Have you changed your mind?

[archerships]

I've always been fascinated by the question: why don't the political beliefs of people of good will and intelligence converge more often than they do? For example, James Hughes is an energetic and prolific leader of the World Transhumanist Association (WTA). He's also a socialist. I remember back in the early '90's, when I was on the extropians list, he would get into lengthy rows with the (mostly) libertarian crowd on the list. Now I'm on one of the mailing lists of the WTA, and he's making the same arguments that he was a decade ago. Why have seemingly none of his views changed over the years?

More alarmingly, I perceive that few of my values or beliefs have changed radically in the past 10 years or so either. Why not?



One of the few examples where I can recall my views changing is the issue of abortion. When I was in high school, I was strongly pro-life. My memory of the reasons why I held that stance are probably distorted but as I recall, it went like this: historically, whenever there has been a clash over what constitutes a human deserving of full human rights (slaves, Nazis), those who favored the less expansive definition were almost always, in retrospect, considered evil monsters. Therefore, it seemed prudent to me to grant fetuses full human rights from the time of conception forward. I'm sure my Mormon upbringing also influenced my beliefs, as well, as Mormons believe that the soul enters the embryo at conception, and therefore aborting the embryo constitutes murder.

Now I think women should be able to have an abortion at any point during pregnancy. As best as I can tell, my views changed as a result of a number of things I've read. After reading Bart Kostko's Fuzzy Thinking, I realized that "humanity", however you defined it, was a continuous characteristic, and that any line you drew between human/non-human would be arbitrary. After reading Rand, I became an atheist, so I no longer believed that embryo's have souls. I also began judging laws in terms of their effects on my long term self-interest. I don't care about embryos, but I do care about people who are dying of diseases that could be treated with embryonic tissue. Moreover, enforcing anti-abortion laws would cost a great deal of money in court/prison costs, as well as the opportunity costs to women who were killed/injured from botched back alley abortions.

Now, I don't want to get into an argument over abortion, at least, not in this post. I present the evolution of my thoughts about abortion above as an illustration of the process, as best as I can recall, of how my beliefs changed.

Have you ever held strong beliefs that changed substantially? For example, did you go from being a democrat to being a libertarian? (or vice versa). An atheist to a believer? If so, how did your beliefs change? What catalyzed the change?

Comments

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Thanks! How did falling in love cause you to re-examine your religious beliefs?

[vyus.livejournal.com]

My political and religious views changed probably in a manner similar to most folks as they develop. The most significant was when I came to accept a pluralistic viewpoint married with a hierarchial viewpoint, which tends to confuse folks. My viewpoints changed dramatically based on folks like Piaget and Wilber. Although I think there are certain viewpoints that benefit us more than others, I also understand the developing nature of one's viewpoints based on one's experiences and, sometimes, the inherent nature of the developing biological human.

I've gone from god-fearer democrat to believing all political parties will have inherent inefficiences, as will religions and all systems-based concepts that rely on human input and interaction. Doesn't matter if on the outside the group seems to agree; their motivations are entirely different. This change happened gradually as I entered my late 20s.

There is no evidence for me to think that there will ever be a stagnancy in my developing world-models. Just when I think I've got it, they change.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I like to think that my beliefs are subject to change, but objectively, they haven't changed much in a while.

[theuglyvolvo.livejournal.com]

After reading Rand I became (briefly) both an athiest and an objectivist. I then read Skinner--and ditched the Objectivism for determinism. I also, at some point ditched the athiesm for agnosticism.
This all happened, of course, when I was a teenager.
I thank my lucky stars that I will never have to be a teenager again.
;oD

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I considered myself as objectivist for a while. Looking back, I must have seemed very obnoxious for a while.

However, I would be happy to be a teenager again, as long as I could keep my current memories.

Determinist, eh? How does that differ from objectivist?

[theuglyvolvo.livejournal.com]

I'd be happy to be a teenager again if I could keep my current memories. And if I didn't have the acne. And didn't have to go to High school. I'm sticking quite a few qualifiers on here...

Determinism is pretty much the opposite of what objectivism is in that Objectivism focuses on free will and determinism believes more in cause and effect.
And who knows what I'll believe tomorrow...
;oD

[candid.livejournal.com]

why don't the political beliefs of people of good will and intelligence converge more often than they do?

Because politics is largely a matter of personal preference. It's like asking "why don't the senses of humor of..." or "why don't the most beloved foods of..." or "why don't the fetishes of..."

--

That said, my political views have changed substantially. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Some combination of the Microsoft anti-trust case, a libertarian ex-girlfriend, David Boaz's "Libertarianism in One Lesson," and Steve Landsburg's "The Armchair Economist" made me really rethink why I supported what I supported and believed what I believed.

That said, I've actually become less libertarian in my views over the last couple of years, mostly as a result of 9/11 and learning more economics.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Because politics is largely a matter of personal preference. It's like asking "why don't the senses of humor of..." or "why don't the most beloved foods of..." or "why don't the fetishes of..."

Yes, you're probably right. Risk tolerance, anti-authoritarianism, tolerance of (material) inequality, and desire for power all seem to be dimensions along which people vary--preferences which aren't accessible via rational discourse.

--

In what way(s) has your study of economics led to your views becoming less libertarian?

[candid.livejournal.com]

preferences which aren't accessible via rational discourse

Right, this is one of my fundamental frustrations with lots of political true-believers -- they act as if people who hold different beliefs must be ignorant or irrational, otherwise they'd (obviously) reach the same conclusions.

--

In what way(s) has your study of economics led to your views becoming less libertarian?

Well, it's given me more of an appreciation of situations where private property rights, free markets, and self-interest lead (systematically) to "inefficient" outcomes (where "inefficient" means pretty much whatever you want it to mean).

More concretely, I look at the world and I see lots of prisoner's dilemmas and problems of asymmetric information.

Now, honestly, are there any situations (besides foreign policy) where I've thought, "hey, a non-libertarian solution is best here"? I can't think of any. But I'm open-minded to the possibility. And in that sense, I'm "less libertarian" than I used to be.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Right, this is one of my fundamental frustrations with lots of political true-believers -- they act as if people who hold different beliefs must be ignorant or irrational, otherwise they'd (obviously) reach the same conclusions.

The problem is that people would mostly agree on what consitutes a "happy society", yet they disagree on how to achieve it. I don't think of socialists as people who despise freedom (though they may), but rather as people who don't understand how the world works.

.

[rinku.livejournal.com]

i tend to go through phases:

ages 10 to 13 i was an environmentalist and supported the green party, at 17-18, after i read drexler and other nanotech stuff i disdained trees and felt we should remake the world into crystal-diamond cities

ages 15-16 i was a sort of transhumanist who felt that humanity should merge their consciousness into one being, now i think it has already happened and am against it continuing any further -- strangely this was *after* reading a lot of transhumanists and also related theorists like howard bloom

i was always a capitalist, and always never liked any political party -- when i read rand this was clarified a bit, but i went from agnostic to atheist after reading her, and from moral relativist to the 'standard of man's life as the highest value' ethicist

i was always pro-war (meaning i've always hated pacifism), this was strengthened after reading gandhi and nietzsche

i was always an elitist, but this was strengthened after reading maslow and after reading a lot of asperger's syndrome material.

i used to be against intellectual property but after reading max stirner (who didn't say much about it but wrote a lot about egoism) i reversed my position on it.

i used to be much less anti-government than i am now: i think 1984 and orwell and heinlein and rand in general changed that

there have probably been other changes but usually it's a result of reading, yes. so people who don't read don't change, i guess?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...yes, now that you mention it, my views on I.P. have changed substantially as well (although in the reverse direction from yours). I also remember being much more green when I was younger.

However, I'm sure James Hughes has read a lot too. I suspect that the biggest problem is the limited information processing capacity of the human brain. We have only a limited amount of time to read, and we tend to pick books that reinforce our existing perspective. Since Hughes and I don't read the same books, our views in those areas don't ever converge.

[tinymammoth.livejournal.com]

Maybe there ought to be a mechanism where people of wildly differing views can agree to "swap" a book. You could agree to read a book of Hughes' choice (say, Howard Zinn, or Chomsky) and he could agree to read a book of your choice.

Maybe there could be a website where you could make such a deal, although it would be hard to verify and anything involving the honor system and the internet is broken before it's designed.

Re: .

[tinkerbell-mk.livejournal.com]

Hey...you're in paterson NJ--that's near butler isn't it? I'm going out there on friday.

:) wierd--

Re: .

[rinku.livejournal.com]

i believe it's near butler but i don't recall having been to butler so i don't know exactly.

[sofaking-par.livejournal.com]

My views changed radically in the last five years. I went from soft liberal to hard libertarian. The reason? Starting my own business.
But truly I am the exception.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I've heard similar stories from other small business owners. It would be fascinating to find out if it's a common phenomena. Obviously, not all entrepreneurs go through that shift (e.g. Ted Turner, Anita Broddick)

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

I've always been fascinated by the question: why don't the political beliefs of people of good will and intelligence converge more often than they do?

Because good will and intelligence are only two dimensions. The third, and most important, is the idealism-realism axis.

We can all agree that certain things are good - eg. medical care for all - but some people will go to any length to achieve that ideal, and some people will not. And the idealists are often the more dangerous, because they will often sacrifice the very people they want to save in pursuit of that ideal, and sometimes the ideal is simply not something that can be realized.

I don't think we should give up ideals completely - I certainly have my share - but I also think there's a great deal to be said for knowing our limits, and knowing when to quit.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, some people seem to be commited to equality above all other values. (I suppose others could accuse me of similar rabidness when it comes to personal autonomy).

[tinkerbell-mk.livejournal.com]

Because good will and intelligence are only two dimensions. The third, and most important, is the idealism-realism axis.

I disagree. (Unless I've misunderstood what you mean.)

I don't even think that idealism exists verses realism the way you use it here. In the idealism vs. realism coupling you're contrasting the "real" something which is readily achievable with an ideal "goal" which is defined by (or at least implied by the binary contrast to be defined by) something which does not need to have a way to be accomplished.

If idealism is dealing with something that is just an end (no means) then it has no real bearing on "politics" (in the way we're talking) because we are referring to actions and how they accomplish goals which is outside the spectrum of "idealism".

Some course of action can be doing an exceedingly poor job at attaining it's goal, but this is a matter of efficiency, not idealism. Also the resources required to accomplish the goal can be unobtainable or just be more than one wishes to spend, but again, this is just a measure of how much you want the goal, not idealism.

We can all agree that certain things are good - eg. medical care for all - but some people will go to any length to achieve that ideal, and some people will not.

Well, firstly I don't think we can all agree that certain things are good, but that's completely an aside. You hit here what I was saying above, the disagreements come from differing comparative values of the goal. Balancing the combinations of different levels of desire is politics, but idealism vs. realism doesn't really play into it.

Hehe :) This brushed against a bit of a hot spot for me because I think the term idealistic is often used as a tool to discredit something without looking at what are to me the real deciding factors, cost and efficency of attainability.

(oh..same as below, sorry if that babbled enough to become unclear, sleepy)

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

Some course of action can be doing an exceedingly poor job at attaining it's goal, but this is a matter of efficiency, not idealism.

Some goals cannot be achieved. They are idealistic rather than realistic because here is no way to achieve them in reality. No amount of efficiency can make them work.

Ideals which require things like unlimited resources and universal good will are unrealistic ideals.

[auriam.livejournal.com]

Strong beliefs only change in those who seek out new information, and are willing to believe credible facts, even if they undermine their beliefs..

Moreover.. a lot of psychological problems can cause massive changes in outlook and perspective.. *sighs*.. I've been a different person in the last 3-4 months, better, I think..

[auriam.livejournal.com]

Also wonder why you never reply to comments :/

[crasch.livejournal.com]

If I don't reply to comments, it generally means that a) I don't feel like I have anything to add to the comment b) I'm overwhelmed by the number of comments, so rather than answer them all, I don't answer any. I do read and appreciate all comments however.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...looking a my own beliefs, contradictory facts do make me less confident in my beliefs, even if I don't change them.

And you're right, psychological disorders can cause massive changes. I'll have to think about that more.

[joe-tofu.livejournal.com]

I find that people think their beliefs are part of their identity and can never change. People trust in a myth that beliefs can change your actions, but your actions can never change your beliefs. In fact, as most good human resources managers know, changing actions is the best way to change your beliefs. The usual case in an HR class is the story of some factory converting into self-managed teams. When people became answerable to their buddies instead of some manager, they started to care about the quality of their work and to criticize their teammates for slacking off.

You have also probably heard of this experiment: Pick one of your beliefs that you hold sacred, and challenge yourself to write an essay or make a speech arguing the opposite viewpoint, and argue it as seriously and as well as you can. I did this once just in my head, and ended up changing my belief about euthanasia (from pro- to against). In another example, I worked for Disney Online for a couple years. Before that, like most cynical LA hipsters, I thought Disney was "lame" and was some kind of instrument of cultural distruction or whatever. But since then I've lost my cynicism and I watch all the Disney movies when they come out. Weird, huh?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I like the idea of writing an essay in support of a position you oppose. I should do that more often.

From Christian to Atheist

[bhv.livejournal.com]

I changed from being a rather devout, never miss a weekend Christian to being "Your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist" after reading Atlas Shrugged.

Politically I changed from being a conservative Republican to being a firm Libertarian after seeing well intentioned safety regulations in my favorite industry (aircraft manufacturing) kill more people than I cared to count.

There are two things that will sometimes change peoples minds. Compelling arguments, and hearing screams.

Re: From Christian to Atheist

[joe-tofu.livejournal.com]

... because what God would allow the creation of such a long, painful, repetitive and tedious book? Right? Just kidding, but I do think a good editor could have trimmed it down to an 'abridged' edition, for the benefit of all mankind.

[mrangel.livejournal.com]

I used to be an anarcho-capitalist, but that was when I thought people were nice. As I spent more time around different groups of people I became fairly left-wing. When I was young, I was pagan, then I read some books by Sagan et al. and became a hard scientific materialist. Now as I've changed my major to phil I'm becoming more moderate, ontologically speaking, and am drifting back towards paganism.

Having said that, I think that there's a good chance that those are post hoc rationalisations of my changing beliefs, not causes.

[heliosapien.livejournal.com]

i remember, not long ago, when i lacked a solid foundation for general thoughts on the nature of things. i remember getting into a short philosophical debate with a very smart, very christian ex-girlfriend of mine about two years ago, and having trouble comprehending what she meant by the question, "do you believe everything is relative, or that there are absolutes?" i remember her moving away and two days of MDMA-enhanced soul searching leading to an epiphany that re-contextualized every thought i'd ever had about anything.

the impossible beauty of this girl, the impossibly idealistic view she held of the world, and my desire to understand just what the hell had happened, crystalized into something very interesting.

since then, everything's changed.

man that was sappy.

[heliosapien.livejournal.com]

to clarify slightly (and to ramble), i realized the two true absolutes are everything and nothing; those are the elastic bounds of reality, and every thing is defined as precisely by what it is as by what it is not. definition is manifest purely of contrast. the notions of rules and boundaries (physical and otherwise) are subjectively perceived absolutes that we pivot around as individuals. etc... it eventually filters down through thoughts like "time is change" and "passion is self-justified" into more concrete ideas that drive my actions.

in any case, this isn't really what you asked.. it's just what came to mind.
</ramble>

[tinkerbell-mk.livejournal.com]

When I first began forming definitive real views about the world, I believe in the middle school time period, 11/12 or so, I became a pretty strong libertarian. (I also put into solidified thought that I was an atheist.) I could be wrong time wise, but my first and primary view of the world was from a libertarian standpoint.

I held pretty strongly to that until around 2 years ago. I just found some conceptual problems with a market economy that made me think that there were some fundamental flaws in the system. Capitalism also seemed to be rather inefficient. (In the respect that I saw it doing a poor job of fulfilling what I see as its goals.)

It's interesting, it seemed pretty agreed upon above that belief shifts are pretty interrelated to reading more. For me this wasn't true at all. Oddly enough, I think one of the biggest factors in my flip was knowing more about art. As art, for me, changed from pretty things to things I constantly wanted to have a point, I started looking for the "point" or goal for more things. And looking at things from that perspective I'm a lot more intolerant of things without a point or which are poorly achieve their goal.

As far as the plasticity of my beliefs, I give them a lot of room to change more. I'm really, self-consciously, woefully under read, just because I fall out of the habit so easily. And I'm young, at 22 I think it's pretty unreasonable to think I'll be the same person at 30.

It's funny though, the topic of capitalism was brushed upon in a friends journal a while ago and I jumped in. I've always liked debating/arguing (not so much online, but hey, what can you do?) but I was really filled with passion! I feel like a born again Christian, I've seen the light! and now all I want to do is make others see it!

This was a really nice question crasch, I've never thought that much about why people change views, but I should. What do you think makes people change?

(I’m much sleepier than I thought when I began, apologies if some sentences make no sense. It’s the first thing to go when I’m tired.)

[the23.livejournal.com]

for most i would imagine their acquaintances and particularly their good friends would have quite an influence, and not necessarily because one is likely to follow them: one is merely forced to consider their opinions. reading is a little less of a lottery, and many choose not to bother reading anything challenging.

[tinkerbell-mk.livejournal.com]

I was just looking for a place to say pretty much the same thing.

Probably because most of my critical thinking about my beliefs comes from discussions with friends. (But again, that could just be because I'm under read.)

But I think there is a little bit of a catch in there. While your friends are more of a craps shoot as far as differing opinions (no convenient backs to read) and logically then may have more ability to influence you because they're not as easily screened out. You still have a predisposition to some degree of similar perspective. At least I do. For me to value/see/understand a friend's argument we have to have a certain degree of common understanding and shared believe. So for someone to have the power to influence me odds are they already have to agree with me to some degree. So though friends may have more power to influence they can't sway you that far.

or not, just a thought.

[the23.livejournal.com]

what you say is true up to a point for me, but otoh i spent all but the last four years of my life living on an island off another continent so my perspective is necessarily a fair bit different from my friends' perspectives.

[darius.livejournal.com]

There's an interesting essay on this in Nicholson Baker's collection The Size of Thoughts.

Mark S. Miller on the e-lang list is an inspiration -- I'd like to be as mentally flexible, and even meta-flexible about your level of flexibility.

OK, um, examples. My opinions on intellectual property shifted gradually over years, out of some combination of revulsion at the excesses of the IP lobbies, a growing sense of incompatibility between IP and online freedom, association with lots of liberal types, a larger general trend towards more sympathy with the lefty ideosphere, and some actual thought about the issues. I started out in my teens in the 80s believing patents were good and just misadministered, and even that probably exaggerated, and copyrights pretty unequivocally a good thing; now, while I wouldn't push for total abolition of copyright, I'm sure that's the right general direction from here, and it might be the right endpoint.

Most of my changes of mind are like that -- I suppose the closest I've had to a `revelation' came from reading Engines of Creation around 1987 -- not just the conclusions but the style of thinking and argument.

I think my rate of change has been decreasing, too. It would be nice if I could blame this on a finite supply of lifechanging books out in the world, but that probably won't wash.

I liked tinymammoth's website idea above -- ought to be combined with some kind of summary of what's known about the relevant human cognitive failings.

[mccalix.livejournal.com]

I was a socialist in my early college years, then in my junior year I discovered Rand and became a libertarian. I've never actually considered myself an objectivist, but I have definitely been influenced a great deal by objectivist thinking.

I also switched from being a Catholic to being a christian to being an agnostic to being an atheist. These days, I tend to waver between atheism and agnosticism, depending on what day you ask me.

That was mostly during college though, which in my experience is when most people form their beliefs. To give a more recent example, in the past couple of years, my thinking has started to change on several political issues. My objectivist leanings had conditioned me to reflexively support big business, but recently I have come to the conclusion that corporations, at least the way they are currently structured, are immoral, and bear much of the blame for the problems in the world.

Several of my friends see this as a move towards the left, but I see it as merely refining my already existing ideas. I don't want to go into it in detail now, but my reasoning has to do with the notion of corporate personhood, and limited liability - the lack of accountability encourages short-sighted immoral behavior.