On science reddit there is a link to an article about confirmation bias. About 1500 comments in the discussion are deleted, here are some examples:
So how do you work to get out of this? I’m really afraid that I’m falling into thought bubbles and can’t find my way out. I’ve always believed in many different ideas but as of recent, I feel like I’m in an echo chamber.
Doubt everything and become a cynical son of a bitch that nobody wants to be around. Or self-reflect regularly. It’s a thin line. Good luck.
What gives a person the ability to self reflect and to question what they believe? I was once a very strong fundamentalist christian and far right republican who believed any evidence against my beliefs were lies. Somehow though I was able to break out of both of those things after evaluating them. I don’t know what was different about the initial evaluation that caused the break other than it seemed to be self lead someone through tangential and research. I have no clue how to apply it to other people. I’ve found even very gentle, bible-backed evidence causing my family and friends to become defensive and angry and immediately throw up walls. I’m not even sure how to make sure I am evaluating new ideas outside of my own bubble.
You could try looking into a personality trait known as “need for closure.” People with a high need for closure are rigid thinkers. They are very intolerant of ambiguity and are uncomfortable challenging their worldview, and thus tend to form beliefs quickly and are then less open to changing them. Conversely, people who have a low need for closure (this can also be termed “need for cognition”) are not as uncomfortable with ambiguity and are more cognitively flexible. They are more interested in actively constructing their understanding of the world, and tend to be more intellectually engaged and comfortable with changing their beliefs. I believe variance of this trait plays a role in answering the question of why some people change their worldview over time and others do not. [...] there is some situational variability as well. People who are stressed, angry, tired, hungry, pressed for time, etc. demonstrate much less cognitive flexibility than they otherwise would have.
It’s been my finding that you can never convince someone if they don’t want to be convinced and you announce your opposition to their ideas before entering the debate. It’s much more effective to go for the Socratic method. Make them think they’re teaching you and use well placed questions to force them to think on thoughts that they might otherwise be uncomfortable with. And they’ll do it because it the idea of gaining a convert usually outweighs the fear of this “innocent” corrupting their viewpoint.
Just try to remember that there are usually, at minimum, two sides to any argument, and those sides usually have, at least at some level, reasonable and arguable points that favor them. If you constantly challenge your own beliefs and argue convincingly for sides you may personally disagree with it can, at minimum, help you see things from the opposite point of view and empathize with the beliefs.
Actively pursue disproving what you believe. Play devils advocate with yourself. If you think you can’t poke any more holes in what you believe, look for people who can; others may have ideas or arguments you haven’t thought of. It also helps to work to identify your core values and rank them. Johnathan Haidt’s breakdown of what these may be is popular, but they are only one way of identifying and categorizing them. Use that as a starting point and Google your way to some criticism. Weight the criticism. There’s also a sub-reddit, /r/changemyview, that I don’t really frequent, and so, can’t really endorse or criticize, but I know exists. Just always question everything and step outside your comfort zone. Embrace intellectual conflict, but keep it classy; argue, don’t fight.
Realize that it’s OK to have an opinion without expressing it to others. I have deeply held beliefs on the usefulness of religion and the proper way to hang toilet paper, but I don’t generally share them because I don’t enjoy arguing, and I don’t need validation. They’re beliefs, not facts, so who cares what I think? By the same token, also know that it’s OK to have NO opinion on something (particularly things which you accept you’re unable to affect). You can listen to both sides of a debate, and choose neither. I’m largely agnostic about politics, for example.
On the other hand, if you do care about an issue and want to know more for the sake of empathy, asking people for their point of view without the need to give an opinion on it works just fine too.
I guess the comments broke some rule, probably that they don’t present scientifically supported statements. It’s still sad to see so much quality text removed. I understand that this is probably necessary to prevent a slippery slope from “science” to “just posting my random opinions”. Still, it’s sad.
On science reddit there is a link to an article about confirmation bias. About 1500 comments in the discussion are deleted, here are some examples:
I guess the comments broke some rule, probably that they don’t present scientifically supported statements. It’s still sad to see so much quality text removed. I understand that this is probably necessary to prevent a slippery slope from “science” to “just posting my random opinions”. Still, it’s sad.