Young Hearts be Free Tonight...have a great weekend everyone.
A blog from Protestants for the Common Good about faith and politics.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
How Do We Change?
David McRaney/You Are Not So Smart:
My question would then be: how do we overcome our biases, open ourselves up to new possibilities, and change? I used to be someone who had a fundamentally conservative view point about the world, and now I have changed to be someone who thinks rather differently. I may have changed sides, but did I actually change the way I think? It depresses me to think that I have merely switched the side towards which I am blind and biased.
In religious terms, I've often asked people if there was any sort of "truth" that if they learned, would totally dismantle their faith. I am not sure that faith should operate on this sort of level, but I think it is a question worth pondering.
-Tim
Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper...
As social media and advertising progresses, confirmation bias and the backfire effect will become more and more difficult to overcome. You will have more opportunities to pick and choose the kind of information which gets into your head along with the kinds of outlets you trust to give you that information. In addition, advertisers will continue to adapt, not only generating ads based on what they know about you, but creating advertising strategies on the fly based on what has and has not worked on you so far. The media of the future may be delivered based not only on your preferences, but on how you vote, where you grew up, your mood, the time of day or year – every element of you which can be quantified. In a world where everything comes to you on demand, your beliefs may never be challenged.A fascinating post and website that I highly recommend checking out.
My question would then be: how do we overcome our biases, open ourselves up to new possibilities, and change? I used to be someone who had a fundamentally conservative view point about the world, and now I have changed to be someone who thinks rather differently. I may have changed sides, but did I actually change the way I think? It depresses me to think that I have merely switched the side towards which I am blind and biased.
In religious terms, I've often asked people if there was any sort of "truth" that if they learned, would totally dismantle their faith. I am not sure that faith should operate on this sort of level, but I think it is a question worth pondering.
-Tim
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
One Idea of Progress
A fair warning. I am going to be a huge Debbie Downer in this post.
Matthew Yglesias:
But when we ask ourselves whether or not humanity is progressing, is bettering itself towards some higher state, is moving in a positive direction, I don't quite buy the argument that certain metrics, such as per capita GDP growth, are positive indicators. When we ponder the question of progress in a theological way, it takes on a rather different connotation all together.
It is important to state here that a Christian idea of a progressing human being need not be relegated purely to the soul, ignoring the flesh as an inconsequential, temporary vessel. Indeed, an organization like Protestants for the Common Good believes fully in the expression of God in both soul and body. To fight for health care is a theological virtue. However, we cannot argue this point at the expense of the soul either.
Let me strip away the religious language for a second, and frame this discussion in term of intent (soul) and consequence (flesh). To measure progress by consequence only, denies a fundamental (for some, not all) notion of ethical behavior that cares as much, if not more, about intent as the actual result. Certainly, it is wonderful for less people to die at the hands of war, but there is a difference between less war because the intent of harm has diminished in the human person, or less war because the geo-political systems that control such actions are in a state of constraint for many different reasons. If our intent to harm is the same as it was a hundred years ago, we are merely the same monsters in a stronger cage.
You can probably deduce that I am of this last opinion. If you disagree, share!
-Tim
Matthew Yglesias:
One the oddities about the current economic doldrums afflicting the developed world is that if you look at the global average, this is almost certainly the best time to be alive in human history. Not only have we seen rapid per capita GDP growth in many poor countries, but even in countries that haven’t gotten richer major development progress has occurred. Last, but by no means least, the world is getting much less violent.Yglesias goes on to quote some statistics showing a major decrease in the number of deaths caused by war in the last century and ends by saying: "This is major good news." This is the type of argument many people would agree shows some sort of human progress, and I would have to concur it is indeed good news that fewer people are dying violent deaths.
But when we ask ourselves whether or not humanity is progressing, is bettering itself towards some higher state, is moving in a positive direction, I don't quite buy the argument that certain metrics, such as per capita GDP growth, are positive indicators. When we ponder the question of progress in a theological way, it takes on a rather different connotation all together.
It is important to state here that a Christian idea of a progressing human being need not be relegated purely to the soul, ignoring the flesh as an inconsequential, temporary vessel. Indeed, an organization like Protestants for the Common Good believes fully in the expression of God in both soul and body. To fight for health care is a theological virtue. However, we cannot argue this point at the expense of the soul either.
Let me strip away the religious language for a second, and frame this discussion in term of intent (soul) and consequence (flesh). To measure progress by consequence only, denies a fundamental (for some, not all) notion of ethical behavior that cares as much, if not more, about intent as the actual result. Certainly, it is wonderful for less people to die at the hands of war, but there is a difference between less war because the intent of harm has diminished in the human person, or less war because the geo-political systems that control such actions are in a state of constraint for many different reasons. If our intent to harm is the same as it was a hundred years ago, we are merely the same monsters in a stronger cage.
You can probably deduce that I am of this last opinion. If you disagree, share!
-Tim
Monday, August 22, 2011
Fair Care
Last Wednesday morning, Senator Iris Martinez and the Fair Care Coalition held a hearing on state legislation to hold nonprofit hospitals accountable to their charitable obligations.
It was my privilege to attend and photograph the event during which Senator Martinez and representatives from the Fair Care Coalition spoke about recent tax exemption denials to three Illinois nonprofit hospitals due to inadequate charity care.
Martinez made it clear that she is not out to punish hospitals, but simply to see that those nonprofit hospitals meet their obligations to serve the uninsured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)