On holding one's beliefs at arm's length

[geo]

If a child is taken at birth and isolated from all 'things' that could creep into his/her identity then kept this way until maturity and assessed at that point, is it likely that this person would be a healthy person psychologically and socially? Would it be found that the child was born with a predisposition to believing in something(s) or affiliating with something, which has gone unfulfilled, and now the person is damaged by that lack of fulfillment? Does the need to think clearly about things trump the need for belief and belonging in developing a healthy, balanced person and populace?

I don't know if Pollock is making the argument that we should strive for a tabula rasa kind of mind. We all have biases and prejudices that are carried into our identities. I think what he's saying primarily is that we should be aware of our underlying biases and prejudices so that we can better hold our beliefs at arm's length.

[Penelope]

geo wrote:

It was interesting how much of a fuss the media made of Oprah's decision to endorse Obama over Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. She chose race over gender in drawing her allegiance. These tribal urges are probably central to many of our actions, whether we are aware of it or not

This is by-the-way, I know, but Oprah is popular on this side of the ocean too, but her backing of Obama was not presented as race in preference to gender by our media. She was credited with making a rational decision as to the 'person' she preferred to endorse.

I don't know that tribal urges are a factor. The media and hype and the use of 'personalities' are powerful tools in manipulating vast numbers of mankind. I, personally, become guarded when jargon begins to be used, in religion or politics. My hackles rise immediately a catch-phrase emerges and I become suspicious, when I hear the constant repetition of a phrase. 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', was case in point. When I listen to the news, I listen out for repetition of words and phrases, and then I ask myself, what are they trying to make me think? Am I grown cynical in my old age?

[Kevin]

This over-determination of ideological labels is at the core of mythic identity. Most people define their identity in tribal terms, not by logic, so they accept the ideas that their tribe accepts, with trust in authority.

But they may not be quite so deluded as what I'm taking it you're suggesting. It seems logical to me that if, say, you are a member of a certain political party (doesn't matter which) in a 2-party system you bristle when it is attacked in any substantial way because even if you know, or suspect, the criticism (or action or non-action) has some validity it will serve only to weaken the party thus allowing the far worse one to gain more control than it otherwise would have realized.In this case then an ideological label can be argued to have a rational basis, can't it? I would argue it to be a mistaken view, but rational - sure!

Tribal ideas are essentially mythic, because their function is to define group cohesion, such that anyone who expresses doubt defines themselves as outside the tribe. A myth is any idea shared by a group that is not rational. Doubts about believed myths are regarded as heresy and blasphemy. It is not about logic it is about belonging.

Part of the issue here is that tribal cohesion requires myth, so anyone who holds their beliefs at arm's length, refusing to define their identity by any mythic label, is declaring they do not wish to be a part of a tribe. This can be a recipe for loneliness and isolation. So there is a trade off between reason and belonging. The more you rely on reason the less you belong to a group.

Wow this is good. I mean that.

[geo]

geo wrote:

It was interesting how much of a fuss the media made of Oprah's decision to endorse Obama over Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. She chose race over gender in drawing her allegiance. These tribal urges are probably central to many of our actions, whether we are aware of it or not

This is by-the-way, I know, but Oprah is popular on this side of the ocean too, but her backing of Obama was not presented as race in preference to gender by our media. She was credited with making a rational decision as to the 'person' she preferred to endorse.

I don't know that tribal urges are a factor. The media and hype and the use of 'personalities' are powerful tools in manipulating vast numbers of mankind. I, personally, become guarded when jargon begins to be used, in religion or politics. My hackles rise immediately a catch-phrase emerges and I become suspicious, when I hear the constant repetition of a phrase. 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', was case in point. When I listen to the news, I listen out for repetition of words and phrases, and then I ask myself, what are they trying to make me think? Am I grown cynical in my old age?

Now that you say it, I don't recall the media framing Oprah's endorsement of Obama quite that way: as a choice of race over gender. That's probably my own peculiar slant. Hmm. As you say, either choice is a rational decision. A lot of us voted for Obama simply because we thought he was the best person for the job. Why is Oprah's endorsement any different? Thanks for pointing that out, Penelope.

Yes, WMD became quite a buzz phrase there in Bush's term. As it turns out, there weren't any. D'oh!

We've previously talked about the conservatives' use of "taking America back" (presumably from the clutches of liberals) and American "excellence" (that's not quite the term). They're trying to make us think that the other side is not for American excellence. You have to be cynical these days.

[Penelope]

geo wrote:

We've previously talked about the conservatives' use of "taking America back" (presumably from the clutches of liberals) and American "excellence" (that's not quite the term). They're trying to make us think that the other side is not for American excellence. You have to be cynical these days.

There is a lot we like about America, so it isn't meant as a criticism exactly, but OH and I were just talking this morning about the TV Series, 'The Killing' which was originally a Scandanavian series which we watched over here with sub'titles. Now we have the US version which has been remade and we were wondering why the Americans always seem to want to remake things 'for the American audience' - even when they are in English. Like the American version of 'The Office' which was very good, but why remake it? Also, one of my favourite comedy shows 'The IT Crowd' - remade using different characters. I didn't like 'Shameless' British version, and actually it seems a bit more acceptable in the US version, although I still wonder why..... It puzzles me a bit.

Ooops....Off topic aren't I.

[lady of shallot]

Oh dear I haven't posted in so long and now I can't remember how to do quotes. I did want to quote Robert about "isolation and loneliness" Which I experience as an atheist in a family of Christians and as a conservative in a liberal town, county etc.

BTW this morning I received a phone call from Dick Morris and a bid for funds. but the spiel described me (and presumably all recipients of such calls) in terms I did not want to identify myself with.

Also George if liberals don't want to be told they are now "holding" the country do you think conservatives want to be told they are holding the country "hostage" and are "terrorists"?

Penny I did not know "The Killing" was a remake of an other film or show. There is such difference in the two versions of " THe Office" that they can be enjoyed separately.

Totally aside from the question of Obama v. Hilary; but the other day my daughter was driving down the road the Clinton's live off and they were crossing the street at the time. Someone must have called out to them because Hilary turned to respond to the call. My daughter commented on the fact that such political people are always "on". I had thought the same thing when watching a show called the "Monarchy at work" In public the queen is always "on" Although with politicians this is a real choice still I feel sorry for them.

[lady of shallot]

Oh, I also wanted to comment on Giselle's speculation on a child brought up with no identifying factors and what that child would be upon reaching maturity.

In the news recently was a story about a couple in Canada who refuse to identify their new born child by its sex.

They are dressing the child in gender neutral clothing and I guess giving it a gender neutral name. Dylan? Hilary? Shirley? What?

This should be interesting to follow.

[giselle]

If a child is taken at birth and isolated from all 'things' that could creep into his/her identity then kept this way until maturity and assessed at that point, is it likely that this person would be a healthy person psychologically and socially? Would it be found that the child was born with a predisposition to believing in something(s) or affiliating with something, which has gone unfulfilled, and now the person is damaged by that lack of fulfillment? Does the need to think clearly about things trump the need for belief and belonging in developing a healthy, balanced person and populace?

I don't know if Pollock is making the argument that we should strive for a tabula rasa kind of mind. We all have biases and prejudices that are carried into our identities. I think what he's saying primarily is that we should be aware of our underlying biases and prejudices so that we can better hold our beliefs at arm's length.

I would agree that Pollock is not arguing that we should strive for a tabula rasa mind. In describing an extreme example, I was trying to raise the point that in the case of complete isolation from beliefs (other than self-preservation and maybe a few other things that are hard wired at birth), it is unlikely that the resulting person will be healthy. The ability to think, to be aware, to function in society would be severly impaired. So I would suggest that, because healthiness in this psychological sense is a critical part of being, that the acceptance of beliefs as part of our make up, from whatever cultural source they arise, is an essential part of being a healthy, functioning person in society.

However, I do accept the principle that, in order to think clearly, one must be aware of ones biases/prejudices/beliefs etc. as this is the cultural lens through which we see the world and through which the world sees us. Since these beliefs colour our thinking, it is important to realize that fact and to know that others will hold different beliefs hence they will see the world differently. So I can accept 'awareness' and examination of how beliefs affect thinking, but I think the notion of holding one's beliefs at arms length is going too far. I think beliefs are part of person and that's that. I would never teach a child that they should try to hold their beliefs at arms length.

I do realize that what I am writing here is a statement of my own beliefs and that these beliefs are colouring my argument. And I'm ok with that.

[geo]

Well said, Giselle.

In critical thinking parlance, we often talk about holding one's beliefs at arm's length. All this means is don't get too attached to any position because contrary evidence may come along that goes against it. Our brains are sort of wired to look for things that support our beliefs and to not look at those that work against our beliefs. We can easily get emotionally attached to a position and put our blinders on as a result.

Of course, not all beliefs are equal. As Scottish philosopher David Hume said, we should apportion our beliefs based on the evidence.

I've always liked this blog about castles and tents. It's worth a read.

http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=9479

[geo]

. . .
Also George if liberals don't want to be told they are now "holding" the country do you think conservatives want to be told they are holding the country "hostage" and are "terrorists"?

Hello, Lady.

Yes, I thought I should have used an example from the other side. In fact, here's an op-ed that ran in the New York Times. It starts like this:

Tea Party’s War on America
By JOE NOCERA

You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.

These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/opini ... era&st=cse

It's hard to believe the NYTimes would run this piece.