Why Facts Don't Unify Us (Article)

Article link: Click Here


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this information, it explains a lot.

So in essence, the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own points of view.

Interesting.

Manu wrote: So in essence, the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own points of view.

There's been quite a bit of sociological study on this. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann wrote a book called The Social Construction of Reality which goes over a lot of research done on the phenomena. Essentially, the way we construct our ideas of truth constitute our reality. Our reality becomes our ideology and our ideology becomes our reality (intentionally circular reasoning). The only way we can break from our ideology is if we want to, otherwise we will continually look for anything and everything that validates our conception of reality and dismiss anything that does not.

When we argue often times it leads to what I refer to as an ideological gridlock, the refusal of both parties to change their minds despite whatever merits of evidence have been presented on either side. Furthermore, many times this arguing while in ideological gridlock only reinforces our sense being 'right' even though we may have been wrong according to the facts presented.

I think there is a lot of ego trapped in there too. One likes to think of themselves as smart, capable of critical thinking, not typically swayed by media or others. When it happens then, that they may be wrong, it is a blow to said ego, which for them IS the "self". Its alarming how many of our beliefs shape both our identity and our reality

I agree, though I think it can be all too simple to let our explanations become one-dimensional. Yes, it's ego, but it's also a bit of ideology, a bit of conflicting realities, a bit of difference in what constitutes truth, etc. Ego is a part of it, I believe because I've experienced it, but this is more general than that. It would be unfair, even a disservice to the complexity of motivations for why people argue for what they believe in spite of evidence to the contrary.

I would say this though, that in my experience one of the reasons I get into heated arguments is because of my ego and not because of anything noble. When I am at my best, I know when to walk away and let a thing go.

I don't know if this is off-topic, but as the thesis of this thread is that facts don't unify us, the question that pops into my head is:

What can unify us then? Is it even possible? With so many of us fighting over positions and not taking into account each others' interests, is unity truly possible?

That's the part that most people miss.

It's not so much that facts don't unify us, it's that they don't unify us if we don't want them to. Unity is a choice. We can continue to allow ourselves to be divided by our beliefs or we can allow ourselves to open up to the possibility that we might have been wrong before and analyze the facts as they are.

someone asked me once if wanted to be right or if i wanted to be happy

unity becomes possible when we see people as being separate from their ideas

"people dont have ideas, ideas have people" - that is totally true; sometimes you have to allow people to be had by ideas that you dont agree with

the assumption that we tend to make is "i am right, and we will get along as soon as you see/accept my facts and my interpretations"

but of course that will never happen: even if you could convince any one particular person, the whole rest of the world is still going to see things they way it sees things

so we have to understand that it really is ok to see things differently

if we look beyond the exact positions that people hold, and instead identify the underlying principles which drive them to those positions, we often find similarities of principle even with people on opposing sides of issues

when we can identify mutually valued principles, we open the possibility of building bridges between our views, or at least finding a middle ground where we can interact cooperatively

when i explain my views to people its no longer done with the expectation of convincing them, but rather simply with the intent of explaining how i understand things, and why i understand them the way that i do

when i learn others views, i usually dont really care if we agree or not, i see it as simply learning about another person and/or exploring ideas

i may make great efforts to explain my own views, and yes i often hope that something i say will register. but at the end of the day we are just two people doing the best we know how to do with whatever experiences and resources we have to draw from and i can let those chips fall wherever they are and not take it too personally

we can explore ideas without being overly attached to them, and in that is another key to unity: not being so attached to our own ideas

so what if i think something is true? maybe it is and maybe it isnt

maybe its partly true but there are other situations or contexts where it isnt true at all

maybe what you believe is true but maybe there are also times when the opposite of what you believe is also true

unity is a choice, but i would add that if your precondition for unity is that the other person admit or realize that they are wrong, then you are not choosing unity, youre choosing "victory"

sometimes people promote ideas that i think are actually dangerous for society

such as the theme that human beings deserve to be destroyed, or that people can be personally judged for criteria other than their individual actions and intentions (such as their race or gender)

when i encounter this i usually express my disagreement to these ideas as well as i am able, and i do my best to follow my own advice about seeing people as being distinct from the ideas that have them

this is why i see it as something like a choice between being right and being happy: do you want to be rigth or do you want to get along?

i want both lol but believing that i am right doesnt actually require that others change their own views