The trouble with always being right
Growing up, I had a great aunt who would interrupt anyone who disagreed with her on any subject (however trivial) by scoffing and declaring, in clipped tones, 'Don't tell me. Ask me!' The phrase soured every interaction it featured in. Being unbelievably obnoxious, it would. My great aunt made a fantastic apple tart, nurtured a spectacular, flourishing garden and was a very kind and generous woman, but happened to be wildly unreasonable in the face of any mild challenge or disagreement.
We all know someone whose self-respect rests on
winning
.
Their very identity becomes enmeshed in this brief disagreement about whether Italy has a better hospitality culture than Spain, or whether Bertie Ahern should be resurrected from the political grave to vie for the presidency (please, no), or whether a vegan sponge cake can feasibly pass for 'a proper one' made with eggs.
They will die on this hill. It doesn't matter if their point has been thoroughly counterargued, or if evidence has been presented which makes their position indefensible. There doesn't even have to be a particularly contentious or important issue under discussion.
READ MORE
When people engage in the world of ideas in this proprietary, insecure way, they become someone others will no longer talk to like a reasonable adult. Those who need it most are thus often insulated from sincere, good faith debate or even relevant information that might challenge their view. They're left, socially and intellectually, trapped within a septic tank of confirmation bias and sanctimonious overconfidence.
It doesn't make for an enjoyable, relaxed Sunday lunch with the family, but it's not a catastrophe. When their influence is limited to pontificating at your poor, hard-of-hearing granny across a dish of green beans, there's little harm done apart from a tasty lunch spoiled and a few balled fists concealed under the table. 'Jockrates', at it again.
However, this approach to forming and defending beliefs can be harmful when something important is at stake, or when it's the chosen operating system of someone with actual influence or power over others. We'd prefer our elected public representatives to be open-minded, willing to reconsider when there's good reason to do so, and to be capable of evolution of their ideological positions as circumstances and times change. We should probably consider those who think at 45 what they thought at age 15 with a good deal of wariness. To live 30 years in the belief that every experience merely confirms what you thought before is stronger evidence of being an ideologue than erudite. It's a little embarrassing. It's kind of insane.
[
Cognitive bias can prevent us from knowing when to quit
Opens in new window
]
It's strange, then, that we often by default denigrate people who change their minds. The couple who decide after careful thought that they no longer want kids (hopefully before having them rather than after). The friend who quits their corporate job at 48 to become a yoga teacher and paint watercolours. The Fine Gael voter who switches to Labour, or vice versa. We'll accuse a politician who changes their position based on conscience of flip-flopping and treat someone who converts to a new religion with patronising suspicion. We'll view a person who openly admits to thinking they were wrong before as therefore more likely to be wrong now, while someone who sticks intransigently to the same set of ideas with the impermeable resistance of a sea wall is viewed as stalwart and reliable.
[
Critical thinking training can reduce belief in conspiracy theories, study by UCC psychologists finds
Opens in new window
]
Yet changing your mind is surely an inevitable consequence of thinking. Of being more interested in what is true than what is convenient, advantageous or popular. Life experience, education (formal or self-taught) and exposure to new ways of thinking about old ideas should challenge the assumptions we walked in with. A long-standing unexamined belief is indistinguishable from a habit, and no more deserving of respect than a recently adopted one.
We should treasure our most difficult, infuriatingly closed-off and overconfident loved ones as symbols of what happens when we lose interest in being challenged, really listening to other people, or braving judgment or disapproval for changing our view when there's good reason to. It may be minor comfort, but perhaps Auntie Bridget and 'Jockrates' may have something to teach us over the green beans after all.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
I was raised to be independent, but find it hard letting others take charge
I grew up in a household where independence was highly prized. This upbringing has lifelong advantages and disadvantages: I was confident managing a budget, travelling, grocery shopping, paying bills and cooking by my mid-teens. I never expected anyone to rescue me or advocate for me. I take charge in a crisis, and often in the absence of a crisis. On the other hand, I have a hard time trusting anyone else to take charge, and it's an ongoing project to accept my own normal human vulnerability and fragility. As my kids reach adulthood and we enter a new phase of family life, I'm reflecting on other, better forms of independence that I have tried to pass on. In gentler and more age-appropriate ways than I did, they have acquired practical skills. They can do the work of minding bodies through time, cooking and washing and cleaning. They can live within a budget, book travel, turn up in the right place at the right time and do what they said they would do when they said they would do it (usually). To that extent, my husband and I have made ourselves obsolete, which is, as a friend observes, the object of parenting teenagers. Hurray. But I've been thinking as we go through this transition about different kinds of independence. When I was learning, the hard way, not to expect to rely on anyone else, I was learning to deny weakness and repress emotion. Independence meant not needing anything from anyone, not acknowledging sadness or fear or disappointment, not seeking consolation or care, not bothering other people with messy feelings. And a hard-won lesson of adult life is that that wasn't independence at all. READ MORE When we don't acknowledge and manage our own feelings, we either live with their haunting, or implicitly demand that other people, usually the closest and most loving people, manage them for us. Many children grow up as expert, sensitive readers of adults' emotions, attuned especially to the dangers of anger and frustration – but also monitoring all forms of pain and sorrow conveyed in sighs, slammed doors, silences. Unspoken, unexpressed feeling is still there, still acting itself out, and requiring more and harder work of everyone else than a clear statement would ever have done. In espousing a repressive idea of independence, some people become dangerously, oppressively dependent on others to discern fear, regret, sadness and pain through stoicism and anger – or to imagine the interior world of someone who can't or won't share it, to find expression and soothe suffering in ways that don't offend pride. It's often work that women do for men, children for their mothers, less powerful people for more powerful people. It's what we do lovingly for infants who have not yet learned to express themselves, and with mixed emotions for adults who refuse to do so. Not all clear expressions of feeling must be verbal, but to be independent in this way is to take responsibility for communicating what we need or want from others rather than denying that need. Quiet people living in quiet places might find quiet forms of communication, and in loving relationships we can often be heard through acts of touch and care that are deeper than words. Communication is always culturally and historically specific in ways that can be hard for an outsider to read and plain to those who know. But to refuse to communicate at all is to commit ourselves and those around us to our dependence on them. This is a form of dependence far more oppressive and harmful than finding ways to say what we need. [ Irish and English funerals are very different – it would be strange to go to a colleague's family funeral in England Opens in new window ] Unlike the practical forms of independence, naming our need and fear and longing is slow work. We don't learn it the way we learn to plan travel to the airport or to wash potatoes. It's never fully achieved and probably always hard to do, but we need to model this work of adulthood to our children and each other. A need expressed is not a need met. There are times and places to share need and fear and longing. Another part of independence is to know them. There's a dance of ask and answer, and it's possible to decline and be declined with grace. But without words, without naming our vulnerability and desire even to ourselves, we can't begin to manage them. The starting point is independence in dependence, a radical practice of strength in vulnerability. It's a life's work. [ Is it okay to think about restaurants or art while children are bombed? Opens in new window ]
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
The trouble with always being right
We've all had a loved one – parent, partner, sibling – who other people might charitably describe as stubborn. Perhaps that's not quite the right word. They're the family member someone will always warn newcomers to the house about: 'If you disagree with anything she says, do yourself a favour and let it go. Auntie Bridget is a steamroller.' 'If he brings up immigration/trade unions/birth rates/the British/his soccer glory days, just try to change the subject. My brother would give your behind a headache. We call him 'Jockrates' behind his back. But ... don't tell him I said that.' Growing up, I had a great aunt who would interrupt anyone who disagreed with her on any subject (however trivial) by scoffing and declaring, in clipped tones, 'Don't tell me. Ask me!' The phrase soured every interaction it featured in. Being unbelievably obnoxious, it would. My great aunt made a fantastic apple tart, nurtured a spectacular, flourishing garden and was a very kind and generous woman, but happened to be wildly unreasonable in the face of any mild challenge or disagreement. We all know someone whose self-respect rests on winning . Their very identity becomes enmeshed in this brief disagreement about whether Italy has a better hospitality culture than Spain, or whether Bertie Ahern should be resurrected from the political grave to vie for the presidency (please, no), or whether a vegan sponge cake can feasibly pass for 'a proper one' made with eggs. They will die on this hill. It doesn't matter if their point has been thoroughly counterargued, or if evidence has been presented which makes their position indefensible. There doesn't even have to be a particularly contentious or important issue under discussion. READ MORE When people engage in the world of ideas in this proprietary, insecure way, they become someone others will no longer talk to like a reasonable adult. Those who need it most are thus often insulated from sincere, good faith debate or even relevant information that might challenge their view. They're left, socially and intellectually, trapped within a septic tank of confirmation bias and sanctimonious overconfidence. It doesn't make for an enjoyable, relaxed Sunday lunch with the family, but it's not a catastrophe. When their influence is limited to pontificating at your poor, hard-of-hearing granny across a dish of green beans, there's little harm done apart from a tasty lunch spoiled and a few balled fists concealed under the table. 'Jockrates', at it again. However, this approach to forming and defending beliefs can be harmful when something important is at stake, or when it's the chosen operating system of someone with actual influence or power over others. We'd prefer our elected public representatives to be open-minded, willing to reconsider when there's good reason to do so, and to be capable of evolution of their ideological positions as circumstances and times change. We should probably consider those who think at 45 what they thought at age 15 with a good deal of wariness. To live 30 years in the belief that every experience merely confirms what you thought before is stronger evidence of being an ideologue than erudite. It's a little embarrassing. It's kind of insane. [ Cognitive bias can prevent us from knowing when to quit Opens in new window ] It's strange, then, that we often by default denigrate people who change their minds. The couple who decide after careful thought that they no longer want kids (hopefully before having them rather than after). The friend who quits their corporate job at 48 to become a yoga teacher and paint watercolours. The Fine Gael voter who switches to Labour, or vice versa. We'll accuse a politician who changes their position based on conscience of flip-flopping and treat someone who converts to a new religion with patronising suspicion. We'll view a person who openly admits to thinking they were wrong before as therefore more likely to be wrong now, while someone who sticks intransigently to the same set of ideas with the impermeable resistance of a sea wall is viewed as stalwart and reliable. [ Critical thinking training can reduce belief in conspiracy theories, study by UCC psychologists finds Opens in new window ] Yet changing your mind is surely an inevitable consequence of thinking. Of being more interested in what is true than what is convenient, advantageous or popular. Life experience, education (formal or self-taught) and exposure to new ways of thinking about old ideas should challenge the assumptions we walked in with. A long-standing unexamined belief is indistinguishable from a habit, and no more deserving of respect than a recently adopted one. We should treasure our most difficult, infuriatingly closed-off and overconfident loved ones as symbols of what happens when we lose interest in being challenged, really listening to other people, or braving judgment or disapproval for changing our view when there's good reason to. It may be minor comfort, but perhaps Auntie Bridget and 'Jockrates' may have something to teach us over the green beans after all.
Irish Examiner
2 days ago
- Irish Examiner
Cork artist inspired by uncle who was on the plane that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki
Patrick Penney's installation at the Crawford College of Art & Design's Degree Show in June took an unusual subject; his granduncle William Penney's involvement in the Manhattan Project and the deployment of the first atomic bombs in August 1945. William Penney, born in 1909, was a British professor of mathematical physics at the Imperial College London when he was invited to help devise what became known as the Mulberry harbours during World War II. These were two prefabricated harbours used to facilitate the unloading of cargo during the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944. Penney was then asked to join the Tube Alloys project, the British nuclear weapons programme. 'Originally, the British, the Americans and the Canadians worked separately on developing nuclear weapons,' says Patrick Penney. 'Then they agreed to co-operate, and William was seconded to the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos, New Mexico. He helped mainly with the construction of the Fat Man plutonium bomb, the one that was dropped on Nagasaki. 'He was the only British member on the committee for selecting targets, and he was a scientific observer on the flight over Nagasaki when they dropped the bomb on August 9, 1945.' The bombing of Nagasaki came three days after that of Hiroshima, eighty years ago today. Although William Penney did not witness that incident, the first ever deployment of a nuclear weapon, he visited Hiroshima shortly after the Japanese surrender on August 15. 'I used copies of his handwritten notes from Hiroshima in my Degree Show installation,' says Patrick Penney. 'The photographs and prints in the installation were based on photographs he took in the city. Then he went back and gave a lecture in Los Alamos on what he'd observed of the effects of the atomic bomb.' Part of Patrick Penney's installation, showing his granduncle William Penney. Patrick Penney never met his granduncle. He first learned of William Penney's achievements when he came across a folder of obituaries his father was given when he began working at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston, Berkshire. 'One of the things that sparked my interest is that William burned all his papers shortly before he died of thyroid cancer in 1991, which was probably down to the effects of radiation. Everything that exists is only a copy. Copies made by the government or by secretaries or by other third parties.' William Penney had hoped to return to academia after the war, but he was persuaded to continue working on nuclear research at Aldermaston. 'William was the director of the weapons programme. He had a really pretentious title; he was called the CSAR, the chief superintendent of armament research. He finally retired from Aldermaston in 1967 – it took him 20 years to get away - and became the Director of Imperial College in London. But, even then, he was retained as a consultant. He 'held an office at AWRE,' was how they put it.' Although Patrick Penney's aunt and uncle, as well as his father, all worked for AWRE at Aldermaston, 'they didn't have much of a relationship with William. I think my father would have met him, when he came to visit the building, but William had already retired by then. He lived in East Hendred, thirty miles away.' William Penney married twice and had two sons. 'It's one of those weird quirks; he was eventually made a lord, and then he was made Baron Penney before he died, but the titles are not passed down through lineage. I know his children attended his funeral, but then they became private again. They would be in their 80s now, and may well have children and grandchildren of their own. I haven't really tracked his family. That would be something to look into.' Patrick Penney grew up in West Cork. 'My father is English, and my mother is Irish. They moved back in the 1990s, and I was born here. We live just outside Bantry.' He is almost surprised to find himself pursuing a career as an artist. 'Originally, I intended studying automotive technology and management in MTU. But then I applied for the Crawford and got in. A lot of this has been completely unexpected.' Much of his Degree Show installation was based on material he discovered in the National Archives at Kew. 'I was there for four days last summer. I had a look at 18 files that referenced William's name, but there were 80 in total. I'll be starting a master's in contemporary art practice shortly, and I hope to carry on my research. I'm going back to the archives this month, and there's a couple of more places that I'd like to try and get into. The photographs and some of the files in my installation were only declassified in 2010. There's more stuff that is still technically classified, but this is up for review. 'I'm hoping that, if I can say I'm a postgraduate researcher, and put in the freedom of information requests, I might be able to get access to more information. I'm hoping to be able to establish for a fact that William was at Aldermaston at the time of the big CND anti-nuclear marches in the 1950s and '60s, for instance. It'd be interesting to compare one side to the other.' Part of Patrick Penney's installation, based on photographs his granduncle took in Hiroshima. Penney believes his granduncle must have had mixed feelings about his role in the nuclear arms race. 'In my Degree Show installation, there was a barrel with a book on the top of it. That had a quote was from what he wrote after he witnessed the Nagasaki bomb. He said, we have contributed to a monster that will consume us all. 'What he did was objectively terrible, there's no getting around the fact of that. But there's still an argument over whether dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was worth doing. It's conservatively estimated that if the Americans had had to land in Japan, then at least a million people would have been killed, if not more. So it's complicated, but I think the overall consensus is that it was not good.' Penney plans to exhibit his Degree Show installation again next month. 'I've talked to Mich Moroney at the Swerve Gallery in Skibbereen, and I hope to show it there on Culture Night, September 19.' He has other exhibitions planned as well. 'At the Degree Show, I got an award for GOMA, the Gallery of Modern Art, in Waterford. I think there'll be a group show there with me and Danny Foley, another artist who was in my year, and probably a couple of more from SETU. And then there'll be an MTU STEAM exhibition during Science Week at the James Barry Centre at MTU Bishopstown in March or April. So hopefully there'll be chances to show the material again.'
