It would seem this would apply to religious or political debates too, since those are so opinion-oriented. This would explain why there's so much
conflict and (false) debate in those circles.
I made this (in the hopes) to better understand the linked study(s):
(Random Advocacy) -> Good Hand -> No effect
(Random Advocacy) -> Bad Hand -> Stronger Advocacy
Identity is Reaffirmed -> (Random Advocacy) -> Good/Bad Hand -> No Effect
Reminded of Past Uncertainty -> (Intimate Advocacy) -> Stronger Advocacy
Reminded of Past Certainty -> (Intimate Advocacy) -> No effect
Reminded of Past Uncertainty/Certainty -> (Non-intimate Advocacy) -> No Effect
Intimate advocacy is something closely tied to your sense of importance or identity.
Note that the effect showed in the studies does not reflect on whether somebody is right or wrong about their opinion. It instead reflects on their
(recent past) sense of certainty or identity and how closely their advocacy is tied to their sense of importance or identity and whether they feel
hamstrung (like if they're using their non-dominant hand to orchestrate their advocacy). To me, this seems very confusing. Kind of like trying to
understand chemistry or physics.
Last night when I went to bed I thought a little about all this. I remember telling myself that I doubt science. How can I not? I cannot scour the
entire knowledge of humankind. I just do not have the mental faculty to understand everything. This means there's always an element of doubt. It also
means any confidence I have in science is an opinion. In order for it not to be an opinion I'd have to understand all the science before committing to
it. But having doubt about an opinion does not reflect on whether it's right or wrong. I can doubt modern science but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Similarly, I can have extreme faith/certainty in specific things and still be wrong.
Bottom line, we have to trust consensus, but trust itself is an opinion. The opinion is that the consensus is right. Since the individual does not
KNOW, it can only ever be an opinion. It's just an opinion that most people have and is a tremendously reliable one. It just can't be absent of doubt.
The absence of doubt, to me, is more dangerous than anything else I can imagine. It precedes perfection. I do not understand anybody that can not have
any doubt. Are they God?
edit on 12-7-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)