Everyone wants to be right â€" this is a truism which hardly seems to need repeating, but it is a vital motive which does need to be addressed. Our participation in debates and discussions is often predicated upon this motive â€" we want to learn what is right, we want to convince others that we are right, and/or we we want to get others to believe the same correct things we already believe. Unfortunately, this motive can also lead us to engage in practices which are not entirely proper.
Sometimes, it is possible for a person to lie outright in order to get others to believe their claims; although it happens much more often than it should, it still does not appear to occur constantly. Much more common is a form of deception that can be more difficult to detect: selectively withholding information which might tend to support others’ ideas and critiques.
Known as Economy with the Truth, it doesn’t involve saying anything which is clearly untrue. Indeed, a person whose arguments suffering from this flaw may not be acting thus out of a deliberate intent to deceive. Although such intent is common, it should not be assumed to be the case in all instances.
Remember, a primary motive which people have in these situations is to be right. If we assume that a person is deliberately trying to deceive others, we must also conclude that the person probably doesn’t really believe what he is arguing â€" possible, but maybe not the case. At least as likely is the possibility that he has “deceived†himself.
What this means is that he may well have managed to ignore various uncomfortable facts even in his own reasoning process which he has relied upon, focusing only on the things which support his Confirmation Bias and not at all upon the ideas and arguments which speak against it â€" a process known as Subjective Validation. Thus, his being economical with the truth when it comes to his discussions with others is simply a manifestation of his having been economical with the truth for himself.
The flaw in such economy should be obvious: if our beliefs are to be sound, justified, and rational, then they must fully take into account all available and relevant information. When something important is left out of our reasoning process, then we run the risk of unnecessarily incorrect conclusions. Of course, because we are not omniscient, there will also be information we don’t have and cannot incorporate; however, there is really no good excuse not to take into account information we do have and are aware of.
When such an omission is deliberate, whether it occurs in the context of our discussions with others or simply in our own private deliberations, there seems to be little that can distinguish it morally from outright lies. The intentional concealment of information which is relevant and necessary is really no better than falsifying nonexistent information and pretending that it is true.
Unfortunately, slight unintentional economy with the truth is probably much more common than people might want to believe. Again, we are all motivated to be right and no one wants to think that they have believed things that are untrue. The selective use of information to buttress what we already believe is a relatively common feature of human thinking â€" we focus on that happens to coincide with our prejudices while ignoring that which might tend to undermine our confidence.
Understanding that this is a part of our psychological makeup is a necessary step if we are to have any chance at correcting it, just as the acknowledgment that we all have prejudices is necessary in order to overcome those prejudices. When we realize that we have an unconscious inclination to use information selectively, we will have a better chance at recognizing and utilizing the material we might have overlooked â€" or that others have overlooked in their attempts to convince us of something.
No comments:
Post a Comment