The Plank in Your Other Eye...

Hey everyone! Hopefully everything's going well with school and what not for everyone. I know some quarter people are going through midterms (just had two myself today haha), and I bet semester people are recovering from them/prepping for their next ones. Oh, the crazy business of academia...

Anyways, I figured I'd just post a quick little thing to finish off of what I was talking about last time. For everyone who's thought tl;dr for the last post, essentially it was talking about the "'Cuz it's True Constraint," which states the idea of us being bias to think that we believe what we believe for absolutely logical reasons and it has to be true. We ignore the bias in our own perspective yet are able to point out bias in other people's perspectives. Our core beliefs are maintained this way by also assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with our viewpoint is either ignorant, an idiot, or evil. Last post I talked about the ignorant assumption. I'm just gonna finish off today with talking about the idiot and evil assumptions...

The idiot assumption essentially states that yes, people have heard your idea before. Yet, the reason why they choose not to believe it is simply because they're stupid/idiots. This is kind of a harsh statement, and not something exactly thought/stated explicitly sometimes. It may be seen that someone who disagrees is simply misguided, even though the "truth" has been presented to them. The important part of this assumption is that these people have heard/of know the truth, yet they choose not to believe it. Thus, it's easiest to remember this constraint by just labeling others who don't agree with our ideas as "idiots."

It may be obvious, of course, but labeling these people as idiots is not helpful to changing their perspective. One of the recent experiments I learned about in Social Psych had to do with the Insult Effect (I don't know if this is the exact name given to it, but it shall hopefully suffice). The experimenters essentially measured viewpoints towards a certain issue and gauged how much people believed in that viewpoint. I don't remember how, but the participants were somehow involved in a debate (or by that point, an argument) where the opposing person insulted that person for having stock in that belief. Essentially, the participant felt as if they were called an idiot... What the experimenters saw was that this caused the person insulted to pull back even farther into his belief and was very closed to any form of rationally debating at that point. Thus, insulting another person during a discourse is actually quite harmful if you're attempting to change their minds about the issue. Of course, a few people may insult others because it may make them feel more secure in their own beliefs, but that's not anything I really have experimental evidence that I can presently recall...

Finally, the last assumption people may make for why others don't believe what they believe is the evil assumption. This assumption states that people don't share the belief due to the fact that these people are evil or evil has some form of control over them. Honest to goodness, Schwarz doesn't even go too far with talking about the evil assumption in Being Wrong, so I may be extrapolating just a tad here But yes, this is an assumption that is again very prevalent in religious communities. If you see someone that doesn't believe what you believe, and just simply label them as evil, it would make sense as to why they wouldn't believe your "truth" that is "good and right." One of the most dangerous things about this assumption is that not only may you view these people differently or label them as evil, but that this is probably the hardest view to reconcile/change the person to see your view. For ignorance, you can educate the person. for idiocy, you can attempt to make the person learn more/see their own bias. Some people may stop here if they simply see others as idiots, yes, but I think it would be even more difficult to change those that they saw evil, if they even attempted to in the first place. This is just personal speculation at this point (but something I think would be good for testing if an experiment could be designed!), but it's a lot harder to change someone that's evil rather than those that are idiots. I don't know, though, for one may think they can "fight the darkness" and help purge the person of evil so that they may "see the light." Yet, again, this is only hypothetical, and definitely very odd to write...

Mainly, it's just easy to stay in our beliefs and think that others may not believe simply because they're ignorant, stupid, or evil. Ignorant is something that can be readily changed, assuming that the person is willing to listen. Yet, if a person refuses to hear the truth, others may just see them as an idiot, and thus everything would be dandy as to why everyone believes what they believe. Just as a word of warning, the main problem that accompanies the "Cuz it's True" Constraint is that our own bias is much harder to see than the bias of others. Thus, even just reading this may not be a way to become aware of bias, especially since it's something so natural to us we don't even recognize that we have bias. Yet, that is part of what bias is in the first place haha. Oh well, I think that basically finishes it up for this topic. I shall be back writing hopefully soon! Then again, that's what I've said almost every other post up till now... Oh well, we'll see where it all goes soon enough...

The Plank in Your Own Eye...

Hey all! I know it's weird for me to be writing two posts somewhat close to each other considering how horrible I am with consistency, but I have quite a few issues/topics on my mind due to lots of discussions here and there. So, before I forget everything, I figure I would log a few things here and there to share with others...

Anyways, one of the books that was assigned for Social Psychology is Being Wrong by Kathryn Schulz. It definitely is an interesting read and something I would recommend to anyone who is held fast by certainty or knows somebody who is. Unfortunately, I can't cover too much of the book (since it would just be better to read the book itself haha). But, one of the parts I found very interesting was the idea of the "'Cuz It's True Constraint." This constraint has to do with the bias people have in their own beliefs and not recognizing it. Yet, people are readily able to point out what they believe is the bias in other people's beliefs. Even though this may sound confusing to say (since I'm getting confused just typing it haha), the essential idea is that people think that what they believe in has to be true, simply because they believe in it. In other words, people don't believe in something they know is wrong (possibly not morally, but truth wise).

People are far less able to accurately point out their own bias when it comes to things. There tends to be some form of justification that makes it so we sound even and fair, yet we readily may see questionable aspects about other people's beliefs. To make this a little bit easier to understand, let's say your friend is part of some tea company. Your friend constantly raves about how good the tea is and how you should try some. When you ask him why he likes his tea so much, he says something to the degree of that it just tastes so good. Yet, you think that this is not the case, and part of the reason why he promotes so much is so that he gets more sales for his company, thus leading to possible recognition in the company and commissions. But, if you were in the position of the one working for the tea company, you may be not so readily to accept those answers as explanations to your own behavior.

Sigh, that is a rather crude example, but hopefully it gets the point across... Anyways, sometimes one may be questioned as to why another's belief, assuming that it is ultimately true, is not believed by everyone. In other words, if you have the ultimate truth, and it's so easy to grasp, then why hasn't everyone taken it and believed? Schulz said that we have three assumptions to defend against this question: the Ignorance Assumption, the Idiocy Assumption, and the Evil Assumption. All of these assumptions I find interesting, but for space's sake (and for the attention span of anyone who actually has read this far), I'll just be focusing on the Ignorance Assumption for now.

The Ignorance Assumption states that the reason people may not believe in something is simply because they have not heard of it yet. Thus, how can one believe in something that they have not heard of and thus know nothing about? The idea that follows out of this belief, then, is to let others know of your belief. This typically can happen through just talking with others, debates, discussions, messages, etc. Thus, the idea is to get out your message to other people, since if other people know about your truth, they'll come to believe too, right?

Humm... Even just writing that sarcastically sounds awfully funny to me. The sad thing is, though, that this seems to be a heavily purported belief, whether or not it's apparent at first. Of course, those not made aware of this bias may not even recognize that it's affecting them, which is part of the funny business of bias itself...

Just coming from a Christian environment, I have to say this is one of the most common assertions I've heard as to why not everyone believes in Christianity. Personally speaking, I've heard so many teachers and religious figures tell me that we need to go out and spread the Gospel since so many people have not heard it before. Yet, from those I've talked with and from what I've heard, I don't know if that's truly the case... Of course, I recognize that I haven't run through every single environment (in fact, my sample is rather limited...), and thus I cannot speak for every single possible case. But, regardless, many of the people that I've talked to about religious beliefs have heard of the message of the Gospel, and they have said that others around them have heard as well. In fact, some people have felt insulted for the question ever being posed. They have heard of the Gospel and assertions for why it is the truth, yet they choose not to believe in it due to other reasons.

But wait! A possible interjection is that maybe they haven't heard the true message of the Gospel. In other words, the "Gospel" that they came across may be a misconstrual of the actual message. Thus, it would be important to go out and tell more people, so the true message may be known. I guess it would be nice if that was truly the case, but this does raise a major concern, for lack of a better word. Yes, it may be true that not everyone has heard the Gospel in its truest form. The question arises, though, of how people come to know about it (the Gospel) in the first place. Going to a little bit of what I've heard, read, and posted before (for those that have read previous entries), most of the information that we come to learn about others and their beliefs is simply through others themselves. If we see someone who labels himself as a Christian and have no other form of exposure to Christianity, we may think that what that person says and does truly represents Christianity, whether or not it is actually the case. Thus, others may have learned about Christianity from others, whether or not the representations accurately reflect the religion. If it is negative, then yes, it may be good for them to see Christianity accurately.

Yet, going out and telling people without any preparation or personally having a full understanding of Christianity itself may cause more harm than good, especially if the person being witnessed to correctly understands Christianity. If one goes out without being fully prepared, they may push people farther away from Christianity rather than close to it, thus indirectly causing the problem they're trying to solve. Thus, it would be important to accurately for one to know why they believe what they do believe. Unfortunately, many people have taken this Ignorance Assumption quite seriously and have gone out preaching to others without fully understanding Christianity itself nor fully understanding other people's viewpoints. I may just be somewhat adverse to this idea simply because I've grown up in a Christian environment for so long, and this is one of the ideas I've heard constantly advocated. So yes, I recognize that I may be bias in this issue, but I still think it's something important for others who may have faced such a similar environment to recognize as well. Please don't think that I'm trying to say it's not important for one to be able to represent and share their beliefs, but I am advocating to correctly understand why one believes what they believe so it can be shared properly with others.

How ironic... Every time I start to write, I keep on trying to cut down how much I say so I can keep people's interest until the end. Alas, I seem to have gone a tad bit long-winded again, and I didn't even get to say all of what I wanted to say... Hum, my bad... Well, thank you to anyone who has actually read all the way until now, and I hope, at the very least, that I have given you some food for thought.

Elevators, Etiquette, and Empathy

Hey all! I hope everyone's doing well with classes and what not! For quarter systems, we're just starting out and just getting familiar/prepped for midterms. I think semester schools might be past their first round of midterms right now... Good luck to everyone!

Anyways, today I did something that I don't do very often: I went to a professor's office hours. I decided to stop by Professor Lieberman's office and just talk to him about social psychology stuff, considering that is what he teaches haha. Usually I just go to a TA's office hours if I need to know something about the class or check up on grades, but even for course material it's rare for me to stop by a prof's office directly. Well, considering it's only 2nd week, I didn't actually have too much course material to ask about...

Instead, we ended up talking about random extensions from the stuff he was teaching in class. One of the things I found most curious was the idea of changing the way how we see other people's behavior. The example he gave was about elevator etiquette. It might be confusing to some, but for anyone that has lived on a high floor elevator wise, I'm sure you will at least get the gist of this... Anyways, one of Professor Lieberman's pet peeves is when people take the elevator one floor up. It can be quite aggravating after a long day to see the elevator stop at the very first floor when you're travelling four floors up or so. Also, it can be annoying to be going down four floors and have to stop at the last possible stop before the lobby...

So, according to Lieberman's elevator tier chart, taking the elevator one floor is lazy, two floors is understandable, and three floors is perfectly fine. Yet, Lieberman acknowledged that part of the reason why he views things this way is simply because he lives on the fourth floor. If he lived on the second or third floor, he said that he may have had to refine his elevator tier chart. Yet, since he lives on the fourth floor, his tier chart is biased to fit him. He even acknowledged that his tier chart had changed in the past due to having an illness that made him have to take the stairs one flight at a time. Thus, at that point, he viewed others taking the elevator only one floor alright, since that's what he had to do as well with his illness. Yet, when the illness stopped acting up, he immediately reverted back to his old elevator tier chart. Anyone who took the elevator for just one floor he again saw as lazy...

Hm... It's almost sad to see one's beliefs be able to change so quickly, especially in the sense of empathy. For those that have read To Kill a Mockingbird, hopefully you remember that empathy is one of the huge themes advocated by Atticus. He's always mentioning walking a mile in someone else's shoes in order to understand them. Yet, it seems even in this case, after walking a mile in someone else's shoes and changing back to your own, empathy was not something readily maintained...

But, Lieberman pointed out, it could be maintained if he so desired. To battle his automatic thoughts of seeing someone else as lazy, he could keep on his mind constantly that people that may take the elevator one floor may have other, legitimate reasons (such as medical reasons) for doing so. Thus, he would still be able to have a sense of empathy. But, the cost would be quite large... It would have to be something focused on rather constantly and something present in consciousness, otherwise it would not be able to combat his automatic thought of seeing others as lazy. Not only would this be something difficult to do, it would be highly inefficient and even impractical to do so he argued.

If we accept Lieberman's explanation, then it would seem nearly impossible to keep up a sense of empathy in a daily case... Yet, there was another way that he did mentioned. If you somehow were able to change your priming from viewing others taking the elevator one floor as lazy to viewing them as having other reasons, this new automatic thought would replace the old one. In other words, your first, automatic thought would be that the person taking the elevator one floor down has a good reason. In social psych terms, the automatic thought process that remains in the long-term for how you're primed to view others are known as being "chronically accessible". Thus, if you change the thought that's chronically accessible, maybe you can instill a sense of empathy rather than viewing the other as lazy. Thus, you would avoid the problem of having to constantly think otherwise since the initial thought you have would be the one of empathy.

Unfortunately, for those that have read my other posts, this goes back to the idea of invoking internal conformity. How can you make it so that some form of change is relatively permanent (thinking those taking the elevator one floor have a good reason in this case), with or without a stimulus invoking that behavior (In Lieberman's case, having a disease that made it hard for him to take the stairs)? Even after discussing with Professor Lieberman, he said that it was a hard question and something he didn't really have the answer for. Of course, neither do I, nor do I think that there exists some really clear answer for evoking this type of change. Thus, even if the possibility does exist, I don't think it's something that's easily attained on a generic basis...

Yet, the first process is still somewhat interesting to me. Even with its limitations, I think there can possibly be some merit. Instead of thinking specifically about viewing those that take the elevator one floor, maybe it would be possible to somehow a wider view... For example, anytime someone does something that you automatically think is lazy, stupid, bias, ignorant (all words Lieberman loves hahaha), or anything else that gets on your nerves, the automatic thought that you focus on is that maybe they have something else going on/some valid reason. Thus, you may have this initial moment of annoyance, yet that initial automatic thought is counteracted by this new thought you are focusing upon. In this case, it wouldn't apply for just elevator etiquette, but any other situation such as seeing people speeding by you on the freeway.

This, of course, is something I'm only postulating and not something I've actually researched/seen happen. Personally speaking, I've been trying to focus more on an empathetic approach recently, so it's somewhat the same idea. But, in that sense, it's also like a life devotion, so it could fit more into the brand of a "chronically accessible" thought and not a constantly focused on thought. Even though it sort of is something I constantly focus on... Oh bother... Even if it is chronically accessible, I don't know exactly how it became that way, which puts it at a standstill for helping others to get that point (assuming that it's a good point to be at, of course). Hum, at this point I'm not really saying anything, so I think it's a good sign I'm exhausted and should call it quits for tonight. Well, hopefully what I wrote made some form ofsense, and at the very least, I hope it gave you some food for thought...