3 ms·
Thinking about anger as a defense makes a lot of sense to me. The cost to the individual whose opinion might be changed is pretty big: you will have to re-evalu
by Timon3 3y ago
Thinking about anger as a defense makes a lot of sense to me. The cost to the individual whose opinion might be changed is pretty big: you will have to re-evaluate any thoughts that branches off the thought that is being challenged, so it might have a cascading effect. There needs to either be some natural stopping points (i.e. the thought graph is acyclic), or some other mechanism must keep us from going in circles.
- not_alexb 3y agoNot convincing in the general sense at least; I get high on learning new things that change my perspective entirely -- and that doesn't seem to be uncommon
- Timon3 3y agoBut is that literally always the case? Most of the time I also like learning new things, even things that change my perspective entirely. But that is when I am in the mood to actually engage with knowledge. There are other times when I'm much more annoyed by new knowledge going against what I already know. Let's say I'm doing my taxes, and my tax program has a popup "here are 804 changes to the tax code from last year", I will not be happy about having to learn that. Maybe this difference is caused by the perceived usefulness of new information. If there is potential for my new perspective to greatly help me, it might be worth exploring more than if I can't see any way for it to be productive.