It's who you know

[pjthompson]

mevennen posted a fascinating link to this article on homophily.

It's something worth mulling over, the tendency of like to seek like, to want our opinions and biases reinforced rather than challenged. It's certainly easy to sometimes con yourself into believing what "the smart people" say over what your instincts are telling you—something I have been pondering a great deal lately.

I may even blog about it one day if I can ever sort it out in my own head. Perhaps I should challenge myself by having coffee with a troll. Nothing like the opposite of what you believe to help you clarify what it is you do believe.

Comments

[wldhrsjen3.livejournal.com]

One of the best things I've ever done - and it was entirely at the prodding of my mother-in-law - was joining a local women's club composed of two dozen women spanning a wide range of ages, political and religious views, jobs and hobbies. We are all very, very different - but for one night a month we enjoy each other's company and have some lively discussions on all sorts of random topics. Yes, we often (politely) disagree - but it's so refreshing to share ideas with people coming from an entirely different perspective. My closest friends may share more similarities with me, but I wouldn't trade my club friends either. For all our differences, they have kept me from stagnating. :)

[pjthompson]

For all our differences, they have kept me from stagnating. :)

I absolutely don't think that can be underestimated. It's so easy to fall into ruts of all kind. It's important not to filter the world too closely, I think.

[helios137.livejournal.com]

Coffee with a troll, eh? ;)


Litigation is my line of work, so it is naturally adversarial. On top of that I represent employees and my adversaries represent corporations, so there is typically a correlating liberal/conservative split. Nevertheless, like you, I recognize the value of communicating with people who hold opposing views. I think it is not only the healthy thing to do, but, as you write, an activity which often justifies my own position in the first place (without demonizing proponents of the opposing view).

One of the ways that I personally try to avoid falling into the intellectual rut that the article focuses upon is by trying to diversify my reading choices. For about $400 I purchased a copy of the 61 volume second edition of the Great Books aka GBBWW from a used bookstore. Little by little, I tackle one of the books and hopefully by the time I die, I'll have read all of them. The key is that they include topics which I would not otherwise expose myself to intellectually. In the beginning, it can be a little like taking the nasty table spoon of medicine when we were young, but after a while it inevitable gets better.

[pjthompson]

Great troll--and coffee!

I think your line of work exposes you a great deal to the Opposite. Mine does not, and although reading books I might not ordinarily tackle is a good thing for broadening, I don't think—for me, at least—it can replace the vibrancy of the face-to-face stuff. Dealing with other people, their neuroses, foibles, and prejudices is what keeps you on your toes. And sometimes you actually learn something. ;-) Actually, I think that's quite often the case.

[handworn.livejournal.com]

One of Aaron Sorkin's pet ideas seems to be like that. As expressed in The West Wing more than once-- if you're stupid, surround yourself with smart people; if you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you.

The problem with a troll is that all they'd be would be a person who disagrees with you. I think trolls are by definition not smart, since I think smart necessarily implies at least some modicum of self-perception and self-analysis.

[pjthompson]

Thanks, Matt. I wasn't been trollish but impish in that statement.

[mrngglry98.livejournal.com]

What's nice about the field I'm in is that I'm constantly surrounded by people of varying social economic strata, beliefs, cultures, and ideas. I like that, and it's good for me because I'm very consciously aware of how, for my own close social circle of friends and family, I've sought out very specific people who are very specifically like me.

This is blatantly obvious when one considers that, although 95% of the world consists of Believers, 95% of my friends are Atheists or Agnostic. What are the odds of this "naturally" occurring, you know? More than once, a co-worker (or someone else) whom I truly admire will randomly mention they've baptized their child or gone to church, and I'll be shocked. (I mean this. Truly shocked. After all, how could anybody *I* know want to go to church!?) Each time this has happened, I've had to pause and really think about what it means. It's both good and bad. I love my friends to death partly because they *do* hold my similar, statistically unusual beliefs and habits. But I can't shut myself off from other beliefs, either.

But yes, I have pondered this often as well. ;)

[pjthompson]

More than once, a co-worker (or someone else) whom I truly admire will randomly mention they've baptized their child or gone to church, and I'll be shocked. (I mean this. Truly shocked. After all, how could anybody *I* know want to go to church!?) Each time this has happened, I've had to pause and really think about what it means. It's both good and bad. I love my friends to death partly because they *do* hold my similar, statistically unusual beliefs and habits. But I can't shut myself off from other beliefs, either.

I'd say my close circle of friends and I dovetail on the important issues, but I have a larger circles of acquaintances/less intimate friends I like and admire and they cover the gamut on issues, spirituality, et al. I don't hang with anyone whose ideas are abhorrent to me, but I have been known to pal around with people I disagree with, sometimes quite strongly. This isn't conscious, it just happens. What seems to be important to me is not so much what ideas they hold, but how comfortable they are insides those ideas: can they tolerate the opposite opinion without agreeing, or are they so rigid and insecure in their belief structure (and yes, that includes skepticism and atheism) that they must crush all opposition.