Are Biden and Trump--unwilling to admit they’re wrong--genetically superior to the rest of us?
I got to thinking about this because Joe Biden and the people around him refuse to acknowledge the obvious. On a similar vein, though less world-shaking scale, an old friend said she no longer wanted to receive my Substack because of my outspoken views on Israel and Gaza.
I somewhat self-righteously replied that she was mistaken in shutting me out. It’s better to keep an open mind, listen to opposing views, find out that maybe you’re not right, or at least be open to that possibility.
But maybe I’m wrong.
Before I get into that, according to psychologists, we don’t want to listen to opposing views for several reasons:
First is cognitive dissonance, the psychological phenomenon that occurs when people experience discomfort from holding two conflicting beliefs. Admitting you’re wrong –(Gee, maybe I should have made way for someone else to run)—forces you to reconcile your current understanding with your past actions or beliefs. Not much fun.
2. Admitting a mistake can be a blow to your ego. (Who has a more enormous ego than a U.S. President?) People often equate being wrong with being incompetent or foolish, which threatens your self-image. God forbid.
3. Admitting a mistake can be perceived as a weakness, leading to social repercussions, such as losing respect or credibility. (I’d go down in history as a stubborn fool rather than a fantastic leader, wouldn’t I?)
4. Confirmation Bias: People tend to seek information confirming their beliefs and ignore information contradicting them. (“Cancel my subscription to the Times! And tell Scarborough never to call again.”)
5. There can be tangible consequences of admitting a mistake, such as professional repercussions, strained relations, or legal issues. (“You mean I’d have to go on TV and admit I really am too old for the job? In that case, when did that begin?).
You would think that people who can overcome such instinctive reactions—people who are willing to learn, to accept new, unpleasant discoveries—for instance, that it’s natural evolution rather than God that creates new species; or that the earth is round and rotates around the sun; or that whites are not inherently superior to blacks—that people like that should have a significant advantage over those who refuse to listen to opposing or original views.
It would be most comforting if that were correct.
But I run into a vast contradiction. If being open to contrary ideas is such a great advantage, then why is our species apparently programmed to do just the opposite? Why are we so reluctant to change our deeply held views? To reject ideas that conflict with our own?
If Darwin was correct, then being bull-headed—being single-minded--must have given an evolutionary advantage to those convinced that they and they alone--hold the Truth.
But, when you think about it, maybe it did.
Being open to doubt can also be a weakness. It undermines assurance. It subverts your drive. It destroys your determination to strive for greatness—to achieve, no matter the obstacles.
After all, how could someone born of modest means in Germany overcome family struggles and hearing loss to become one of the greatest composers in Western music? (Beethoven)
How could a mentally disturbed Dutch painter, who never sold a canvas while he lived, become one of Europe’s most sought-after artists? (Van Gogh)
How could an unknown Corsican corporal become ‘Emperor of France and conquer much of Europe? (Napoleon).
How could a woman born to a peasant family in Eastern France lead her king and country to victory over English domination? (Jean D’Arc).
How could the daughter of poor school teachers in Warsaw, Poland, become the first woman to win a Nobel Prize and the only person to win Nobel Prizes in two different scientific fields (Physics and Chemistry)? (Marie Curie).
The list continues: Auguste Rodin, Nelson Mandela, Vo Nguyen Giap, Mahatma Gandhi, Andrew Carnegie, Abraham Lincoln, Harriet Taubman, Edith Piaf, Bob Marley, Georgie O’Keeffe, and Oprah Winfrey. You get the idea.
So maybe that’s the answer: The advantage goes to those who plow ahead, ignore the nay-sayers, critics, and carpers, and triumph.
This, however, leaves me with just as big a question.
How do you square the triumph of unquestioning faith in oneself and tenacity to see it through, ignoring the critics and nay-sayers—how do you square that with the fact that—despite our built-in reluctance to change—at some point, there are also people with more open minds who do accept new, revolutionary, uncomfortable ideas –and propel us forward?
Could someone explain that phenomenon to me?
Interesting debate and issues, Barry. I think religion has been a historical barrier to open thought and constructive discussions about opposing views and opinions. Most religions try very diligently to hard wire adherents, at an early age, to accept and adopt their dogma and ‘beliefs’ as gospel, lifetime truths. It limits and stymies open dialogue when one party’s firm, final position is purely faith based, as in ‘end of discussion’, thank you. Unfortunately, faith often leaves little room for facts to get in the way.
Great post!
I think the answer lies in that both being bullheaded and being open minded have advantages and disadvantages and that’s why you want a variety of ways of thinking and individuals in a population because you never know which strategy is the best one in the heat of the moment.
So I say, let’s hear it all, have much discourse, and may the best ideas win.