I’m curious. Do you think that this cognitive bias is only possible in defense of the “mainstream respectable view” or is it also possible to develop this cognitive bias in defense of a “minority subculture view”?
Of course it’s possible. Many contrarian groups develop their own internal strangely inverted forms of political correctness, to the point where someone among them who suggests that there might me some merit to a mainstream view after all will be faced with mindless outrage and personal attacks. I’ve seen this happen in various contrarian online venues.
Have you, yourself, ever found yourself victim to this kind of cognitive bias?
In the past, yes, but I do try actively to overcome this sort of thing. (For example, by regularly reading stuff written by people whose positions are radically opposed to my own ones, and who are openly hostile to various groups I happen to belong to.)
I do try actively to overcome this sort of thing. (For example, by regularly reading stuff written by people whose positions are radically opposed to my own ones, and who are openly hostile to various groups I happen to belong to.)
Sounds like a good practice. I sometimes do this sort of thing myself. But sometimes I find myself reading simply to find the flaws, rather than reading to understand the PoV. Do you have any suggestions to avoid this trap?
But sometimes I find myself reading simply to find the flaws, rather than reading to understand the PoV. Do you have any suggestions to avoid this trap?
One interesting exercise is to imagine that you’re explaining the issue to a space alien, and try hard to avoid imagining that alien as excessively similar to yourself.
Well, imagine you’re reading something you radically disagree with, perhaps even getting angry and offended in the process, but then you wonder if maybe you’ve been reading it in a biased way, eagerly looking for flaws while failing to consider the arguments seriously. Then you imagine that a space alien visits you at that moment, who is altogether ignorant of humans and their ways but interested in them in an anthropological sort of way, and asks what exactly the disagreement is about and why you believe that this stuff you’re reading is so wrong.
The key is to avoid unintentionally assuming that the alien shares a lot of your knowledge and presumptions. If you can come up with a coherent explanation under these assumptions, chances are you’ve gone a long way towards actually understanding the opponent’s point of view, rather than just dismissing it in an instinctive and biased way.
Perplexed:
Of course it’s possible. Many contrarian groups develop their own internal strangely inverted forms of political correctness, to the point where someone among them who suggests that there might me some merit to a mainstream view after all will be faced with mindless outrage and personal attacks. I’ve seen this happen in various contrarian online venues.
In the past, yes, but I do try actively to overcome this sort of thing. (For example, by regularly reading stuff written by people whose positions are radically opposed to my own ones, and who are openly hostile to various groups I happen to belong to.)
Sounds like a good practice. I sometimes do this sort of thing myself. But sometimes I find myself reading simply to find the flaws, rather than reading to understand the PoV. Do you have any suggestions to avoid this trap?
Perplexed:
One interesting exercise is to imagine that you’re explaining the issue to a space alien, and try hard to avoid imagining that alien as excessively similar to yourself.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand. What am I explaining to the alien? How does that exercise help me to benefit from reading stuff that I disagree with?
Well, imagine you’re reading something you radically disagree with, perhaps even getting angry and offended in the process, but then you wonder if maybe you’ve been reading it in a biased way, eagerly looking for flaws while failing to consider the arguments seriously. Then you imagine that a space alien visits you at that moment, who is altogether ignorant of humans and their ways but interested in them in an anthropological sort of way, and asks what exactly the disagreement is about and why you believe that this stuff you’re reading is so wrong.
The key is to avoid unintentionally assuming that the alien shares a lot of your knowledge and presumptions. If you can come up with a coherent explanation under these assumptions, chances are you’ve gone a long way towards actually understanding the opponent’s point of view, rather than just dismissing it in an instinctive and biased way.