1. Beliefs are not individuated, they're built from structural components. My belief that this desk will hold the weight of my teacup is built from a general belief about my desk's solidity, which is built from a general belief about objects...etc. So engaging with an idea which challenges some belief may cause a weakening of confidence in any number of other beliefs depending on how well connected it is. We need confidence in our belief structures (at least nearer the core) because uncertainty costs energy.

2. Certain beliefs (or the behavioural indicators of them) act as tokens of membership for one's social group. People often rely on their social group for support so adopting (and maintaining) the right tokens of membership is very important.

3. A combination of 1 and 2 mean that often beliefs which are not tokens of group membership, but which are deeply connected to such tokens get protected to the same extent as the token beliefs.

What do you think is the reason why most people, even very educated people, seem to have difficulty engaging with ideas that challenge their views? — thesmartman23

Most issues are not caused by just one reason. But what do you have in mind by, 'having difficulty engaging with ideas that challenge their views'. Examples? Are you talking values or disputes over facts (and yes, there may be an overlap)

Obvious examples of potential reasons would include tribalism and personal value systems. Also, I would not take it as given that highly educated people are necessarily smart.

For a certain type of ideas (usually socio-political ones), it could be said that they become a substitute for an individual's identity. Therefore, when these ideas are challenged, the individual treats it like an attack on their very being.

"Identification with the cause becomes so central and primary [in profilicity] that, strangely enough, one prefers news that the problem is really as bad as one fears it is - since this affirms the value of the cause, and thereby of one's identification with it. If climate change or civil rights should turn out no longer to be an issue, the identity of those identifying with these with these causes would be undermined and deflated. One's profile - built and maintained with sometimes a lifetime of effort, and in which one is thus deeply invested - would lose its social validity and become obsolete. The stronger the identification with a cause, the more the care for the cause also becomes the care for oneself." - Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul D'Ambrosio, You and Your Profile.

What do you think is the reason why most people, even very educated people, seem to have difficulty engaging with ideas that challenge their views? — thesmartman23

1. They see no use in those ideas.

2. They see no use in the challenge.

3. They don't want to accept the challenge as proposed by a particular person (but maybe they would if it were done by someone else).

4. They don't want to accept the challenge as proposed at a particular time and place (but maybe they would if it were done at some other time, some other place).

Belief is often so tangled with identity that if you challenge a person in the former you essentially ask them to concede the latter.

Life's too short. In particular it's too short to engage with people who think they are purveyors of "challenging ideas". And I don't buy much snake oil either.

immaturity

immaturity — I like sushi

On the other hand:

There's an underlying paradox to this issue.

I call it The Right-Truth Paradox

1. People want to be right.

Ergo,

2. People value truth.

3. Challenges to one's beliefs are essential to get to the truth.

4. People don't like their beliefs being challenged.

Ergo,

5. People don't value truth.

6. People value truth AND people don't value truth. [contradiction]

Paradox!

What do you think is the reason why most people, even very educated people, seem to have difficulty engaging with ideas that challenge their views? — thesmartman23

Investment. Time is money. When people find out their stocks are worthless, well, I'm reminded of the movie Highlander. Or Wall Street executives who discover the same. We have evolved to safeguard whatever ingrained mental beliefs, patterns, mannerisms, etc. that have allowed us to survive for a considerable time. It only makes sense, doncha know?

Honestly, I think most people prefer NOT TO BE challenged. And I believe this rings true even more so with the highly educated. They might think: "I've already achieved a bountiful success by getting this amazing degree from this (enter prestigious college here). I've been challenged again and again for X amount of years, I don't need to be challenged anymore." Now, this is just a theory of perception/a guess, But I hope you understand what I meant. And as one person remarked on this subject, just because you're highly educated doesnt mean you're smart, nor does it mean you are highly motivated or even passionate about the subject you have studied about, whether or not it was your major or minor or you just took classes on it every year.

Furthermore, in general, on any subject, highly educated or not, some people are just not at-the-ready to be challenged, even if they indicate that is what they want. Because they might SOUND like they're passionate about being challenged only to further show-off that they are educated, but not willing to put in the difficulty of being challenged mentally.

-Lindsay

What do you think is the reason why most people, even very educated people, seem to have difficulty engaging with ideas that challenge their views? — thesmartman23

I'm 69 and I have some strong beliefs. Actually, it's more accurate to say I have a strong system of beliefs. All my beliefs are connected to each other. If you change one, you're likely to have to change some others. The more important the belief, the more others it is connected to. I think that's true of other people as well. Except for simple or superficial beliefs, it takes intellectual and emotional effort to change things. Alternatively, it takes a strong crow bar to pry things apart. Crafting effective crow bar arguments is not easy, even when the underlying idea is a good one.

Honestly, I think most people prefer NOT TO BE challenged. — Lindsay

I think a lot of it has to do with how the challenge is presented, and who presents it. I like the way Socrates challenged people with questions. I also think he was, on the whole, polite. But when I think of how many so-called "journalists" ask their "gotcha" questions, I can see why that asshole Trump got some traction. Sometimes it takes an asshole to realign an asshole. Hopefully, after the dust up, we can return to civilized discourse based upon sincere intellectual curiosity.

An asshole will often claim to be an asshole to see how the person they are dealing with will respond under pressure. It's the old "How are you going to deal with world leader despots and tough characters if you can't handle questions from little old me?" But that's BS. World leader despots and tough characters still understand diplomacy and don't act like petulant, obstinate little bitches. Besides, it's disingenuous to feign a question.

Anyway, I'm waxing on too much. You get the gist. If a challenger is in sincere search of understanding, he/she can spend a little time figuring out the best way to elicit and honest, well-though-out response. But their presentation can say more about their preference not to be challenged than the preferences of those they challenge. Look not only at the subject of the interrogatory, but also at the interrogator.

I mean at a certain point, given enough experience one reaches a kind of conclusion to one's "big beliefs" about the world in general. We might think it be bad, or an opportunity, we might think that natural selection explains a lot or that there is a God of some kind, or anything else.

It takes a tremendous amount of investment to come up with any "conclusion" in beliefs and it would be a mistake if we were to change deep-held beliefs in one single conversation or one example which does not fit in with our ideas. This is why people who do change their minds later on in life, come about it, frequently, after some kind of traumatic experience.

But to explain how we arrive at the gist of our beliefs, even when several people have the same experience (in that they all witnessed the same event, say a car crash or a wedding, etc.) and reach different conclusions, is mysterious. We somehow carve out what we think is relevant and highlight this aspect over other aspects which are of (arguably) equal importance to another person.

Very well said, especially about political figures personalities such as Trump was and is. That's also a good point that didn't cross my mind: "if a challenger is in sincere search of understanding" and taking the time to make yourself more knowledgeable about subjects that he/she wishes to become more well-versed with are the types of people that will want and seek out the appropriate challenges.

I also think it's not just important for who and how the opposition of the person reacts to the other seeking the challenges, but some, like myself for example, seek to challenge themselves on their own more than with other people. I have joined this site, along with a couple of others, yes, to challenge myself MORE than I already do.

But I challenge myself against myself already, and have been for years and years. You see, I'm not just an autodidact, but I also solidify those new memories by writing about them in multiple types of different ways.

This is why people who do change their minds later on in life, come about it, frequently, after some kind of traumatic experience. — Manuel

:100: :up: But there are always those who refuse to change their minds. I hear there are folks who, before dying of Covid, insist that Covid is not real. Stupid doctors; they must be part of the big conspiracy.

But I challenge myself against myself already, and have been for years and years. You see, I'm not just an autodidact, but I also solidify those new memories by writing about them in multiple types of different ways. — Lindsay

:strong: :fire: :cheer: I'm wanting to be better at that. I want to try the parable, the story. Sometimes those are more persuasive, and work like a seed. That different angle might also help me refine my own thinking on an issue.

:100: :up: But there are always those who refuse to change their minds. I hear there are folks who, before dying of Covid, insist that Covid is not real. Stupid doctors; they must be part of the big conspiracy. — James Riley

Yes, this is astonishing and goes to show the decay in political discourse and our relying on "team mentality". It's no different - in fact likely worse - than organized religion.

Maybe if such people would've survived they may have changed what they thought. Probably not.

Well, not too different from the disconnect between political figures, CEO's and others who purport to believe in the urgency of climate change and then proceed to emit more C02 emissions than last year.

One is at a loss for words. Like what can you even say when it gets to these levels? It's way beyond insane when it gets to these levels.

Maybe if such people would've survived they may have changed what they thought. Probably not. — Manuel

The real tell is when it's not them, but someone they love dearly. And even worse, when they counseled their loved one to eschew medical help. How do they go around in denial after that? I'm not a shrink so I guess it's out of my wheelhouse to understand such insanity.

Cause challenging our views and beliefs requires to challenge our own selves. To face ourselves. And, oh boy, that's a hell of a fight that not many are willing to give!

So we stick firmly to a dogma or beliefs or views and simply dismiss everything different that would put us in the awkward position of doubting for our own selves.
That would shake our world and even make it collapse and who has the courage to build a new world for himself from the beginning?? Who is brave enough? Not many.

So we choose the easy way : dismissing everything different as wrong, and everything we do - think as the right,excusing ourselves for everything and just maintain our fragile bubble we live in.

Facing ourselves deeply an challenge them all the time is the most difficult task so I can see the reason that most people avoid it.

They can always double down or enter into denialism or maybe regret it.

But as you say, a top-tier shrink is needed to explain this shit and I doubt we'd understand it even then.

:100:

For a certain type of ideas (usually socio-political ones), it could be said that they become a substitute for an individual's identity. Therefore, when these ideas are challenged, the individual treats it like an attack on their very being. — Tzeentch

I've generally held that people are attracted to ideas for emotional reasons. Truth or 'truthiness' is not really the point, nor is it a criterion of value. People are unlikely to be able to 'see' or engage with ideas that represent a vastly different emotional life. Those ideas are almost invisible.

“Most of us are about as eager to be changed as we were to be born, and go through our changes in a similar state of shock. ”
― James Baldwin

It's the movement from sophomore to senior, or graduate. Or another way, from ignorance to knowledge. Those who have come to know, especially professionally, know what discussions matter and which are a waste of time, and they tend to have not-so-much patience with time wasting. Most challenges to professionals come out of ignorance; they've been there, done that, and usually just don't have the time to do it again. That in part is why some of the contributions by some people here are real gifts to the rest of us, that they take the time and trouble to go through it all over again.

What do you think is the reason why most people, even very educated people, seem to have difficulty engaging with ideas that challenge their views? — thesmartman23

What do you mean "have difficulty"? And what sort of "views" do you have in mind?

:strong: :fire: :cheer: I'm wanting to be better at that. I want to try the parable, the story. Sometimes those are more persuasive, and work like a seed. That different angle might also help me refine my own thinking on an issue. — James Riley

It's always a good way to evolve yourself and one way to achieve self-realization by perceiving different concepts at different angles, that will definitely help in forms of context. But like in the book I've almost finished reading, called: "The Good Place and Philosophy: Get an Afterlife"; it's not all just about angles and contexts. It's about the absolute, metaphysical ideologies...and it basically cracks your mind open into a world most of us think about, and the many various essays from qualified authors puts the subject into pieces, backwards, forwards, zig-zags, plot twist here, plot twist there. It's not jut entertainment, it's a philosopher's book of puzzling questions. There are a lot of books like this in a series called "Blackwell's Pop Culture and Philosophy Series", which includes many various philosophy comparisons to TV shows, books, movies, and the like. I really think you might benefit from reading some of them that you might find interesting. Just go on amazon and search the quoted "Blackwell's....etc" on Amazon and you won't believe how many different books they have based upon our modern entertainment. Just a suggestion for you to try. :smile:

:up: