It's seems that we all have a threshold when it comes to changing our minds or adjusting our beliefs, in light of new evidence. To be more specific, there is a point that we each reach in our willingness to tolerate information that challenges our cherished beliefs and assumptions, where we draw the line. When we reach this threshold, our amazing mind takes care of this dilemma with its natural ability to rationalize why there is no need for us to take this information and make new conclusions from it..
I know someone who considers himself to be a rational, scientifically-minded person. Because I make a point of watching people's body language in conversation and am mindful of their tone of voice agreeing with or reacting to what the person they are dialoging with says, I have noticed this individual in several conversations reach his threshold.. When the conversations move into areas like politics, religion, or science, once in a while, I notice this individual react to a position or statement that the other person says. And many of these statements have evidence supporting it that my friend could look into and verify for himself, as to if it has merit. But my friend appears to dismiss it almost immediately out of hand..
Now this could be because my friend has already researched these things and acquired evidence that supports his conclusions. But if that's the case, then he, in my strong opinion, should take that opportunity to share his own findings, his own evidence that supports his position and not simply dismiss the other person's position out of hand. It is interesting that we all feel that we are pretty rational individuals right up to the moment when we are pressed in a situation that "causes" us to fall back into conclusions that are more comforting or give us a sense of stability in our lives. What do I mean by "stability"? Well, in the world of science, no hypotheses or theory is completely stable and secure.. Conclusions are always contingent on there being new and better information that will then alter if not completely change that hypotheses or theory. This can be very disappoint for the scientist who has worked hard on establishing that theory. They are human to, you know. ; )
If you have a mind, like the majority of people in the world, contingent truth is not very satisfying.. We want certainty, we want convictions, we want anchors of truth that we can put our hope in because we know they are unchanging.. But this is okay and natural in that this is a part of, an aspect of our mind that exists for a reason, just like the rational part of our mind exists for a reason. BOTH are just as important aspects of our wonderful mind.
I think it's time that we stop demonizing and negatively stereotyping people who happen to reach their threshold with us in certain topics in our conversations with them.. It's time we stopped making conclusions of people this way, and making judgements of their character that they somehow don't desire truth as much as we do. It's time we started embracing them in the sense that this is a juncture where their rational mind ends and where the convictions part of the their mind begins.... That is who they are and where they are..
WE NEED TO EMBRACE THIS, BE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS WHO THAT PERSON IS, AND TOLERATE THEM, IF IT IS OUR INTENTION TO CONTINUE HAVING A TRUE DIALOG WITH THEM WHERE WE BOTH SHARE INFORMATION WITH EACH OTHER AND LEARN FROM EACH OTHER...
Whoever is reading this post: maybe that's not your intention, may you aren't interested in embracing people to this degree, but only inserting your points of view in conversations and moving on.. If that is the case, then I have no interest in getting to know you, because you have no interest in truly getting to know me and appreciating me for who I am, the same respect I would give you.....
