Happy New Year!
Welcome to 2007! 
Reflecting back on 2006, here are what I consider the major things that happened:
- we lost a planet (and I’m sorry, but until the day I die I will still say Pluto is a planet!)
- we lost a bucketload of iconic Australians
- Georgie-Boy and his little friend Johnny gave even more proof that they are out of touch with the rest of the world
- I bought a rotissarie oven (this mightn’t seem like much, until you taste the meat cooked in it!)
- The Victorian government finally started introducing water restrictions (a little too late, if you ask me)
- The guidelines for basic life support (CPR) were changed … again …
And the major realisations I had during 2006:
- There are few things more peaceful than sitting on a balcony, being totally uncontactable by anyone, watching the sun set as the fish leap in the water
- Electric blankets are a godsend in the height of winter
- People will believe what they want to believe, irrespective of anything. They won’t let the facts sway their opinion of the “truth” as they wish to see it, even if it puts them or others at risk.
- Generally speaking, people are arrogant, egocentric and entitled. It’s okay for them to do what they would hate others to do or consider dangerous because they’re “not hurting anyone”, they’re “in a hurry”, they’re “in control of the situation, so nothing bad’s going to happen” and are outraged if someone points out that what they’re doing is wrong (and in some cases, illegal)
- People trying to “help” you aren’t necessarily helping the situation at all
- Torrid rocks (but I knew that already, just wanted to repeat it)
All the best for 2007, everyone!
January 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
People generally invest far too much ego in their beliefs.
I recall reading somewhere that this phenomenon was the bane of all genuinely experimental science: It is very rare that a scientist will get as far as performing an experiment without forming a pre-conceived notion of the outcome and what it will mean. That being the case, it is incredibly easy to sway or interpret or statistically process the result to show what you expected it to show, regardless of the actual evidence.
I think it’s part of what gives so many evangelists the strength to fight relentlessly for their entire lives to uphold beliefs that are often completely laughable: they feel that they can’t afford to back down. The longer and harder they fight, the more they will feel they have invested, and so on.
It’s a recurring theme in fiction too. Consider the recent X-men movie:
Megneto has already invested a lot in his stance that mutats are just better people. When he is confronted by the full force of Phoenix (aka Jean Grey) at her parents old house, he backs his own belief to the point that his old friend, Dr X, is killed. He is clearly terrified by all this, but rather than being shocked into comon sense, he becomes even more resolute in his beliefs. It’s not until (a) he is himself cast out of the league of mutants, and (b) his own life is directly threatened by Phoenix that his dogma finally cracks, and he asks ‘what have I done?’. We, the audience, can rest assured however: if his powers come back, he will go back to his old stance, in spite of all of this: he can’t face the idea of standing up again without the strength of his long-held stance.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Personally, I like the math of Paul’s explanation (though not necessarily all of his comments). It seems to have two or three advantages; for one thing, it’s overall understanding rather than patronising; it suggests how it’s entirely logical to maintain one’s beliefs like that and what advantages it has (primarily, rejection of spurious ang garbled data). It points out how belief is path-dependent.
It also has the practical advantage of suggesting how to combat it: by making moderate arguments rather than extreme ones. People will sooner believe a 5% improvement than a 150% one, so if you have a 150% improvement, de-emphasise its size…
η
January 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I guess the examples I’m referring to with respect to sticking to one’s “truth” are more in the “denial” category – refusing to admit things about themselves that have been previously proven, because they don’t want see themselves under that “label”.
By the egocentric thing I meant that people assume the world revolves around them, that decisions that are in no way related to them are somehow made with them in mind, that anything bad that happens that affects them was designed specifically against them as an individual. This often goes hand-in-hand with the “entitled” thing … if someone does something wrong but they feel it’s justified (usually for stupid, selfish reasons – impatience, greed, etc) and are called on it, they tend to feel that they’re being singled out for unfair criticism.