Chapter Five Thoughts
On page 43, it says that an effective way to strike communication gold is to start mining for more pluralistic narrative resources because a pluralistic advocacy environment is one where people can see people like them on both sides of the issues, and also people who are not like them on both sides in order to open the conversation to something that is more open-ended and productive rather than hostile. I think that we've had more pluralistic narratives surface in recent years. But, even with pluralistic narratives, it runs the risk of being "wrong"(and by "wrong" I mean "It does not align with my current views on this topic so it is not worth listening to"). We cling to our beliefs even when presented with new information. There is also this issue about not wanting to admit when you're wrong or even saying that there is another side to this that is worth listening to because it shakes our identity. But, I wanted to ask you all about this: Have you ever clung to a belief despite being presented with new information? What was the thing that opened your mind to hearing out a different view on that topic? Was it difficult because the "side" you were on said "the other side will say X, Y, and Z, so here are some counterarguments for you to ensure you win"?
I'd like to think that I'm a very open-minded person - someone who is willing to see both sides of a situation, and open to editing my own views if I deem necessary.
ReplyDeleteI'm not religious, by any means, so I find it difficult to come up with examples where my beliefs were challenged. At the same time, I rarely find myself in discussions that deal with my beliefs; however, when it comes to politics, I've found myself in uncomfortable conversations. For example, my boyfriend's mom is very pro-Trump - I am definitely not. We've gotten into conversations about it, and, because I'm not the most informed on politics, I'm always open to learning more; therefore, I'm always willing to hear her out on why "Trump was the best president." However, when she is done with her pro-Trump speech, I always find myself with the same opinions as before - regardless of how much "good" he's done for our country, I feel as though none of it matter because of the type of person he is, all of the horrible things he's done to people, etc.
In this situation, it was't hard for me to hear her out - I enjoy learning about the views and beliefs of other people. However, I hold my morals too high to consider changing my opinion on Trump, regardless of the "good" information I hear about him. I feel as though his reputation is forever ruined. This is probably one of the only examples where I've clung to my original belief, regardless of being presented with new information. In other cases, I find myself occasionally skewing my beliefs, at least a smidge, when new information is presented.
I tend to think of myself as open-minded person who is willing to listen to all sides of an issue. I tend to hold true to my beliefs. It mores about the fact that I am focused on finding the ruth which is often rooted in my religious beliefs. Though depending on the issue, my religious beliefs do encourage changing as long as it's in line with the truth. I would say that one particular time that I had my beliefs at least explored was after I believe the Sandy Hook shooting. A member of my church inquired what I thought about guns in schools as a student (at that time in high school). I heard the person's views though I don't quite recall them. But I just felt that it was intuitive of this person to ask me as a student what I though about the issue. I had not looked into the issue much at that time so I did rely mostly on the opinions I heard from others or other situations where guns had a positive outcome.
ReplyDeleteWhen I cling to beliefs while someone gives me evidence to the contrary, I make sure they are dumb beliefs. You can mathematically prove someone is a good person and I will still look down on them for playing Tron (not the movie, it's a kind of deck in the trading card game Magic the Gathering™). If you think that video games (or anything really) shouldn't be pre-ordered on principle, I'm gonna think you’re pretty foolish regardless of how many PhDs you have. I choose to hold these prejudices because they are harmless, but also because I have sort of facetiously woven them into my identity. I am, after all, what I do.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to more serious social issues, my opinions are founded on so little that I'm not particularly attached to them. I know that doesn't paint me in a particularly good light, but it's true. Well, maybe not THAT true. Despite the fact that my opinions on something like abortion aren't tied in with my identity (at least not in the same way opinions related to my hobbies are), it would be pretty damn difficult to convice me to be anti choice. I have found that I often hold my preconceived notions for good reason, and, until that stops being the case, I am going to be a pretty hard sell.
To answer the rest of your questions, the “side” I am on has always told me to think for myself. They told me to come up with counter arguments myself. As such, the beliefs I hold achieved that status because I consciously chose to hold them. I chose to defend them, and, if I choose, I can let them go. This obviously ain’t true for every opinion and thought I have ever had, but I make sure it is true for the ones I deem important.