On holding one's beliefs at arm's length

[giselle]

I'm still reading Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things (nice short title) and I'm really liking it. I'd love to hear about The Believing Brain.

I remember enjoying that book quite a number of years ago, but don't recall it distinctly. I hope you'll both give us some of the gist.

You must be remembering a different book. This one was published May 2011.

I'm interested in hearing more about these books too.

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

Thanks for that - I did check out the castles and tents blog, very interesting. I think my interpretation of the expression "arms length' was more like the term 'arms length transaction' and so this interpretation might imply a greater degree of seperation of belief than the critical thinking usage. I think your level of attachment to your beliefs may be quite a significant factor in determining who you are, how you think and how you interact with others and within society. I get the arms length idea but I'm wondering about how one untangles beliefs from all the rest of one's thinking in order to achieve this?

[giselle]

We had the pleasure of meeting John Cleese and having him sign our book on Fawlty Towers. My favorites are the ones about the rat and where he hits the car with the branch. But they are all good.

Right now we are also fans of 30 Rock. Each line is a gem and you have to really pay attention.

John Cleese has to be one of the funniest men alive. His role in Fawlty Towers and A Fish Called Wanda remind me of a series of business education videos he did, particularly the ones on 'customer service'. I don't know how he came to make those videos but they are quite good, if very low production values. And apparently he does know quite a bit about customer service, in addition to Fawlty Towers, two of Monty Python's most famous sketches, the Dead Parrot and the Cheese Shop, are examples of extremely bad customer service.

[Penelope]

giselle wrote:

John Cleese has to be one of the funniest men alive.

Well he seems very pompous when he is interviewed and so I think that's what makes him so funny. My favourite comedy film of all time is 'Clockwise' - which is funny no matter how often we watch it. It is as good a the Woody Allan one, 'The Sleeper'.....well almost.

John Cleese has suffered terribly with depression and so I think that is perhaps what makes him such a comic genius.

[lady of shallot]

I don't remember the dead parrot (or do I?) but the cheese shop is a classic. I don't know about John Cleese's "pomposity" but aboard ship (which is where we met and were entertained by him) he was very loath in a Q& A segment of his talk to discuss any details of his childhood.

[realiz]

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

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

From the blog:

Critical thinkers should live in tents, not in castles.

People who are opinionated and closed minded (sometimes euphemistically characterized as being “strong in their convictions”) live in castles. Interested only in the defense of their opinions, they throw up walls and embattlements from which to protect and defend their firmly entrenched beliefs against attack. Castles by their very nature, while good for defense, are set in stone and cannot move, which is just fine with the opinionated person.

In contrast, good critical thinkers live in tents. Interested only in moving their opinions as close to the truth as possible, they must be able to pull up tent stakes and relocate as new arguments and new evidence cause them to reconsider their opinions. Tents by their very nature are not defensible, but that’s fine. The critical thinker doesn’t regard a criticism or disagreement as an attack to be defended against, but rather as a helpful tip that suggests a better campsite just over the next hill.

The other side of this is that the 'grass may always look greener on the other side'. You can chase the truth, forever moving your tent, until one day you realize that there is no 'truth'. This continual moving from one camp to the next can become an excuse for never really accomplishing anything in life, or never committing to anything.

[giselle]

Well he seems very pompous when he is interviewed and so I think that's what makes him so funny.
John Cleese has suffered terribly with depression and so I think that is perhaps what makes him such a comic genius.

I think there is little doubt that the tensions and conflicts in John Cleese's character, especially his apparently pompous nature, contribute greatly to his humour. When he gets really wound up about something, one of his trademark comedic moments, the energy he finds and the intensity of that energy I would guess is drawn from inner tension and conflict.

Returning to the Pollock blog that opened this thread, I really like the closing line, "Just as a probability distribution is not an accomplishment, a policy preference is not a part of who you are."

Identity and identity politics does have that rather scary element of herd-mentality where people can easily be swayed toward membership in a group because one opening idea is attractive and this creates a door to walk through without the necessity of examining the other ideas that are present and make up the packaga. Once through the door the social pressure to conform and to follow the leader can be heavy-duty and so the chances of real, objective examination become less and less. I think this can become mixed up with one's identity.

There is a considerable difference between saying "I'm a Republican", "I'm a member of the Republican party" and "I agree with some aspects of the Republican platform" ... a continuum from identity politics to open political thought and engagement.

In some ways, this notion of 'holding beliefs at arms length' is akin to the reverse notion, that is, 'to suspend disbelief'. This is a common enough notion that we should not confront a new idea with absolute scepticism and give it at least some consideration. In both cases, the belief factor (positive of negative) is seen as an impediment to clear thinking about the matter at hand (or any thinking).