If we really want to improve our judgement as individuals and as societies, what we need most is not more instruction, but the scout mindset. Good judgement isn’t about how smart you are and how much you know. This kind of mindset makes for good judgement. They’re able to accept being wrong without feeling dumb or stupid. Their self worth as a person is not tied to how right or wrong they are about a particular topic. They also don’t see changing your mind as a weakness. They think it’s virtuous to test your beliefs. They’re intrigued by something that contradicts their expectations. Scouts are curious, get pleasure from learning new information. Soldier mindset is rooted in defensiveness and tribalism. Julia Galef posed the question: Why are some people able to cut through their own prejudice and motivation, able to truly look at something without bias? The answer is emotion. These people don’t care to win or lose, but just want to see what’s really there as honestly and accurately as possible, even if it’s not pretty or convenient. He is the poster child for the scout mindset. Picquart was also anti-semitic, which makes him a hero of this story because he was able to accept and stand for truth regardless of his personal beliefs. Piquart did prove Dreyfus’s innocence 10 years later after being imprisoned himself for disloyalty to the army. But when Piquart showed his superiors this evidence, they either didn’t care or made irrational reasonings why Dreyfus is still guilty. They also found someone else whose handwriting matched the original found letter perfectly. Piquart wondered if Dreyfus actually was innocent. Luckily for Dreyfus, there was a man, Colonel Piquart who noticed military information was still being leaked to the Germans after they imprisoned him. The truth is not always pretty or convenient We think we’re being objective and fair minded but we’re unconsciously bias. The scary part of motivated reasoning is how unconscious it is. This is the same kind of judgment that affects the way we vote and what we consider to be fair or ethical. Yet, if he made a call against your own team, you would look into it and try to prove him wrong. We see this happen in sports as well, when a referee makes a call against the other team, we approve and let it go. Some ideas and information seem like our allies, while others can seem like our enemy and we want to shoot them down. This is explained as “motivated reasoning,” when our unconscious motivations, desires, and fears shape the way we interpret information. What does this say about the human mind, that we can find something compelling enough to convict a man to life? “Motivated reasoning” explained The officers genuinely believed Dreyfus was guilty. Historians don’t believe the army framed him. Truth is, they didn’t have strong evidence, but they somehow knew he was guilty. They found him guilty when they couldn’t find any evidence in his apartment (which they thought made him sneaky), he learned 4 languages when he was young (which they thought showed his interest to conspire with foreign governments later in life), and because he had good memory (since spies remember everything). They compared his handwriting to the letter and determined it a match, while handwriting specialists would disagree. The army was highly anti-semitic and accused Alfred Dreyfus (the only Jewish soldier) of being guilty for the crime. They found a torn letter from a fellow officer who was selling military secrets to the Germans. In 1894, the French army sent an innocent man to prison for life. To help us understand this, she shares a historical story. She argues that good judgement, making accurate predictions and good decisions, is mostly about what mindset we’re in. To Julia, both of these roles are representations of different types of mindsets we could have. It’s important to them to have all the information needed to be as accurate as possible. Scouts go out, map the terrain, plan strategies, and ultimately want to know what’s really out there. Then she compares us to scouts, who’s job is not to attack or defend, but to understand. She compares us to soldiers, having motivations to survive, protecting ourselves and our side, pursuing to defeat the enemy. She wasn’t only interested in how someone could be so sure of something that lacked evidence, but how their minds were unchanged after being proven wrong. Julia Galef spent years studying this exact kind of certainty. Or maybe you’re guilty of being one of these people? If so, why do you think you’re right, when you’re wrong? How beliefs affect the mindset Even if you bring valid evidence that proves them wrong, they remain unshakable. These are the people who never back down, standing firm on their beliefs, regardless of the arguments against them. We’re all familiar with people who think they’re right, even if they’re wrong.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |