-What prevents us from changing our opinions?
-Does debate truly encourage people to change their minds, or does it actually prevent the formation of new opinions?
-Can one look at the opinions of others accurately without looking closely at their own assumptions?
-What is the role of mainstream media in the formation of public opinion?
-Does it allow for people to change opinions or work against it?
-Is action necessary to prove an opinion has truly changed; is saying one has changed enough?
-Is violence an option in changing opinions?
-What effect does an absence of imaginative change have on the possibilities for agency?
-Does academia serve to foster or prevent the changing of minds?
-Does experience override education (or vice versa) in the formation of beliefs, values, and opinions?
7 comments:
Those are some really good questions. I've thought about some of those, too, but never knew how to word the questions for people to actually understand. I'm going to answer some of those questions the way that I think...
-What prevents us from changing our opinions? I think it begins in how you are raised and to do with morals. In some cases, some grow up always knowing and thinking what they are taught as a child is always right. Most stay "tuned" to those thoughts and never expanding outside of the "box." (I have family members like that. *sigh*) That goes for opinions, too, they will always know one side is right (the familiar side) and won't think for themselves to explore what is "wrong" to them.
-What is the role of mainstream media in the formation of public opinion? Oh boy. Paying attention to media is like a virus spreading around from just breathing air. The media is so effective with how they word things and hook one's attention. Such as how some people see the airbrushed pictures in magazines or on TV and notice how "perfect" each of those actors are and they want to be like them. Only to tell the truth, most of that is fake. It makes people want to go out and change themselves because what is "popular" or what is seen as "wonderful" in the media world. If you're not dead set in your own opinion, then you're probably going to be caught off guard on believing what may be wrong or right for you and in some cases, that isn't good.
-Does experience override education (or vice versa) in the formation of beliefs, values, and opinions? I believe that in order to have embedded beliefs/values/opinions you are needed to be educated. Education in the minds of PUBLIC SCHOOLS (don't get me started on private or homeschooling) because it gives all experience to both bad and good in all kinds of ways. Education is a great way of finding out truths to deepen what you believe and how you think.
All opinions are subjected to change a couple dozen times as you get older. The more you learn about something it can always turn you away or put you out there for more if you'd like. Having experience to something and having an opinion about that is much different than never having the experience and saying that is wrong or right. But then again, that determines the situation you're in, too.
I think I said all that I needed to. Sorry, I write too much. :X
Facts can prevent one from changing opinions.
Debate of facts can result in the formation of nes opinions.
Seeing the strength and weaknesses of others' opinions is bound to cause one to (re)examine one's own.
Any media that does not frequently (re)investigate history based upon the emergence of a new fact will only inflame existing opinion.
Such media works against change of opinion.
Action would be preferable.
Violence is not an option, but that doesn't stop some people from trying violence.
Imagination can also severely limit one's ability to change.
Academia, one hopes, facilites the process of the accumulation of facts.
Experience inside and outside academics is another way to test and examine facts and opinions.
When I was in HS, I would spend my lunch break debating. My husband, whom I met in HS, says he would chuckle when I was surrounded by Christians and we would be going at it. Legalization of prostitution, religion, birth control in the schools, you name it, I would debate it. I love debating ideas and learning new ideas. I am passionate about it.
The older I've become, the more I miss debate. I find most people don't want to debate or really even discuss ideas and beliefs. You know the old saying of don't discuss politics and religion? Why not I say. I find that most people are afraid to do it, because if someone disagrees with them, they take it personally. They're afraid to be made to look "wrong". wtf that drives me nuts. You hold your beliefs for some REASONS. Share those reasons and your thought processes so that I may re-examine my own. Let us find flaws in logic if there are any, let us try to better understand. Most people don't want to do this. I have also found that some don't want to do this because for some reason they hold certain beliefs for no known reasons other than it is common. Hell, even John Kerry was labeled a flip-flopper for learning new information and changing his mind. I thought it showed a bright and open mind, the public thought it was bad mojo.
I guess in the end it all saddens me. So many are isolated in real thought, even amongst spouses. I see people coming together to discuss laundry detergent pros/cons, and blissfully seem contented by that sharing of nonsense. They are willing to change their minds on those trivialities. But don't discuss anything of import in case the cozy coccoon of shallowness and indifference be torn apart.
I then thought that most must keep those kinds of discussions within a marriage. My husband and I have what I consider to be deep philosophical discussions almost daily. Sometimes it is only a 15 minute tidbit on a very specific topic, sometimes hours of debate and reflection. But then I discovered, no, these kinds of discussions don't happen in many marriages either. So I am flummoxed and saddened. There are many folk stories from different cultures on where we are in the scope of all things. One I remember ends up showing that our whole universe is captured inside the pinkie ring of a being - to elaborate our insignificance. We may have brains, and so many think that humans are better than animals, etc. I don't know, we look like an ant colony to me.
I often wonder if the matter of changing opinions / minds / perspectives doesn't come down to: What is at stake for the individual in question?
While many may prefer not to inquire nor to seek out information or answers, the media provides an easy cultural pool of references for opinion-making... wrapped packages complete with catch phrases. I suspect that many more, however, have a stake in their opinions that creates immoveable and unshakable perspectives for the purpose of self protectionism. If there is a 'reality' one's identity relies upon, a faith reliant upon certain external principals, a perception of belonging or placement that will be challenged with the advent of questioning any particular matter - then there is a very certain perspective that no debate or media campaign can alter or nurture without compliance.
Sometimes it is merely what one refuses to believe, that shapes what it is they choose to believe. We humans can be very selective according to our personal needs and experiences, in what 'the facts' support or defy conceptually or otherwise.
That said, I believe firmly that access to information and practice excercising critical thought could make all the difference on a grand scale and in regard to the truly 'important matters'. This comes down to education; cultural and institutional education. Most importantly at tender ages, but there is no age limit to learning.
there's a good debate on poitics in academy in Harpers' September issue.
it makes me gag, but Stanley Fish is persuasive. Wonder what is going on in my personal agenda lately?
;-)
- mason
Everyone, thanks!
I'm just absorbing your comments... Dialogic is sort of my ongoing answer to these questions.
Mason--I'm reading my copy of this months Harpers, but I'm still on the long, powerful essay by Jonathan Kozol!
Re Kozol:
I just reached the beautiful turn concerning having the necessary cash to fund a "valuable child's" education. Freaking me out that the adaptive and "adequacy" measures are Skinnerian in nature.
The message absorbed by "adults" with children in our culture seems to be, "keep your nose to the Skinnerian grindstone and you too may be able to afford a relatively less Skinnerian education for your child."
Ugh
- mason
Post a Comment