Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions.
There are a number of great studies cited (one found that only 3 percent of 1,000 people surveyed in Illinois offered accurate answers on the state's welfare system). But while the article focuses on a neurological explanation, it also brought to mind an old question Vade Mecon posed when we were all shivering in Syracuse. That is, if I read everything Esquire did (and vice versa), could we imagine switching places on the spectrum or at least modifying them?
And, since I'm dismissive of all of V.M.'s suggestions, said no. Of course, at the time, I was in the thrall of communitarian literature (long live Michael Sandel!), and deeply suspicious of the reliance on the rationalist abstract individual so often posited in Western political philosophy. But I still hold on to a nugget: whatever I believe, I ascribe to culture, family, friends, years of growing up in certain communities. It's depressing in one sense, because no one likes to insult one's own mind; we'd all like to think we choose what we think after careful and deep consideration.
But what if everything was already decided for us?
No comments:
Post a Comment