Question about Accuracy & Persuasion

troubled

In my Social Psychology class, we are studying a chapter on Persuasion. Here is an interesting excerpt from our study book, "Social Psychology: Unraveling the Mystery" by Douglas Kenrick, Steven Neuberg, and Robert Cialdini, page 171. Please tell me if you think it applies to JWs, ex-JWs, and this board in general.

p. 170, "Done Deals"

"The Bible says that there is a time for all things, "a time to every purpose under heaven" The goal of accuracy is not excused from this rule. For example, Peter Gollwitzer and his coworkers have shown that there is a particular time when people are most motivated to be accurate - when they are deciding what to feel, believe, or do. After that decision is made, however, the desire to see things as they really are can give way to the desire to get on with the now-made decision (Gollwitzer, Heckhausen, and Steller, 1990)

"Unwelcome Information"

Under certain circumstances, people choose to believe only what they want to believe, usually what fits with their self-interests and personal preferences (Johnson & Eagly, 1989; Kunda, 1990). This tendency can affect persuasion. For example, people see information that contradicts what they believe as less valid than information that supports these beliefs; as a result, such evidence is less persuasive (Lord, Ross, and Lepper, 1979; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, and Holt, 1985). Other research has revealed how this process works. People who receive persuasive information that fits with their personal interests, preferences, and positions feel content and typically don't expend the cognitive effort needed to look for flaws. However, those who encounter information that doesn't fit become upset and search it for weaknesses they can use to form counterarguments (Giner-Sorolla & Chaiken, 1997; Liberman & Chaiken, 1992; Munro and Ditto, 1997).

Maybe this is why JWs, after being baptized and committed to it, tend to latch onto information that supports their views ( the Pro-JW mental health article just posted), and discredits contrary info ("Jehovah's Witnesses and Mental Illness")

It would also explain why ex-JWs, after leaving the organization, are committed to separation from it, latch onto information that supports their views ("Suicide" threads and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mental Illness"), and discredit contrary info (the Pro-JW mental health article just posted).

That would also explain why this forum is mostly negative toward JW experience; and the pro-JW sites are mostly positive toward JW experience.

But here's my BIG QUESTION:

If BOTH JWs and ex-JWs (and people as a whole) after being committed to a goal, view information that supports them as more valid, and info that discredits them as less valid, then how can we EVER be sure we are looking at things accurately? How can we ever be sure we are making a wise and logical decision?

It sounds like, when it comes down to it, it's not so much about accuracy as it is about personal desire. In other words, what a person really WANTS to do and WANTS to believe. Whether JW or ex-JW, once a person takes a stand, they tend to seek out information and people who support that stand.

For someone who really wants to take an honest, unbiased look at things, this information is . . . er, well, "troubling." I'd like to know somebody's thoughts on it.

ItsJustMe

I don't think it's possibly for anyone to be wholly unbiased. The best we can do is make a committment to ourselves to always ask "why".

Inquiry

That's a very good question troubled.....

Seems everything has some kind of spin on it.... I don't know the answer to your question, but it does make one pause, doesn't it...
I remember back on the old H20 board, people got into the subject of logic... it was very interesting and educational. I think there are rules that should be followed when dealing with information, any information. But I don't know exactly what those rules are. If there are none, maybe we should start making them up....
Also priorities would play a huge role in any individuals ...say.. quest for information....

In any case, following rules would take up quite a bit of time, and people have to be willing to do it in order to be "sure" (as if we can actually say such a thing now)

Glad you brought this up....

Inq :)

sf

"That would also explain why this forum is mostly negative toward JW experience; and the pro-JW sites are mostly positive toward JW experience."

This tells me clearly what your motive for coming here has been from the gate. I pegged you the first post I saw from you. Thanks for this post. It's quite transparent why you ARE here. At least this is what I see and saw from day one. It could be that I'm alone on this thought, yet I don't think so.

You can try til you die to figure out the dynamics of anger and effects the WATCHTOWER SOCIETY has had on most of us. My question is why are you so concerned (please look this word up)? What's the motive behind the motive discovered here today?

sKally

Lionel_P_Hartley

troubled,

You make some good points - however, it is possible to analyse information objectively once one has trained oneself to do that. For example, the scientific method can be used to analyse the validity of certain theories or hypotheses. It is simply not true that all information is equally valid and that its meaning depends on interpretation. There are well established logical devices that can be used to decide whether something is accurate, reasonable, verifiable, etc.

JWs may discount information that conflicts with the central dogma of their religion - that the GB speaks for God. However, objective analysis demonstrates that the GB does not speak for God and that they are in fact prepared to lie, as in the UN thing.

The WTS could, for example, simply publish all information relating to its application to the UN. Why doesn't it do that? Presumably it is because it understands only too well that doing so now would show them to be (i) hypocrites and (ii) liars. If what you said was correct, then it could simply publish everything and then argue that its interpretation of that material is such that the WTS did no wrong.

Lionel

troubled

sf,

What I want to do is understand the pros and cons of JWdom. I've been somewhat disappointed about some things with the Society. But not to the point of dropping out. Then, too, I've been curious about why the Society doesn't want us to go to sites like this. I think if it's the Truth, then other information we read won't matter because we'll be able to have and answer and verify that it's the Truth.

So I came here and started to see things I didn't know before about the Society (the UN/NGO thing, Swaggart thing, etc.). So now I'm reading them and checking into them to try to figure out what's the whole picture.

But while I'm checking things out, I'm seeing some conflicting things too, like the 2 different articles on mental health of Witnesses (one pro and one con). To me, that complicates matters and makes it not so easy to be unbiased and figure out 100% accurate info.

So, like my Sociology book says, do people tend to make a decision and then stick to info and people who will support it? And are JWs and ex-JWs both doing this? And if so, how can we be sure of accuracy of research? That's what I'm wondering.

Is that what you're asking?

accuracy

sf, unless troubled wrote the book he is quoting from I would have to ask you, "Why are you shooting the messenger?" And what is your motive in doing so?

larc

Troubled,

You raise a very interesting point. I think the best we can do it try to search for the facts, as you are, weigh the evidence and form our own conclusions, as you are in the process of doing.

Their many ambiguities in religion in general and in any specific organizad religion, and therefore a lot of room for disagreement. Even in science, which has more stucture and more objective measures for verifying ideas, there still is the human tendency to scoff at new ways of thinking. I am going through this right now. I submitted a manuscript regarding measurement in psychology. My idea flys in the face a standard practice that has been used for a hundred years. My idea, was soundly criticized and rejected. However, I have expanded my data, and my proof is, I think, indistupable. I will find out once I resubmit my material.

Back to the xJW thing. There are certain researchers who have done the best within their ability to be as accurate and objective as possible. I would put Ray Franz and Jim Penton in that category. On this board, I would include Norm and AlanF as especially careful in this regard. I think Kent trys to be careful as far as the validity of the resource material he puts on his web site. You probably don't care for his in your face posting style, but that is another issue. I also think that Randy Watters and Bill Bowen attempt to be fair minded on some critical issues.

On a side note on mental illness: I don't think that it can scientificly proven one way or the other whether JWs have a higher rate of mental illness or not, since they will not allow researchers to do survey work in their midst. I think that reasonable inferences can be made. Any religion that teaches you that you should always to more than you are doing now, will lead to long term stress, low self esteem, depression and health problems among the members who internalize this message.

troubled

Lionel,

Do you think a "Logic" class would help a person learn these skills? The college where I am taking Sociology offers a Logic course too.

troubled

sf,

You said:
"It's quite transparent why you ARE here. At least this is what I see and saw from day one."

What did you see, and why are you mad that I am here?

Question about Accuracy & Persuasion

Share this