly set 10 years ago, is so large that it can be too painful to stomach it.
This is why I really enjoy seeing newbies coming to this forum, asking every manner of questions with an open mind. These are young men who were destined to absorb the toxic ideas of their parents, their teachers, or their politicians, and instead let their questions run free - so they could come to their own conclusions with the best insight they could find. Of course you do see the odd older guy here and there, generally prompted by a severe setback that forced them to re-evaluate their beliefs from scratch. I'm guessing it's less than 1 in 100 that do that though - all of the old failures I meet are full of reasons why it was everyone else's fault but theirs.
So my question is: what beliefs have you changed in the past? What caused you to change those beliefs, and how long did the process take? Were any of the beliefs deeply held?
For me some were:
- Belief that abortion was moral. Was firmly held. Reversed slowly due to some premises being challenged (what truly identifies a 'person'). I remember it going through a process of 'firmly held -> uncomfortably challenged -> held, but no longer firmly -> no belief either way (i.e. confusion) -> open re-consideration of the topic -> belief against
- Belief that fractional-reserve banking was immoral or damaging to civilization, mostly due to some lectures by Austrian economists (who I generally respect). Probably the most interesting reversal: I made an anti fractional-reserve banking comment on a YouTube video. Someone responded with an argument that challenged one of my premises, but I argued back without budging. This however ultimately sowed a seed - as I couldn't reconcile my belief with his unfalsifiable argument ("bank deposits are IOUs, not bailments"). This slowly caused my belief on that topic to collapse, and then to be reconstructed, leading to a reversal in about 3 months.
- Belief in god as a child, which ended but was followed with a belief in the supernatural generally, and then finally with no supernatural beliefs by my mid-teens. I think the change was motivated partly by trying to reconcile the things religious teachers and the bible were saying with the real world, and partly due to a big science book I had as a kid. It was equally important looking to my bible (one of those big shiny ones with gold coating etc), but its contents were far more expansive, illustrated, and coherent, which ultimately gave me more respect for the philosophy of 'truth by observations' versus 'truth by dictate'.
This topic could make for valuable discussion, as better understanding of this process would allow us to better focus our efforts and hone our tactics, when going against mild SJWs or white knights etc.
The great Max Planck once said:
Quote:Quote:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Really it's impossible to comprehend the behaviour of mankind without knowing this rule. Beliefs often become part of people's identity, and losing them becomes akin to losing a limb.
Under this rule, argumentation between older people serves no intellectual purpose for themselves. Neither will change their beliefs under any circumstances. Extreme examples can go as far as people continuing to believe something even after it's been proven a hoax ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome ).
The purpose of these arguments is only for onlooking younger people. They listen to the arguments of their elders and draw their own conclusions. This then forms their beliefs, which then start the same calcification process.
This also explains the arrogance of teens: largely a self-defense mechanism to send them into the 'market of ideas', versus just accepting the calcified ideas of their parents and teachers, arrogantly issued themselves under the false claim that "old age means wisdom".
My opinion is that this effect stems from limited mental capacity. Every man only has so much mental strength and energy, and it is costly and burdensome to be constantly re-evaluating your beliefs in the face of new information. To a weak mind it would be completely paralyzing - there would be no energy left to make conclusions and take action. Hence he must accept what beliefs he has and roll with them, no matter how flimsy. Even to a strong mind - the effort involved in rewiring a foundation-level belief that was incorrectly set 10 years ago, is so large that it can be too painful to stomach it.
This is why I really enjoy seeing newbies coming to this forum, asking every manner of questions with an open mind. These are young men who were destined to absorb the toxic ideas of their parents, their teachers, or their politicians, and instead let their questions run free - so they could come to their own conclusions with the best insight they could find. Of course you do see the odd older guy here and there, generally prompted by a severe setback that forced them to re-evaluate their beliefs from scratch. I'm guessing it's less than 1 in 100 that do that though - all of the old failures I meet are full of reasons why it was everyone else's fault but theirs.
So my question is: what beliefs have you changed in the past? What caused you to change those beliefs, and how long did the process take? Were any of the beliefs deeply held?
For me some were:
- Belief that abortion was moral. Was firmly held. Reversed slowly due to some premises being challenged (what truly identifies a 'person'). I remember it going through a process of 'firmly held -> uncomfortably challenged -> held, but no longer firmly -> no belief either way (i.e. confusion) -> open re-consideration of the topic -> belief against
- Belief that fractional-reserve banking was immoral or damaging to civilization, mostly due to some lectures by Austrian economists (who I generally respect). Probably the most interesting reversal: I made an anti fractional-reserve banking comment on a YouTube video. Someone responded with an argument that challenged one of my premises, but I argued back without budging. This however ultimately sowed a seed - as I couldn't reconcile my belief with his unfalsifiable argument ("bank deposits are IOUs, not bailments"). This slowly caused my belief on that topic to collapse, and then to be reconstructed, leading to a reversal in about 3 months.
- Belief in god as a child, which ended but was followed with a belief in the supernatural generally, and then finally with no supernatural beliefs by my mid-teens. I think the change was motivated partly by trying to reconcile the things religious teachers and the bible were saying with the real world, and partly due to a big science book I had as a kid. It was equally important looking to my bible (one of those big shiny ones with gold coating etc), but its contents were far more expansive, illustrated, and coherent, which ultimately gave me more respect for the philosophy of 'truth by observations' versus 'truth by dictate'.
This topic could make for valuable discussion, as better understanding of this process would allow us to better focus our efforts and hone our tactics, when going against mild SJWs or white knights etc.