I see from all the blogs I follow, that people tend to follow blogs of other like-minded people (obviously?). But the problem is that, barring minor disagreements, everyone has more or less the same opinions on most issues. So how does one get a wider picture?
This applies to me too.
Would I follow hard core hindutva blog?
Or a islamic fundamentalist's blog?
A male chauvinist blog?
A Nazi blog?
No
Equally, I wouldn't be interested in a feminist blog, or an one of those arty people's blog, or a communist's blog.
I guess I don't want a wide picture. I just want my own views validated.
7 comments:
You raise an interesting point. But you must realize that even in such a group of reasonable size (~10-20 people) a lot of difference of opinion might arise. It's of course helpful to have a completely outrageous view(from your pov) once in a while, but following blogs of people with whom you share nothing in common gives you no motivation to read what they have to say, for often, the issues focused on will be very different. What I mean to say is, in a "like-minded" group, the issues focused on will be similar, but will hopefully generate varied opinions(as is seen quite often).
True. Following a blog by a person with whom you have nothing in common like a college girl's blog, is of course totally uninteresting. But what about a blog of a person who writes about similar topics or issues, but has a totally divergent view? Like say--a person who writes about education and who believes that girls should not be given tertiary education since they have to be married off, and that seat in a higher ed instt. is wasted.
@sivaramakrishnan:I just realised that you are a student. Hence college girl's blog is NOT a good example in my original comment :)
This (click) is a blog post by someone else (whose analytical skill I admire a lot).
What you've mentioned happens because (as Harmanjit points out) it's easy to dismiss dissenting ideas in age of modern technology. But that in turn is because a dissenting view sensitizes us to the possibility of our being wrong. Accepting that an opinion we held was wrong in itself is not very difficult, but what makes it difficult are the important decisions we'd have taken on the basis of those opinions.
Because our opinions determine what we aspire for, & how we go about trying to achieve it.
So, if one has to concede that what one had aspired for all these years was wrong, then next imminent conclusion would be that there was something wrong with about our life. It would devalue our own life in our own views, which at least intuitively is very difficult to face.
While, exactly the opposite happens when we get validation of our views. Our opinions, aspirations, decisions & our lives become 'more' correct. Also, there's positive feedback mechanism here: we like those who share our worldview. And we take more seriously the views of those we like.
Of course, all this is my conjecture. :)
@Ketan: Yes that is likely. I really had not thought that far, but it is quite likely.
@Ketan Thanks for the link. Very interesting...and the comments too.
@L : LOL :D I guess you got it right the second time. (I just noticed your follow-up comment)
@Ketan : I have always wondered why people find it so hard to accept that they might have missed something or might have goofed up somewhere. I see it happen all around me, all the time. And this even from people who really have not experienced/thought of enough to be sure of themselves.
I had so far ascribed it to the Dunning-Kruger effect -- the ones who know less are the one's who're sure of themselves, while the ones who know a little more always know that there is a lot they don't know.
Your theory is very interesting, but I wonder if people consciously implement it. Maybe it's an instinctive reaction to safegaurd your ego, for survival without self-belief is very difficult.
Post a Comment