Suppose two people, Alice and Bob, have different views upon some controversial issue. We might imagine Alice is a Jehovahs Witness and Bob is an doubting relative, and the issue could be: ”Is jehovahs witnesses Gods organization”.
Now we give them both new information, some favorable to the issue being true, others unfavorable. In a perfect world where Alice [what the hell happened with that thread anyway?] and Bob are perfectly rational, we might expect that as they are given more and more information, their views will become aligned to a common agreement; ”most likely Yes”, ”properly not”, ”we cant be sure either way” or something like this.
For example, we might both give Alice and Bob the following information from a reputable newspaper: ”Jehovahs Witnesses, an organization known for taking issues in court to prove themselves right, has settled many cases of pedophilia with victims, paying millions in damages, while hundreds or thousands more claim they have been molested and the fact covered up by the 2-witness rule”. Thats pretty damning, right?
We might imagine the following process: Upon hearing this information Bobs belief is reinforced, but allready thinking it is most likely not Gods organization, his beliefs move very little.
Alice, upon hearing the information, is rather shocked. While there may be explanations, it may also be true, and her belief move towards that of Bob.
we might conjecture that rational people who are given the same information will tend to align their beliefs. we might take this as a strong argument for free speech and democracy. We would be wrong.
We do not observe convergense of view in reality. Often issues start out as not very controversial, and the more they are discussed, the more divided people become for/against. Take Obama being a muslim (I bet noone held a strong position about that a couple of years ago!), 9/11 being an inside job (Ditto!) or if increased spending is the right way to get us out of the current crisis (an issue where even the learned people are extremely divided).
To return to Alice and Bob – in reality, Bobs reaction is properly natural. However, i bet many here would agree that most likely Alice dont move an inch, in fact, she might become even more convinced and act more zeleous as she hear the information!
Everyone has a theory for why this happend, and usually it involve some degree of irrationality (or worse!) in the other party:
”She is under mind-control!”
"She use a logical fallacy!"
”Its her faith. She is not being rational/has to much invested in it”
”He only listen to Glen Beck and his goons”
”He only listen to the liberal media and their goons”
”he is to stupid/proud/stubborn to admit he is wrong”
”These people need a conspiracy to think they are important. They cant function in the real world”
”They will propose and defend any policy that is aligned with their agenda, and twist facts to suit it!”
I bet all of us have used some of those explanations at some point.
The truth is that we are being interlectually lazy.
There are many situations where the same information told to rational people will cause their views to diverge – Bob is more convinced he is right, Alice more convinced she is right. Its downright eerie. Many psychologists who have observed it has taken it as evidence humans are irrational, while mathematicians have dismissed it can happend and claimed – to some embarresment – to have proven it.
It can even happend where both Alice and Bob know each others reasons for changing their belief the way they do and would agree that if they were in each others shoes they would think exactly the same.
The example with Alice and Bob could be explained this way:
There are two ways of looking at the world. One is a JW-view; here the nature of God and the Devil is such that the Devil walk around like a lion, causing people to prosecute christians and smear those who preach Jehovahs name, and God dont lift a finger.
The other is a more secular view, which is basically the opposite of the above.
Bob: I mainly believe in a secular world, thus JW is likely not Gods organization. But even assuming it IS gods organization, this new evidence would not fit any way, because surely God would not torelate such a thing. Thus i believe they are Gods organization even less.
Alice: I mainly believe in a non-secular world, and therefore i believe we are most likely Gods organization. When i hear this information, i think ”My God! Satan is now causing these poor apostates to accuse us of pedophilia!” it fit what i expect – more persecution - and i believe we are Gods organization even more.
The above conclusions are rational. The fact the part of Alice which is not entirely convinced of the non-secular world view follow Bobs argument and is less convinved, but since she mainly believe in the non-secular world view, she is mainly convinced she is even more right. The same process goes on in Bob, and the result is that they differ even more after the information than they did before.
My point is that one should not automatically assume mind control or Glen Beck to be behind seemingly bonkers reasoning that seem to defy logic from our POW. If Bob had told Alice she was under mind-control, he would be the irrational person, and she would be right to dismiss him as such.
This is, ofcourse, not to say that Glen Beck is not an asshat and people become more stupid by watching him, or mind control is not real. I think both things are very true. But it is prudent to first assume rationality in the othe person, and try to understand how the other person react as he do. One should in particular be carefull when
- One is reporting from a source the other find very or very little credible.
- There are two ”World-View” or ”lenses” involved.
- Situations where two people are very polerized.
- Arguing from studies where one or more can be dismissed as ”possible noise”
The best thing one can do in either case is to understand the others argument, and make very sure it is indeed irrational before attacking it.
The assumptions may still be irrational, ofcourse. Alice had to base her view of a non-secular world view on something, and Bob should try and attack that (but notice that Bob does not win here per default, we all hold ideas that are not entirely rational). Or alternatively, he could see if Alice would agree Jehovahs Witnesses in reality have few pedophiles, and try to find a way to demonstrate this is false to alice in a way that could not be dismissed as the devils work - but i dont think that is practical, given her world view.
In those assumptions there may be mind control, but there is not in the argument.
Also, i personally think the best examples of belief polerization is not found in religion, but in politics and economy.
Check this document out for more information: http://books.nips.cc/papers/files/nips22/NIPS2009_0599.pdf