Thursday, January 17, 2013
Two Kinds of People?
It seems to me there are two kinds of people (gross generalization). The first kind already knows the answer and simply looks for supporting evidence to confirm their priors. The second has an inkling, but looks for all evidence and answers the question after weighing the body of evidence. This might even require updating your priors. Who do you want to be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I want to be the kind of person that looks for all evidence and answers the question after weighing the body of evidence. With the large amount of information made available by modern technology, you can find evidence to support almost any argument. For example, look at Ron Paul supporting the gold standard. Although almost every economist would tell you the gold standard is a bad idea, Paul is able to make his case for the gold standard and find supporting evidence. Paul clearly made up his mind the gold standard was the correct answer before he thoughtfully analyzed all of the information. A large problem in Washington is many of our representatives are looking for evidence to support their stance on an issue rather than analyzing all evidence to figure out which stance they should take.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Robert. It seems like with the polarization and the vast availability of the media, people are easily exposed to stats that will back up their viewpoints. For example, a Republican can watch Fox News and easily get the evidence to back up their claims. It takes more effort to find evidence before making your own opinion, but the ability to hold your own in any intelligent conversation about the issues really makes it worth it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous two posts in that I also would rather be the person that looks for evidence and answers the question instead of simply finding evidence to support my own opinion. By simply finding evidence to further solidify an opinion that one already has, you are not really challenging your own point of view. Learning is about challenging yourself and your beliefs so it is important to approach an issue with an objective mindset and not simply search for evidence that supports your opinion. Sometimes the best way to learn is to research all sides of an issue because you can see arguments that offer opposing views and gather all the information before forming an opinion. By doing so, one becomes more informed than they would have been if they simply looked into one side of the argument and just ignored views that were different from their own.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the initial division of "two types of people" but with a slight difference. I think it is natural for people to jump to an answer, even a wrong answer, because we simply like having an answer. The difference lies in how easily you adapt to new answers.
ReplyDeleteAs kids we start with whatever answers we are fed at home or in schools: "Why did Columbus sail to America? To prove the world wasn't flat." As we grow up the answer to these questions naturally changes: "He thought he was finding a new trade route to the Indies" to "Spain financed his expedition to become more economically competitive" etc. But in most cases, it is simplified to a single "right" answer.
With today's technology, access to information has become the easiest it has ever been in history. The problem doesn't lie in polarized media, because the internet has opened up a wide variety of opinions and access to the facts. The problem lies in how we have taught children to look for these facts. Few high school classes teach how to research, but rather emphasize simply having the "right" answer, glossing over the many cases where there could be more than one. (Just look at how the Civil War, fought over states rights, government representation, slavery, and strong economic and cultural differences between North and South has been simplified to only Slavery. The Confederate flag now stands for Racism, rather than the varied motivations of thousands of Southerners.) And so people have become accustomed to the idea of "one right answer" on most issues, and the polarization my classmates talked about occurs as people look for the opinions that reinforce their own. It takes a very different independent sort of person to look into the gray area. That's the kind of person I hope to be.
I think if you look at all the people who are informed enough to have an opinion on something, however small, you're pretty much spot on. I would, however, like to be a combination of the two. I think that, as Robert said above, we can find a good argument for any side if we look hard enough. There is an incredible wealth of information out there, and this can be good but also dangerous when approached with ignorance. The first type of person (ignorant) reminds me of something James Carvel said in his debate with Ann Coulter last year at Mock Con.. He said that these days, people often just want to be right and "use the information available to them like a drunk uses a lamppost... For support, not illumination". I really liked that, and it perfectly describes the first person. The second kind of person is much better, and has a great approach. I only say that I would be a blend of the two because I think that while ignorance is awful, confidence is powerful and the 2nd guy doesn't seem very confident outright. I think it is important to be able to form an opinion and stick to it while still recognizing and admitting openly that you have more learning to do before you finalize that opinion. Very interesting post though, particularly in light of recent Washington happenings.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be the second person as well, but I think Marino brings up a good point about being a blend of the two. Creating a hypothesis, finding all evidence surrounding the topic, and then coming to a conclusion is the most accurate way to approach a problem. One can almost always find some sort of evidence to support their idea. However, one must examine all the evidence and not just cite one study. I think the first kind of person mentioned in the question was seen throughout this past election (and many elections of the past). Each candidate uses different studies to prove that they are correct. In many cases, the results of the studies are completely contradictory. While a politician has more motives behind merely find the truly correct answer, the person who truly examines all the evidence is much more likely to be informed and correct about the topic.
ReplyDeleteI would like to be the one who already knows the answers. Wouldn't you rather know an answer than have an inkling? It seems like a very easy question to answer. If you can achieve the same result through less work, why would you not do that? The second person just seems too worried, and I don't want to be like that. If you are correct already finding a ton of data is just a waste of time, just think about diminishing returns.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zach's commentary. I would rather already know the answer to question and look to further solidify that answer than to waste time looking at other options to achieve the same result. By knowing the correct answer, one can expand on those answers he or she already knows, and as a result, one can search for more knowledge and unanswered questions without wasting the time with a question he or she already knows the answer to.
ReplyDelete