How we change our minds (or not)

Why do we have different opinions?

Well, you have been arguing that so much of our thoughts are affected by personal experiences. That means differences in experiences lead to those in opinions.

Why do we react differently to the same event? Namely, why do we differ in its interpretation?
 

... Comrade, these are the same as the first question.

Just checking! What about our personalities? Don't they matter in how we view the world?

Haven't we talked about this, too? Already as babies, we differ in how we behave. That is by nature. But who we are at any point in life is an intricate product of nature and nurture.

It seems to me that when we are young nurture have greater influence on who we are or to become. Curiously, we shed some of the aspects that we cultivate through nurture, as we age.

Didn't we talk about this?

In a slightly different context. Come to think of it, when I say aging, I should differentiate biological aging from social aging, or change in social standing that is associated with age.

Which one have you been referring to?

I guess both, but mostly the latter. For example, we abandon much of the virtuous attitude that the grown-ups attempt to inculcate us with, because when we become grown-up ourselves, there is nobody to punish us. It results from the changes in our social ranking.

After we leave our parents' house, there are no more rules imposed on us except for the law...

It is no coincidence that the time we reach our physical peak is when we become a full-fledged member of the society. In many countries, that is when we are allowed to participate in formal politics, plus all other things that are prohibited as minor persons.

As a way of taming them? 'Don't wreck havoc, because you are now part of the establishment'?

Exactly.

Why doesn't it happen a bit earlier? It may not be a bad idea to contain the youth in advance.

Before that period, the adults can outsmart them; their gaining physical strength does not yet pose a threat. University students are often admired and hated for good reasons. That is when our mental capability becomes developed enough to say something relevant to the real world. Add to that the capacity to beat up the old folks...

Because of their paucity of experience, they are idealistic. 

It irritates the older people who have been benefiting from having adapted themselves to the system. First, because they may lose their privilege, and second, because they know that the students have legitimate reasons to question how the society is run. None of us enjoy it when our disciples, so to speak, turn around and use what we taught them as a weapon against us. 

Traitors...! But then, why do we pass on idealistic ideas to younger generations? 

Some of us have strong enough beliefs of how societies should be, even after the co-opting phase, and are motivated to transmit those thoughts so that the future society will be closer to their ideal.

Aren't they the ones who are not getting as much out from the society as they wished? Isn't it a way for them to get back to the powerful?

I agree that some certainly fit that description. It would be hard to pin down why they turned out to be not so powerful: because they never abandoned their ideals, or something else prevented them from becoming one of the powerful and that is why they hang on to the ideals.

They have much less to lose by espousing the same ideals as when they were eighteen. Plus, they can draw comfort from the power-money-dirt equation.

Anyway, observing the big social changes that have happened in the past few months around the world, you must have noticed that it is mainly the people in their twenties who have been leading the movements.

The countries in question have a pyramid-shaped demography, too.

As a society gets better off in terms of material, its birth rate usually goes down and the average age becomes higher. That in turn slows down the social transformation process.

Because there are fewer and fewer of the young who are willing to challenge the status quo.

At the same time, the society becomes more and more burdened with retirees who require financial support by the rest of the population and with infirm folks who require nursing and medication.

Such activities are akin to engaging in safe disposal of hazardous waste...

Irreverence aside, I have to agree with you.

I said it for you, and no word of appreciation, eh?

If civilizations are not destroyed by wars, plagues, or environmental degradation, it would be the aging process that puts them into slow, but steady, decline... Getting back to my very first question of differences in our thoughts, do you think we ever change our opinions?

Sure, isn't that why we engage in debates?

Most of the time, we do not manage to convince the other.

Wait a second, didn't we talk about that?

What we can do is to overwhelm the other party with our emotions.

That's called passion, comrade. How can we buy into something that the advocate is not sure about her/himself? 

The problem is that objectivity discourages us to be narrowly focused. The more objective the advocate is, the less forceful s/he would be.

In other words, the most reasonable tends to be the weakest.

In the short-term, or on surface, at least.
 

If someone is foaming through the corner of her/his mouth, we have all the incentive to say, "Sure, sure, sure." We don't want to get sprayed with saliva.

You seem to know whom I am thinking about... It doesn't have to be a lunatic, though. We usually don't come to change our opinions through a debate. At best, we end debates by a very reluctant admission that the other party may be right in certain things that we touched upon.

As a courtesy, you mean.

Remember, our convictions and beliefs are founded in our personal experiences, so unless we go through events that convince us otherwise, we would most likely not change them. Needless to say, debates do not qualify as such.

Doesn't this point to the utility of fiction work? The mock experience given by reading novels can augment the real-world ones.

I think you are right about that, but we should never overestimate art. As many artists have said already, art cannot change the world.

Perhaps not directly... 

I remember reading about a lecture on racism that Tahar Ben Jellon gave to highschool students. At the end of the talk, a student asked if he had been successful in making a racist change his ideas about race.

The answer was 'no'?

You got it. By the way, I know more than a few who have been transformed from a fundamentalist in one religion to that in another. 

How is that possible, such a big swing!

One would think so at first, but it is rather natural. What such people need is a thought, belief, ethic system that they can follow by the letter. They are the opposite of anti-authority people.

After all, all religions are alike, so it may not be that dramatic.

In my opinion, labeling means a lot to them, too. They want a word that neatly explains who they are.

They love to be pigeonholed, or have a strong urge to belong to a certain group.

What is certain is that a mind well made is better than one well stuffed...

Swimming in the fish bowl

Have you ever looked at your parents' photo albums, or better yet, your grandparents'?

Once they were cute babies, can you believe it! Later, they were youths smiling with hope. Some were even dashing.

You must have looked at other people in the pictures and noticed that they all somehow look alike.

Are you talking about blood relatives?

Not necessarily. It can be anyone, a friend, a neighbor, or just a passer-by. If they are of the same gender and of about the same age, they must have had very similar hair style and clothes. Depending on the culture, style has also been dictated by class and profession.

The look of that particular era, you mean?

I remember asking my mother why they were all clothed in a funny way in the pictures. She said, "That was how we dressed ourselves at that time." When I inquired if she had not thought it strange, she said she had not, because that had been the fashion.

You're trying to tell me that what is normal can become strange over time.

 
We can alternatively say that we are constrained by the society that we live in. Think about the pictures from Europe in the 20s, for example. When we first see them, we think they must have tried hard to be so much alike, but the truth is that it was the only way to be considered stylish. Going punk was certainly not.

Such fashion didn't even occur to them, I bet.

If we had been born in the 20s, we would be dressing like just one of them from that decade, and think nothing of it.

Had it been in the 60s, we would be doing Woodstock.

But had you lived outside North America and Western Europe, Woodstock would have had absolutely nothing to do with you. We are severely conditioned by our own society, although each one of us contribute to what that society is. 

I've got a good example. "Le déjeuner sur l'herbe/The Luncheon on the Grass" by Édouard Manet. It was controversial when shown in 1863.

As a child, I was puzzled by the fact that it was something that many had disapproved of. So was the case with the ballet, "The Rite of Spring"---music by Igor Stravinsky and dance by Vaslav Nijinsky. During its premiere, a number of people angrily walked out.

What about "Lady Chatterley's Lover" by D. H. Lawrence?

I remember reading it avidly and having been disappointed at the end that nothing was outrageous.

We have to be told what made them so notorious.

Even then, we think, "Really? What's wrong with this art? What's wrong with people who denounced them?"

And yet, so many were offended when they were made public.

We also talk about some artists, scientists, and thinkers as having been "ahead of their times." They were so unfortunate that their ideas were accepted only after they were no longer alive.

Aren't they the ones who were unconstrained by the social convention of the day?

Yes, but since almost everybody else was, they were not fully appreciated.

After all, it's better to conform to the society, don't you think?

Life would certainly be easier. On the other hand, accepting everything as is could be awfully boring. It may deprive of our energy to improve our lives within the contraints.

Isn't this your favorite case of double-edged sword? It would be best to accept what you cannot change, but do your best to change what you can.

The problem is: who can differentiate the two, or can we agree on any differentiation. It depends on luck, too. We may succeed in something that was impossible earlier, thanks to a tiny, yet positive, turn of events.

You've succeeded in convincing me that we are much more limited than we think we are.

That reminds me that when I was in primary school, I boasted to my father that I can do any conceivable calculation in the world.

Comrade, you've been telling me that you were precocious, but I never thought it was true.

I had just learned decimal numbers and fractions, and I thought I had exhausted all the possible numerical manipulations.

Oops.

He chuckled rather derisively and took out a piece of paper. He wrote down some mathematical symbols that I had never seen and said, "You mean, you can do this, too?" Needless to say, I was quite disappointed. I thought I had already conquered the world of mathematics.

You tend to have megalomaniac illusions, so no surprise, after all...

I have cast a wide net for advice lately, and noticed that people put unproportionately large weight on what they lack as one of the key ingredients to success on that matter.

We are so prone to think that the grass is greener on the other side?

Looks like it. Suppose people who have had the experience of bungee jumping become good at taking risks in life. Those with weak hearts are not allowed to enjoy the sport, and tend to attribute their risk-averseness to the lack of jumping experience.

But there are many other ways to become a risk-taker.

Exactly. But because the experience is out of their reach, they think that it has handicapped them. They also genuinely believe that bungee jumpers are good at risky ventures. This human nature came to my attention, because they were telling me to cash in on my jumping experience, whereas people with jumping experience weren't.

Their advice is a reflection of what they think is their weakness and what has been bothering them.

What we happen to lack is capable of doing wonders, like a magic wand.

While the people with the experience don't think that their lot is better because of it.

You see, something as important as life strategy is influenced by our personal circumstances, some of which are trivial, but most of us are unaware of the resultant biases.

Can we say that discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, looks, etc. does exist, but people who happen to be discriminated against in that regard tend to overemphasize it?

That's a tough one. According to my logic above, the answer is yes, but my experience, my compassion for the discriminated, and...

Aren't you proving here that you are biased, too?

... I was reading an autobiographical novel about the life in an under-privileged suburbs of one of the world's biggest cities. At some point, I realized that they would be quite happy with the same amount of money and material that they possess if nobody had more money or material. Most of them are immigrants; they are better off in terms of material wealth, but with much less dignity than before coming to the country. 

Is this related to what we have been talking about? 

Trust me, it is... Their relative poverty and lack of opportunity are making them miserable and hopeless. Similarly, the privileged will be awfully unhappy with the same amount of money and material as they have now, had there been a class above them with a gap that is identical to what separates them from the under-privileged at this moment.

They are content due to the knowledge that they are enjoying the best.

All of us are in a small fish bowl, and our happiness is dependent on where in the bowl we are with respect to others in the same bowl. As I said last time, it matters little where that bowl is. This alone is a strong argument for social equality, even at some costs.

And the problem is agreeing on how equal is equal...

The limitations in thoughts that we have been discussing are not imposed explicitly, but implicitly, and there lies the potency. We are unaware of them.

Just as your mother was dressed like anybody else from that time and place, and thought nothing of it then. Aren't implicit constraints better than explicit bans, such as censorship?

I am not sure about that, because we are strongly inclined to react against any rule that forbids us from doing something. We would desire it more than if it were allowed to us.

Anything we cannot get hold of appears more alluring simply because of unavailability.

I told you about bugee jumping already, and the world is replete with such cases. Romeo and Juliet are not the first ones.

I know, almost every culture has a legend or folklore of the same genre. 

By the way, I wonder if Billy didn't think it odd to have an Italian named Juliet, instead of Giulietta. 

Forget about that one. People would think that you are petty and nothing more. Besides, anglicizing, frenchifying, teutonizing, sinofying and so on happen all the time. Some of us are happy doing so with our own names, especially when we immigrate to a country where the language our names are associated with is not an official one.

What about the most fundamental constraints we face in our thoughts, do you know what they are?

Knowing you, you must be thinking about those imposed by languages. 

Well, Ludwig said that he agrees with me, or something to that effect. 

Too late, comrade, he said it before you did...

Being is light, perhaps unbearably

We may admit that cultures are incompatible with each other, but we tend to ignore their enormous power to shape who we are.

If I had been born among people whose custom is to grow and braid hair, I guess I would be doing so.

Suppose the longer the braids, the nicer looking you are, and yours are considered among the best. Now if you go to a country where everybody is supposed to have her/his head shaved with an intricate pattern, what do you think is going to happen?

If I did not know anything about their practice, I will be greatly shocked. In their eyes, I will be an item of curiosity. They may think I am a complete weirdo, or it could be that they think I am a long awaited savior.

It is much more likely that you would be deemed a barbarian and be despised.

What if the Skin-head people come over to my Braid country?

You will be laughing at them.

So, we always win home games?
 

Culture is a set of unwritten codes of conduct; the more people adhere to it, the more powerful it is. Headcount matters, and that is one of the biggest reasons why Benedictus is against contraceptives and homosexuality. Going back to your trip to the Skin-head land as a Braid person, you would be disturbed and hurt by scornful reactions to your braids, instead of praises and respect that you have been used to.

Will I have a crisis?

That's certain. If you are destined to go back to your Braid country after a short period of time, you would endure the humiliating situation without doing anything to your braids. Once you return, you would hasten to tell your family, friends and colleagues how uncivilized things were in the Skin-head country.

If I had been deeply wounded by the disrespectful treatment, I will have every incentive to do so. I may even exaggerate, just to get even.

If you have to stay in the Skin-head country for a while, however, you may opt to cut off your braids and shave your head.

God forbid...

Do not despair, comrade. It will be a wise decision on your part. Suppose you keep your braids and try to do whatever you wanted to in the Skin-head country. It's going to be awfully time consuming and frustrating. In fact, it can take forever.

Are you telling me that I will not accomplish my mission, however noble that may be, simply because of my braids?

Yes, because you stand out so much that the focus will be on your braids. It will require quite a bit of time and effort to make the Skin-heads see beyond the strange appearance of yours. Your difference on surface is so big that it may be a fatal barrier against making yourself understood.

I shall blame them for judging by appearance alone!

It may be justified to do so, but as I have been telling you, we are so influenced by looks and there is not much we can do about it. Anyway, if you are practical enough, I am sure that you will be going to the barber's before too long.

And the Skin-heads will think that I am finally enlightened, liberated, emancipated... The bastards!

Shhhh, it's all hypothetical, comrade. Besides, the worse is yet to come.

You mean they may not accept me even when I do away with my beautiful braids?

That also. What I had in mind is the dilemma that you would face when your date of return to the Braid country nears.

... Quelle horreur ! I have to get my braids back, but I can't grow my hair to full length just on the day before my departure.

If you start letting your hair cover the nice pattern made on your skull, the Skin-head people are going to talk about it.

"We thought it was a miraculous case of assimilation to our refined culture, but alas, it looks like a barbarian is forever a barbarian." That kind of talk?
 
You got it. Plus, when you are back in the Braid country, you will find inconvenient aspects that you did not notice before: the trouble of washing your long hair and making it into braids, the fallen hair that you notice everywhere in your house, the attention you have to pay so that the braids do not get caught between elevator doors...

Oh no, will I be missing the Skin-head country?

You may even find the near religiosity that your people have for braids slightly ridiculous.

My stay among the Skin-heads has changed me...
 

We are very much influenced by the communities and the societies that we live in. Of course, there is a great variation in the direction and the degree of influences.

We often think ourselves independent of our environment, but that's not quite true. There is no definite 'I.'

It is a rather scary thought, but I have to agree with you. I happen to be who I am because of the places that I lived and the events I experienced, and the vast majority of those has been beyond my control. In turn, it means that I am a product of chances.

Are we getting into the nature-versus-nurture argument?

No, because I am not saying that our traits are formed either by nature or by nurture. I am simply underlining the importance of the nurture component. My main proposition is: who we are cannot be discussed without reference to our surroundings. When we examine our identity carefully, we discover that the bulk of it is about how we position ourselves in the community or the society that we are part of.

The smart one, the pretty one, the funny one, the complaining one, the nagging one, the bragging one, the one who runs fastest, the one who is good at fixing things around the house, the one who trips over everything, the one who...

Usually, we think as if the attributes were absolute, but for accuracy, we should be adding the word, "around."

The smartest one around, the prettiest one around, and so on?

Have you heard about a village prodigy who goes to the city to attend school and experiences great shock, because s/he is mediocre compared to other students?

We hear that story all the time. In movies, they are the successful ones in the end, though.

Have you thought about why they are shocked?

It's simple. There are many more competitors than s/he imagined earlier.

Another way to phrase it is: the village prodigy can no longer be identified as the smartest one because s/he is in a new environment.

It's an identity crisis, then?

You see, her/his idea of who s/he is hinged on how other people fared compared to her/him. Think about a teenager who aspires to be radical. If s/he lives in a rural area, how radical s/he can be and still be accepted by family and friends would certainly differ from the radicalism allowed to her/him had s/he lived in one of the biggest cities in the world.

It is possible, though, that a radical will be a radical wherever s/he is.

Certainly. But for most of us, our tendency to go in particular directions is measured against how the rest of the society goes along those paths. Our identities are built on where we are in relation to the whole society.

That is why there is no absolute 'I.'

I was brought up by leftish parents in rightish places, and I took pride in being progressive. But at some point in my life, I became friends with leftish people from leftish places. Imagine how shocked I was to find out that I was not a true progressive in this big world!

What did you do?

I was horrified to find out that I was experiencing myself the feelings that I knew the rightish people in rightish places had when they heard of my opinion. I was also surprised to discover that the label of 'left' or 'progressive' was so important to me. I had sleepless nights before I could fully subscribe to the new ideas that I was exposed to, but I managed. I was propelled by the desire to stay progressive, and not become backward by any measure.

So you are now an 'all-region left'?

I know many people who describe themselves left, right, center-left, center-right...

For some reason, no extremists call themselves extremists.

What those labels mean is deeply dependent on where they grew up and have lived. As with any aspects of identity, they think that their adherence is to the ideas and not to their place along the local, political spectrum that they inhabit. On some occasions, I have pointed out that they would be thinking differently had they lived or had lived elsewhere. They would be taking the same political seats in any society---one to the left, to the right, or in the center. However, where that whole assembly room is situated varies, depending on the community that they belong to.

Did you manage to convince them?

They didn't believe me... I have also met quite a number of people in the West who have abandoned Western religions to embrace the Eastern ones, and quite a few in the East who have converted to Western religions. I am certain that had their birthplace been the reverse, their beliefs of choice would be reversed as well. In other words, what matters is the fact of conversion rather than the content of religions that they convert into.

Rejecting what we were imposed upon, and accepting what is presented as an option. Denouncing the institution whose unsavory aspects we have been exposed to, and embracing one whose ugly side we are yet unaware of. I trust that you didn't point these out to them...

The analogy would be taking a seat on a boat on a river. Each of us has a preferred seat: facing upstream or downstream, closer to the center, to the bow or to the stern. We usually choose the same spot of a boat, regardless of which river or where in the stream we are.

Things tend to be all right until we encounter another boat, correct?

It's the same as purchasing the latest model of whichever gadget you are crazy about. You think you are in love with the latest one, but that is true only as long as there is no newer model. In most cases, once another version becomes available on the market, that becomes your passion.

The attribute of being the newest is not absolute, but relative to other existing models.

People who go back and forth among different cultures, thus face a delicate task of balancing their fidelity to certain ideas and their desire to maintain a fixed set of adjectives for their identities.

It will be awfully confusing if you are progressive in some places and backward in others.

Alas, a person who is a true amalgam of red and blue cultures and has turned purple will be considered red among the blue, and blue among the red...