rictic

Steve Yegge often writes about a wide variety of issues, focusing more on the social and human element of programming. His most recent post about body modification, social mores, and more deeply about disruptive change and how societies respond has gotten me thinking. His thoughts about body modification and such are fun to read and think about, but one of the underlying points has left me wondering how to recognize and cope with disruptive change.

There are plenty of examples of disruptive ideas and social phenomena that were so in conflict with those of their time that they were only really adopted in large numbers by the next generation, those that grew up with them. Take evolution for example. Many of the leading lights in biology at the time were never convinced of it, and went to their graves arguing against it. They missed out on an opportunity to make significant groundbreaking contributions because of their prior ideological commitments. It was the next generation of biologists, coming into the field without having made any commitment to a biological ideology that were able to look at the various explanations of life and recognize evolution’s explanatory and predictive power in contrast to alternative ideas. So it is with many social movements. In America, a large number of people three or more generations back were and are quite racist, largely because racism was built into their world views at a young age. It is my understanding that racism has largely died out in America not through convincing people who already had a strong opinion, but through a generational change.

The interesting question here on a personal level is how recognize this sort of change and how to consider these ideas fairly when they go against deeply set beliefs and understandings of the world. Certainly it appears that the older you get the rarer this ability is, but there were a number of people who were well established in biology who accepted and argued for evolution. If there is a radical disruptive idea in my field or in society in general, I want to be able to consider it on its merits, rather than discard it for not cohering with other ideas I hold to be true, and I want to know how to be prepared to do so.

Keeping an open mind and being open to questioning of any aspect of your world view is one pretty sensible response, but I think there’s an additional element.

There is a well known principle of psychology that we are loathe to question critically something we’ve made a visible, tangible, or most of all monetary commitment to. This principle is exploited to powerful effect by everyone from scam artists to cult leaders, stringing people along far beyond what they would have accepted otherwise. An excellent case study in this is Scientology, wherein large commitments of time, energy, and money are ensured before one learns of their more ridiculous beliefs. Therefor, a level of humility is necessary, I think, to be willing to admit that one has been wrong and that one has publicly and repeatedly acted and spoken based on false assumptions.

Post a Comment | Trackback URI