Whenever I ponder my developmental journey, there is never a moment that doesn't include my acknowledgment of the restricted influence of my conditioned past and how much more I could have accomplished had I not spent many years unlearning and restructuring my perceptions through trial and error. I don't blame anyone for this, as my family is like most that pass on what they were taught: biases, stereotypes, fears, and all. Needless to say, because of my determination to make different choices, I was not the favorite. My quest to find truth often led me to express blatant defiance when I let my emotions get the better of me. In a way, I felt betrayed by my own assumptions that intelligence was correlated with a broader understanding of perspective and compassion. However, though my family was well-equipped with domain-specific intelligence, seeing broader connections between concepts across social perspectives was not a strength.
We all have biased conditioning that must be unraveled. Yet, many seek out information that reinforces their biases rather than take the time to reflect on how their beliefs may be limiting personal thought. The confirmation bias (the tendency to label information that you agree with as fact and ignore any evidence that contradicts the targeted concept) is not easy to overcome. Unless someone is severely self-aware and refuses to be controlled by their own biases, people form questions as well as answers to those questions within the confines of the same box of beliefs. For example, you likely will only go so far in your understanding of quantum knowledge (i.e., multiple dimensions/forms/timelines) if you aren't willing to let go of the belief that you only have one life that unfolds in a linear way.
POV: The inability to step outside ethnocentric boundaries before forming opinions about others is a significant reason we are underdeveloped in social understanding and dynamics. Being aware that you may be limiting your growth because of specific thought patterns is a metacognitive characteristic that seems to be rare as it takes time and courage to look at misconceptions and analyze the self. Basically, it is an easier route to avoid introspection and deliberate change. Most prefer to internalize what they are fed from the voice of another without thinking anything beyond the voice of the "expert." And yet, many experts are simply regurgitating what they were taught without critical thought or considering alternative theoretical speculations. They refrain from analyzing where their own biases might be creating limitations in teaching. Though this may create less cognitive dissonance, I seem to be incapable of floating on the clouds of mental zombification when it comes to any philosophical or psychological theory. It's one of the side effects of the curse to analyze and understand multiple perspectives then find the parallel between them. The words "maybe," "not in every case," or "not necessarily" have seemed to become my personal automated response to rigid concept interpretations over time.
I'll admit that the shadows of ambiguity are not a popular place to linger in any domain. It isn't even encouraged to push complexity or opposition onto new learners in many fields—at least not until students are more advanced. Years ago, I wrote to show my gratitude for the writings of a professor, whose psychology textbook I enjoyed more than most because he included insights and references to opposing research in the textbook. He responded to state that he appreciated my gesture because he was often criticized by other instructors for including challenging perspectives in a beginner's textbook. They claimed that the complex approach could overwhelm students. I replied that I preferred that type of teaching because it reduces absolutist thinking and gives an accurate perception of the diversity that is representative of reality. Ambiguity…complexity…challenges…multiple perspectives…is the truth. What you are interested in and love depends on many factors gained through both experience and conditioning, which is different for everyone. Failing to teach the complexity of life leads to people having to continually correct the misconceptions they formed as novices. Though this is a natural part of personal development (pruning and restructuring), learning environments should encourage this rather than delay it.
Of course, it feels much simpler for us to interpret teachings in one way, especially if that chosen interpretation fills the hole of deprivation or destructive needs. Ignoring misconceptions that may exist on the basis of study soothes mental confusion. It is one of the reasons confirmation bias is challenging to recognize and overcome. Interpretations that create hope within the confines of personal belief provide relief, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is accurate. If you believe in hell, for example, you are more ready to hold respect and admiration for a teacher that interprets esoteric findings from the same context. In the same sense, you may disregard valuable instruction that could increase the rate of your evolution from one who does not believe the same way. Just because someone knows a lot in a field does not make them credible. An expert could have limiting biases and maladaptive agendas just as easily as any other.
Fear of exploring beyond the bounds of conditioning is debilitating to development. Clinging to feel-good theories without injecting a healthy amount of skepticism can also lead to more heartache in the long run. Self-deception may be beneficial in warding off emotional pain, but productive time used for discovering the place that you don't need deception to survive in is lost. Then, when a circumstance occurs that forces us to face our inaccuracies, self-trust can take a dive alongside efficacy. We tend to internalize it as failure even though all we failed to do is look beyond what we were told or wanted to know. For example, often when a toxic relationship finally comes to an end, people may believe they were stupid to see early red flags and feel they wasted time. As a result, they may hesitate to trust their own judgments about future attractions. However, if we can train ourselves to look at patterns and recognize the reasons we are attracted to specific characteristics, it may help to mediate the negative impact of maladaptive decisions in relationships. Refusing to learn about manipulative techniques and hidden agendas in all domains makes one an easier target to be conned or conditioned in a way that is self-debilitating.
We create more problems in the long run when we put all our hope and trust in the over-confidence of the absolutist. Advancement in any field requires the understanding that we are ALWAYS operating and perceiving from what is known only in a moment but that does not mean it will not change and shift. What is absorbed is influenced by perspective. Better questions, better tools for research, and deeper insights are continually being formed, which in turn leads to more detailed understandings, more accurate interpretations, and more effective solutions. Repeating the same thing for twenty years just prolongs us from moving further on the path to where we would be satisfied and benefit most.
And while I realize that teaching strategies are more effectively granted in layers, hidden agendas and deliberate manipulation of thought should not be a part of the equation if any are interested in maintaining credibility at least. Just as I mentioned to the textbook writer years ago, I feel it is better for students to be exposed to the challenges in research that mirror our lives, and that professors should trust in the capability of their students to handle the ambiguity of life. Significant contradicting research findings have always been present in the fields of Psychology even though they are not exposed to the population as much as they should be. People are similar, but they are not exact. If they were, we would advance even more slowly than we already do. And let's just be honest, if releasing specific data would thwart the agenda of those in power, you are unlikely to ever hear of the data. Regardless, you can still entertain flexibility in reasoning and in personal experience when it comes to advancing personal development.
Statistics should always be seen as a possibility within a specific context when using it to guide personal experiences. Even if more than one research instrument produces valid and reliable scores deemed useful in a study does not mean all are equal in quality. Besides, including the uncertainty or challenging perspectives (even by the same research team) suggests a desire to learn the truth rather than a desire to preserve one's ego. Being honest about the variations may even attract more of the students who already possess a list of unasked questions formed from the array of "maybes" that plague their thoughts. The same applies to development on a personal and broader level. If we were more willing to explore all angles (the delightful and uncomfortable; the logical and wildly insane; the supportive and opposing) and then seek to find the connection between seemingly unrelated domains in attempts to broaden understanding in more than just one direction, the rate of evolution for this species overall maybe would increase to a much more satisfying rate.
Comments