What is Reflective Equilibrium?
The concept of “reflective equilibrium” is essentially the act of testing our beliefs for validity and examining the coherence among our collection of beliefs. If we develop a new belief or encounter evidence that contradicts an established belief, reflective equilibrium requires us to examine the contradicting beliefs until a resolution is reached, either by abandoning or modifying our beliefs until a congruence is reached. [1]
Maintaining a reflective equilibrium requires us to actively seek out challenging our beliefs in response to new information. It encourages essentially the polar opposite of confirmation bias; in which one actively seeks to find information that is aligned with their preexisting internalized beliefs. [2] I believe that teaching the general population critical thinking skills and fostering a reflective equilibrium could play a significant role in addressing the rise of intolerance and misinformation.
It is becoming all too common for people to create echo chambers in which they only expose themselves to information and individuals that align with their already internalized beliefs, and to reject information and individuals who challenge those beliefs. [3] This is largely considered acceptable and even encouraged in the general public, but it breeds hostility and ignorance and is guided by confirmation bias; not reason. [4] There is an alarming trend in which people obfuscate facts and opinions, and believe that the two hold equal merit or are unable to distinguish the difference between them. [3]
When we test our beliefs thru the use of deductive and inductive reasoning to maintain a reflective equilibrium, all beliefs are not equal. Some will fail to hold up when tested. For instance, one may passionately believe the Earth is flat, but that belief fails in the face of incontrovertible evidence. One may believe a dog wagging its tail would never bite, but would likely rectify that belief in the face of the new experience of being bitten, in order to reach congruence in their beliefs.
A problem I see is that many people are becoming complacent with not addressing the contradictions between beliefs and evidence, and feel it is logically justified to ignore the incongruence. People naturally do not like to challenge their internalized beliefs because it makes them feel uncomfortable. [4] That unpleasant physiological state of arousal is called cognitive dissonance. [5] Cognitive dissonance is often misused in pop culture and internet slang to mean specifically the act of holding two opposing beliefs, but it is actually the unpleasant feeling itself that arises from holding the opposing cognitions (thoughts, beliefs). [5]
For instance, one may believe “I am a healthy person because I eat well and exercise;” “I smoke cigarettes;” and “cigarettes are unhealthy;” all at the same time. When considering this opposition in beliefs, it makes the individual feel uncomfortable. Cognitive dissonance theory argues that one is motivated by that unpleasant feeling to rectify the incongruence by a change in beliefs or action, but that motivation can be thwarted thru disingenuous reasoning techniques, such as rationalizing or ignoring. [4]
For instance, the smoker could engage in rationalization and think to themselves: “I’ve known of people who lived to be very old and they smoked all their lives.” This may be enough to cause the cognitive dissonance to subside, but no resolution has been reached and cigarettes remain objectively unhealthy.
Some people simply reject information that doesn’t align with their beliefs, and they do not see the harm in this, or how it renders their beliefs logically weaker and less worthy of respect or merit. [8] More over, many people feel justified in their beliefs but do not even recognize that their beliefs and arguments are based on emotional reasoning; not logic.
In fact, this is an important component used in misinformation in order to get past a rational-thinking person’s guard. The misinformation is structured to appeal to emotion so that they are no longer rationally thinking and are now engaged in emotional reasoning without even realizing it. [6] This then puts them in a vulnerable state in which they are more easily persuaded and less likely to question the information. [6] Repetition also plays a key role in spreading misinformation [6], and lies spread faster than gathering the facts to disprove them. [7] When confronted by those facts, many people do not care enough to reconsider their belief, and the contradictory information is simply ignored. [8]
A final key problem with the way in which our society handles challenging our beliefs is tied to the growing tendency to intertwine beliefs into personal identities (i.e., “making politics your personality”). What happens then is that every time someone justifiably challenges a political belief, it is no longer a challenge to their belief, but rather a personal attack against their identity. [8] This causes defensiveness, bias, and aggression that is entirely unjustified. A valid criticism is misinterpreted by the maladaptive individual as a personal attack, and that individual then shifts to emotional reasoning and feels even more justified in their beliefs. [8]
I believe that broadly teaching critical thinking skills and encouraging a reflective equilibrium would help curb the societal susceptibility to misinformation, echo chambers, and dubious attitudes towards opinion/fact that have become commonplace. It’s not enough to address misinformation at the source every time it pops up. I believe we must educate our society and teach the general population the skills needed to more effectively discern valid sources as well as teaching them how to more effectively scrutinize their beliefs to promote analytical reasoning over intuitive or “gut” reactions and appeals to emotion. I believe that an emphasis on maintaining a reflective equilibrium is essential to fostering greater intellectual resilience and pivotal in the pursuit of addressing the sweeping misinformation, extremism, and echo-chambers that remain prevalent throughout our society.
Maintaining a reflective equilibrium requires us to actively seek out challenging our beliefs in response to new information. It encourages essentially the polar opposite of confirmation bias; in which one actively seeks to find information that is aligned with their preexisting internalized beliefs. [2] I believe that teaching the general population critical thinking skills and fostering a reflective equilibrium could play a significant role in addressing the rise of intolerance and misinformation.
It is becoming all too common for people to create echo chambers in which they only expose themselves to information and individuals that align with their already internalized beliefs, and to reject information and individuals who challenge those beliefs. [3] This is largely considered acceptable and even encouraged in the general public, but it breeds hostility and ignorance and is guided by confirmation bias; not reason. [4] There is an alarming trend in which people obfuscate facts and opinions, and believe that the two hold equal merit or are unable to distinguish the difference between them. [3]
When we test our beliefs thru the use of deductive and inductive reasoning to maintain a reflective equilibrium, all beliefs are not equal. Some will fail to hold up when tested. For instance, one may passionately believe the Earth is flat, but that belief fails in the face of incontrovertible evidence. One may believe a dog wagging its tail would never bite, but would likely rectify that belief in the face of the new experience of being bitten, in order to reach congruence in their beliefs.
A problem I see is that many people are becoming complacent with not addressing the contradictions between beliefs and evidence, and feel it is logically justified to ignore the incongruence. People naturally do not like to challenge their internalized beliefs because it makes them feel uncomfortable. [4] That unpleasant physiological state of arousal is called cognitive dissonance. [5] Cognitive dissonance is often misused in pop culture and internet slang to mean specifically the act of holding two opposing beliefs, but it is actually the unpleasant feeling itself that arises from holding the opposing cognitions (thoughts, beliefs). [5]
For instance, one may believe “I am a healthy person because I eat well and exercise;” “I smoke cigarettes;” and “cigarettes are unhealthy;” all at the same time. When considering this opposition in beliefs, it makes the individual feel uncomfortable. Cognitive dissonance theory argues that one is motivated by that unpleasant feeling to rectify the incongruence by a change in beliefs or action, but that motivation can be thwarted thru disingenuous reasoning techniques, such as rationalizing or ignoring. [4]
For instance, the smoker could engage in rationalization and think to themselves: “I’ve known of people who lived to be very old and they smoked all their lives.” This may be enough to cause the cognitive dissonance to subside, but no resolution has been reached and cigarettes remain objectively unhealthy.
Some people simply reject information that doesn’t align with their beliefs, and they do not see the harm in this, or how it renders their beliefs logically weaker and less worthy of respect or merit. [8] More over, many people feel justified in their beliefs but do not even recognize that their beliefs and arguments are based on emotional reasoning; not logic.
In fact, this is an important component used in misinformation in order to get past a rational-thinking person’s guard. The misinformation is structured to appeal to emotion so that they are no longer rationally thinking and are now engaged in emotional reasoning without even realizing it. [6] This then puts them in a vulnerable state in which they are more easily persuaded and less likely to question the information. [6] Repetition also plays a key role in spreading misinformation [6], and lies spread faster than gathering the facts to disprove them. [7] When confronted by those facts, many people do not care enough to reconsider their belief, and the contradictory information is simply ignored. [8]
A final key problem with the way in which our society handles challenging our beliefs is tied to the growing tendency to intertwine beliefs into personal identities (i.e., “making politics your personality”). What happens then is that every time someone justifiably challenges a political belief, it is no longer a challenge to their belief, but rather a personal attack against their identity. [8] This causes defensiveness, bias, and aggression that is entirely unjustified. A valid criticism is misinterpreted by the maladaptive individual as a personal attack, and that individual then shifts to emotional reasoning and feels even more justified in their beliefs. [8]
I believe that broadly teaching critical thinking skills and encouraging a reflective equilibrium would help curb the societal susceptibility to misinformation, echo chambers, and dubious attitudes towards opinion/fact that have become commonplace. It’s not enough to address misinformation at the source every time it pops up. I believe we must educate our society and teach the general population the skills needed to more effectively discern valid sources as well as teaching them how to more effectively scrutinize their beliefs to promote analytical reasoning over intuitive or “gut” reactions and appeals to emotion. I believe that an emphasis on maintaining a reflective equilibrium is essential to fostering greater intellectual resilience and pivotal in the pursuit of addressing the sweeping misinformation, extremism, and echo-chambers that remain prevalent throughout our society.
Comments
Post a Comment