The Opinions of Others

Have you ever noticed how people react when you tell them you don't like what they like? The perfect example is a TV show or movie. Over the holidays, what people watched on TV came up a lot.

"Did you see the latest episode of X?"

"No, I don't like that show."
"What!? That's the greatest show ever!" They seem genuinely worked up by your dislike of something they value. 

I was wondering what the reason is for people overreacting to having a difference of opinions. Here are some thoughts:

• In-Group/Out-Group: If I like X and you say you don't like X, then you are automatically out of my group, you become an outsider. 
• Worldview Threatened: If I like Q and you say Q is stupid, then that might be perceived as a threat to my worldview. It's a challenge.

This whole thing about Worldviews being threatened is fascinating. I think this is especially a problem when the issue at hand is not a concrete fact, but can be seen as subjective, open to interpretation, or contentious in some way.

Last week, I got a comment on a post that I took the wrong way, and my reply was a bit snippy and defensive. The commenter, Eric, said the following in reply:

"Isn't it odd that in a situation where just about everyone admits that the evidence is not definitive, and probably never will be, where you would think people would be most tolerant of differing interpretations of the evidence, people instead tend to become less tolerant of opposing views and often question the motives or honesty of the other side?"

It's interesting, isn't it? I think studies have been done that have shown just such a conclusion. The more people feel unsure about something important to them, the more they dig their heels in once they believe one side or the other. 

This seems apparent in areas like religion and politics where it doesn't look like there is any one hard fact, it's more about worldview and perspective of the world. People get really stubborn about however they make up their minds.

I'd say that it's different when there is hard evidence to be had, but that's not consistently true, is it? ID/evolution is a prime example where those who accept evolution rely on mountains of evidence and those who believe in ID rely on faith and on one old musty collection of books from 2 millennia ago. 

But, if you asked someone with a strong opinion in a non-factual argument, that person would probably have "good" reasons to believe their side. I think that might be the case because people don't know how to think critically at all anymore, if they ever did. But we are hard wired to rationalize.

Of course, there is also research that shows that people actually form beliefs first, then rationalize those beliefs. Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain does a nice job of explaining how we go about this.

But it definitely puts us on the back foot, because we have to justify our beliefs when they are challenged, and we probably don't have solid reasons for those rationalizations.

I also noticed over the holidays that the offended reactions to differing preferences was much less apparent among my skeptical friends. In my family and among my less skeptical friends, that's where it was really noticeable.

I think this is because skeptical people practice critical thinking, whereas your average person has no idea what critical thinking even is, never mind how to do it.

The moral of the story? Learn how to think critically! 

Soul Searching For Godless Heathens

I was recently asked about my worldview. Specifically I was asked what I find lacking in it. What do I see as flawed with it?

I've thought about this. I think by its very nature, my worldview is ideal for me. I don't see any flaws at all. But first, let's define it.

Worldview: 1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

So,  it's a very comprehensive set of beliefs about the world. And I'm very happy with the worldview I've thoughtfully developed. I will say it was a process, though, which is ongoing and, like all critical thinking, open to new information that can alter it.

Mine is based on Naturalism - a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations; Humanism - a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity; and Nature - nature is awesome and humans are responsible for taking care of the world to the best of our ability, and to be humane to other living creatures.

In those respects, science is very important to me because it's how we understand and progress. Through science the Universe gets to know itself (rough paraphrase from my hero, Carl Sagan), and we get to know our world and everything in it, including ourselves.

Science isn't everything though. There's also humanity and what we have developed*, such as consciousness and cognition, justice, beauty, love, humaneness, compassion, morality, genius, and on and on. (*note that there are animals that have some consciousness and self awareness, which is amazing and awesome. It shows that we are on the far end of the continuum, but still connected and an integral part of the animal kingdom!)

My worldview has been cultivated and formed over my life, but especially in the last 10 years since I've become an atheist. In other words, I've really thought about this, it isn't something told to me by anyone. And I think that's important for finding that it's complete and comfortable for me.

I thought I'd turn the question over to you. What is your worldview and do you feel yours has any flaws in it that bother you, that you find missing or less than fulfilling?