A guest blogger on Scott Adams blog posed a question about what could cause you to change your mind.
She frames it as ‘most people’ picking a side and then sticking with that decision forever. Oddly she chooses sticking by a losing sports team as an analogy. That simply isn’t a compelling. She then inquires as to what, if anything, causes changing your mind to happen.
This approach accepts too much of the initial thought about picking a side and failing to ask why that is. What is the compelling reason behind picking a side and never reexamining or once was compelling to such a degree that it won out as a mechanism? Where is it shown to be the case that across a broad spectrum of decisions in context that this is a inferior mechanism and by what measurement?
Setting that all aside, the interesting thought to me is considering when if ever are we taught a competing method? I can’t think of a case in my experience. The closest I can think of is being exposed to a couple thinkers who describe trying on ideas like hats and wearing them around for a bit. That is a challenging and subversive notion in that a) there are some ideas that are pretty universally condemned and b) any idea that you try on has the potential to change you. Are you really ballsy enough to take that on? Where and when do we acquire the skill to do this well?