If one fights anothers’ beliefs one ends up strengthening the others beliefs.
edit—in response to the (-1) given.
Optimism is a belief about the future, unrealistic optimism is what the article is about.
“We examined this question and found a marked asymmetry in belief updating. Participants updated their beliefs more in response to information that was better than expected than to information that was worse.” the abstract states.
So participants updated their beliefs more in response to information that was better than expected (i.e optimistic) than to information that was worse (realistic).
I summarised that with the statement above this edit.
Further the statement is supported by looking at disconfirmation bias : Subjects will spend more time and cognitive resources denigrating contrary arguments than supportive arguments. Hence if a subject has their argument attacked, they will spend more time and cognitive resources denigrating the attack, than on their own supportive arguments. This supports that if one attacks anothers’ belief, one strengthens their beliefs because the other will then attack the counter argument—the very act of which will support their original belief.
Now place that in an optimism situation.
If one has an optimistic outlook and that outlook is attacked, then the person will expend more energy on defending their optimistic outlook than on reconsidering their optimistic outlook. That’s basically what I understand of the article… hence...
“If one fights anothers’ beliefs one ends up strengthening the others beliefs.”
Now this is of course seen in the ongoing “battle” between the religious and the atheist. Plenty of arguments going both ways, and they tend to be very heated and get even more heated—and when we cut through it all what’s one of the major things that people take out of these arguments… that “I’m right, and they’re wrong.”
If you check out Belief Perseverance in (Social Psychology, Myers, 2010, p 84) you’ll get a better understanding of what is happening. The way around Belief Perseverance is to ask the other to consider for themselves why the opposite of their belief might be true and to have them explain their consideration—this is certainly not having them defend their own argument against an attack.
If one fights anothers’ beliefs one ends up strengthening the others beliefs. edit—in response to the (-1) given.
Optimism is a belief about the future, unrealistic optimism is what the article is about. “We examined this question and found a marked asymmetry in belief updating. Participants updated their beliefs more in response to information that was better than expected than to information that was worse.” the abstract states. So participants updated their beliefs more in response to information that was better than expected (i.e optimistic) than to information that was worse (realistic). I summarised that with the statement above this edit.
Further the statement is supported by looking at disconfirmation bias : Subjects will spend more time and cognitive resources denigrating contrary arguments than supportive arguments. Hence if a subject has their argument attacked, they will spend more time and cognitive resources denigrating the attack, than on their own supportive arguments. This supports that if one attacks anothers’ belief, one strengthens their beliefs because the other will then attack the counter argument—the very act of which will support their original belief.
Now place that in an optimism situation. If one has an optimistic outlook and that outlook is attacked, then the person will expend more energy on defending their optimistic outlook than on reconsidering their optimistic outlook. That’s basically what I understand of the article… hence...
“If one fights anothers’ beliefs one ends up strengthening the others beliefs.”
Now this is of course seen in the ongoing “battle” between the religious and the atheist. Plenty of arguments going both ways, and they tend to be very heated and get even more heated—and when we cut through it all what’s one of the major things that people take out of these arguments… that “I’m right, and they’re wrong.”
If you check out Belief Perseverance in (Social Psychology, Myers, 2010, p 84) you’ll get a better understanding of what is happening. The way around Belief Perseverance is to ask the other to consider for themselves why the opposite of their belief might be true and to have them explain their consideration—this is certainly not having them defend their own argument against an attack.
See also one argument against an army.