Hearing others speaking a foreign language makes me wish I knew another language. Lately, I have been enjoying the opportunity to learn from Spanish-speaking co-workers. Therefore, it makes no sense to me that anyone would instead wish they were speaking English. Further, I think the root problem with this way of thinking is a systemic issue fundamental to a major criticism of mine regarding American society in general:
“You need to learn my ways,” is the same as, “I need to remain ignorant.”
While dangerous activities and chemical addictions are probably best avoided, the biggest risk to gaining experiences is discovering that your assumptions about them were incorrect. I believe that is exactly what frightens people about the unknown; they don’t want to risk feeling obliged to change. Resistance to change can make sense in an evolutionary sense- an unyielding, unreasonable desire to preserve a way of life is often the only thing that prevents its annihilation.
Human survival throughout history has depended upon the coordination of a minority possessing ingenuity with a majority possessing a brazen, stubborn fighting spirit. Being generous and open-minded does not make one a good soldier. I am currently reading
Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell, which is a first-hand account of the operations of an atheist army unit in Spain during their Civil War, and it really highlights the importance of obediently following orders, and the benefits of them being followed because of genuine convictions rather than fear of retribution.
The default position for most is to justify and defend their current state of being. We can feel a sense of betrayal for appreciating things outside of our declared preferences. We immediately point out apparent flaws by contrasting novel things from established likes. We tend to accentuate the positives in our own experiences and the negatives in the experiences of others. It is extremely difficult for some to admit they don’t like something because they are biased against it. We are so used to this, in fact, that it can be creepy when someone unflinchingly declares a bias. We tend to prefer justifying our beliefs with largely irrelevant and retroactively applied rationalizations. We actively seek out and latch onto claims that support our presuppositions as well as those that refute anything contrary to them.
This is purely conjecture, but I’m guessing we possess a genetic chemical reaction that resists admitting the need to change. Apologizing or admitting mistakes is often accompanied by a horrible feeling of sickness in the pit of the stomach, heart palpitations and even dizziness. Stubborn steadfastness seems wired into our DNA.
As a culture, we are taught that it is more important to convince others of our competence than it is to be competent. There seems nothing more offensive than those who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of our point of view. This requires an egocentric desire for the other to forfeit theirs. Instead of acknowledging that multiple perspectives can be valid even when incompatible, we demand for ourselves to be right and them to be wrong. Those who are not with us, or like us, are against us.
I am not a poker player, but I can see why it appeals to a certain demographic. There are two ways to win: either by having the better hand or convincing the other players that you do. While being dealt good cards is largely luck, bluffing is a skill. It relies upon letting another know almost all the facts, but withholding the most important detail. It is important to remember that in everyday life, that important detail may remain hidden for everyone, but we will tend to assume we know what it is. Effective bluffers succeed by convincing themselves that they are telling the truth. Although this seems absurd, succeeding at pulling the wool over another’s eyes suggests that convincing another of a thing makes a thing correct.
One of the better TEDTalks is about being wrong, and the speaker, Kathryn Schulz, asks, “How does it feel to be wrong?” She receives several answers from the audience, and then declares that those answers are wrong. They answered what it feels like to
realize you are wrong. Her point is sublime: Being wrong feels exactly the same as being right. Understanding this simple fact helps understand why we tend to assume we’re right. Ms. Schulz points out that, in the present tense, it is extraordinarily difficult to think of anything we’re wrong about. We dismiss contrary opinions by assuming those who possess them are ignorant, stupid or evil, in that order.
I recently overheard a white lady declare (to a black man), “Black Conservativism is on the rise, and will continue to grow. More people just need to be educated.” It is patently offensive whenever someone assumes anyone with different life experiences than theirs are ignorant. It is impossible to have a valid frame of reference for how another’s life experiences affect their point of view, and it is equally impossible to assume our different life experiences have somehow given us a more valid perspective than another’s. Those motivated to dispel their agenda are not interested in educating. They gleefully latch onto everything that supports their claims without ever objectively considering the possibility that they could be wrong by dismissively mocking anything contrary to their agenda, which inevitably leads to distortions of logic. Rush Limbaugh is a great propagandist to listen to in order to practice identifying logical fallacies. He simultaneously warns against being brainwashed by the “lamestream” media and promotes turning off programs you don’t agree with. In other words, he wants to be the one doing the brainwashing.
We often assume different is evil. In fact, the “garbage in, garbage out” excuse is actively provided as justification for avoiding anything different. Not only is this claim heavily exaggerated, but whoever is deciding for you what is and isn’t garbage is invariably full of it. The criteria for what is deemed garbage is always dependent upon the bias of the person making the judgment. Some people attempt to circumvent this by attributing their judgments to higher powers, which has proven a startlingly successful tactic for getting others to subscribe to one’s beliefs. There is moral objectivity to be found, since we are all connected by existing as human beings and should therefore treat one another as equals, which means the exploration of certain sources of enjoyment should be strictly avoided. That does not preclude the possibility that even those things could be found enjoyable, but acknowledges that there are things more important than enjoyment.
Gods and deities are unchanging. There is nothing sinister in this; it is simply a result of them representing archetypes and ideals. Tellingly, unchanging personas are also an integral element in comedies. In Christianity, the most fundamental teaching is to believe in Jesus’ divinity and obey his teachings while leaving behind our own desires. This seems to promote change, but it is revealing that the greatest desire of an all-powerful being is to be believed. Considering the utter inconsequentiality of whether or not we believe the legitimacy of the existence of one supreme creator and judge, it is absurd to think such a being would care in the least. It would seem inconceivable for there to be a real-world scenario in which the benefits of a generous or self-sacrificing act was contingent upon the recipient acknowledging the act had been done. Instead of incorporating a logical construction of a supreme being, Christianity ensures that the ideal nature everyone should aspire toward regards being believed as the single most important concern. The most fundamental teaching in Christianity is not to be right, but to believe that you’re right and persist in that belief, with asceticism proving tenacity. I can’t fathom how that ideology can be perceived as anything but frightening.
Humans tend to enjoy repeating catchy, easy-to-remember phrases, regardless of their validity.
Sound bites are highly successful at comforting us, because they make decisions seem simple and straight-forward. Our willingness to grasp onto a well-constructed sentence leads to a bandwagon mentality where we side with whoever is more eloquent or witty. People will actually prefer responses that artfully dodge questions over those that give direct answers. Anybody who has used the internet has experienced its convenience for finding and flaunting whatever echoes our perspective, and the popularity of a so-called meme’s dependence upon its clever and accessible packaging, regardless of how dubious the information it contains.
Another interesting affect of the internet which hinders change is its use of direct marketing. It suggests things we may want to purchase based on the words we type. This limits our introduction to unfamiliar ideas, interests and activities. Google, for example, prioritizes searches according to things we have clicked on in the past, which becomes an obstacle for conducting further research into unexplored internet content. This gives the impression of a small world without that much to explore.
One frequent method for defending conservatism is by placing artificial limitations on things by declaring the way they are “supposed” to be. Many styles of music can be dismissed by stating, “Music is supposed to have a melody.” The fear of bats is justified because, “Mammals aren’t supposed to be able to fly.” People will proudly, and without a shed of irony, declare what “freedom” means. These claims are humorous in part because they give the impression that a thorough scientific analysis was done before their conclusion was drawn. How can you argue with the way things are supposed to be? It’s like arguing with the way a word is supposed to be spelled without the benefit of it being verifiable.
I have heard people summarize a foreign culture by declaring, “They’ll never change.” This immediately makes me wonder when they themselves are planning on changing. We aim to improve by honing our current selves into what we currently perceive as an improvement, but we assume that the ideologies underlying our existence will remain constant. Therefore, change not only threatens to throw a major monkey wrench in our plans, but seems to render our lives up until any change a complete waste of time. Somehow, we assume persisting with our convictions justifies them, and instead of accepting the option of wasting only a part of our life, we instead waste the entirety of it.
While we desperately cling to our own convictions and encourage everyone to follow their dreams in general, we are veritably obsessed with discouraging others when their specific dreams differ from ours. The obstacles and challenges in any course of action that differs from one we have ever taken are instantly elaborated upon. If, on the other hand, someone wants to explore something that we have fond memories of, we simply tell them they’d love it and should go for it. Why is that?
Goals and priorities that contrast from ours befuddle us. When I was a motivated drummer, others with drumming styles similar to my own tended to annoy me, whereas I obsessed over those whose drumming attained what mine aspired to be. But my opinion of drummers that I couldn’t really relate to was all over the map. Since judgments tend to be relative, it is nearly impossible to make sense of things without a frame of reference that we can relate to. For example, it is widely assumed by Americans that everyone wants the “American Dream,” so there tends to be a lot of confusion in America why people from other countries would be proud of their own heritage. We assume others share our desires or are misguided. There is nobody scarier than he who is truly convinced that everyone should pursue the same goals as him, as those who value homogeneity are most willing to commit atrocities against those who don’t fit in.
We are compelled to think of ourselves as both a unique and integral member of society. We seek worth, validity and justification, without which our lives are meaningless. We want to be extraordinary and lead extraordinary lives. Basically, we want to be better and more important than everyone else. So, we create a world in which we are. We get so caught up in our world that the possibility that another would also desire worth, validity or justification is regarded as an incompatible impossibility and forgotten. In our world, we perceive the way things are while others wander aimlessly and babble incoherently. The best thing we can do, for their sake, is convince them to believe us and follow our lead.
We are so convinced of our own correctness that discovering we are wrong often feels magical. This is more comfortably experienced in an imaginary, fictional scenario, as it doesn’t threaten our actual convictions, which is why things like mystery books are so popular. It is a shame that discovering that another is right doesn’t have the same effect, but can instead lead to resentment. We tend to underestimate both others and ourselves, and in both cases we tend to blame the other. We are just as quick at passing judgment for the shortcomings of others as we are at declaring things done by others are out of our reach. Both reinforce ways in which we can’t relate to others.
If we are willing to change the paradigm from one of seeking the joys of being blessed toward the magic of finding truth, fulfilling discoveries await us. Times spent attempting to demonstrate superiority are missed opportunities of getting to know some interesting people, learn some fascinating things and experience some profound sensations.
