Understanding Vs Truth

Exactly what is really out there? Why do we think that we believe? This article checks out some of the classic works on the topic.

Ross and Nisbett argue that our understandings of ourselves and our casual attributions for our actions are not in fact total or proper: we are not born tabla rasa, we do not consistently build standard beliefs, and we can not predict or control the way we will act. Phychologists and sociologists provide support for this through various studies that show an essentially constant, unpredicted, and unsystematic patterns of habits. Some authors start by breaking down the idea that our opinions or responses are as independent and organized as we might think. Sherif's "autokinetic" research study and the Ash Paradigm research study highlight that we frequently act differently when in groups (with group norms, pressure, predisposition, and social aspects). We comply with group pressure (Ash), or, a lot more exceptionally, move our understandings in order to align ourselves with a group (Sherrif). The Bennington research studies, which demonstrate how our beliefs about the world are deeply and irreversibly influenced by our social environments, show that this impact is not minor or isolated but instead can have self-defining and far-reaching effects.

I.e., our world is not necessarily "distorted" by others opinions however others opinions actually play a role in identifying exactly what our world looks like. The "attribution theory of emotion" and the Nisbett and Wilson (1977) cognitive process loss of sight theory take this one action further claiming that we do not really see the world as we believe we do at all.

Ross and Nisbett enforce their own interpretation on these findings. They repeatedly argue that we interpret and build the world in a vibrant method, based on the perceptions and impacts of our social environments, situational elements, and personality attributes. They then declare that we are excessively unaware that we are just seeing one method to interpret the world. "This lack of awareness of our own construal procedures blinds us to the possibility that another person, differently situated, may construe the very same things in a different way ... People sometimes interpret the exact same object in a different way since they view it from various angles instead of because they are fundamentally various people ... The divergence [exhibited in the Asch experiments] might reflect distinctions not in the "judgment of the item" but in the construal of simply exactly what "the object of judgment" is." (p82). We make the incorrect assumption that we see it as it is instead of as we translate it. It is not clear here whether the distinctions in private interpretations of the worlds are due just to different external factors (social, ecological, etc) or also to different processing elements (i.e. the physical and psychological devices with which we process this information).

Ross and Nisbett do not explicitly state what I view as a major effect, and synthesis, of both their chapters and much of the literature. Maybe this is because I do not have and have not read their later chapters. With this caution, Ross and Nisbett (1) begin by trying to prove that our world is to a level an arbitrary building and construction. They continue (2) by revealing that it is necessary to us that out world remain in line with others in our group or recommendation set (social pressure) and they end (3) with the intriguing claim that we misconstrue the world in a fundamental method (with mistakes in characteristics, etc). To me there is a clear sensible step that stands between their points (1) and (2 ). That (1.5) that we are, on some deep unconscious level, insecure and not sure of the ontological nature of the world and thus have to constantly change our view of it depending on the circumstance and context (see they do not take William James' point on p. 68 seriously adequate) or align ourselves with others in order to try to translate it in the best/most beneficial method.

It assists if we presume for a moment that there is no "appropriate" method to analyze the world - and Ross and Nisbett I think would agree with this. All buildings are heuristics simplifications fundamentally given that the world does not have, unlike our buildings of the world, inserted causality just organized temporal connections. An interpretation is indicated, for that reason, to be beneficial in our world, which a deeply social and dynamic one.

The unexpected thing is that we ever think that we are objectively best about things or that we think our views are "the method things are," not that we change our world-views in the face of social, ecological, or situational pressure (and different evolutionary psychology arguments have actually attempted to discuss this argument on the grounds of effectiveness). That our views are deeply inadequate and inefficient, as chapter four argues, is a much harsher claim leveled by Ross and Nisbett in this context.

The literature often builds up a model of understanding/ internal_world-creation and the later then included a component questioning the element of causality. Straw, Bell, Clausen piece concerns the emergent literature on situational attributions to task attitudes in favor of a more dispositional technique. Studies, they declare lay too much focus on the social, the interpretational components of a job, over-stating the function that the workplace that will figure out an individual's happiness in it. Rather, one can associate the individual's happiness and job Psychologist Perth WA complete satisfaction in lots of aspects well before he/she goes into the work location. Hence, it is the characteristics, mindsets, and nature and the person who is the prime factor of whether or not he or she mores than happy in the job. This research is remarkably interrelated to the previous Ross Nisbett piece, given that Ross and Nisbett's argument that the individual translates the environment lends itself to the conclusion that no matter what environment an individual is taken into, he or she will mostly affect the way he/she views that environment and thus his/her feelings about it.

One can anticipate that an employee, specifically in the long term, will be very deeply impacted by the nature and dominating attitudes of his/her work environment. That these people are self-selecting and will tend to draw in compatible individuals, and that the world is a dynamic location of individuals, not forces. It attends to the nature vs. nurture argument by reviewing the literature to show that while it appears that genetics do make some distinction (this lends credit to dispositionalists who would like to declare that people have qualities, genetic or otherwise, that persist over time) environment is likewise a large aspect (situationalists can grab onto this proof).

This argument, initially between situationalists and dispositionalists about the source of ones attitude about the office, and then about the source of our personality (nature vs. nurture) have severe consequences which many of the authors go over. If we are in reality shaped by our environments, then companies might want to invest substantial resources into "culture" and creating a productive work environment.

I want to emphasize how these points are developing a literature that concentrates on central questions about why we see the world the method we do, what effects the world has on us, and what the source of our lives, mindsets and feelings are. The battle lines of the difference sides of this debate are, from this perspective, synthetically clear.

If, for example, we ask the question of FREE CHOICE, for instance, the sides dramatically shift. The dispositionalist camp divides into 2, some taking a deterministic evolutionary view and others taking view that our characters are developed early by our environment. The situationalists might explain that we PICK our offices and thus choose the sorts of influences that will shape our character. While we are not in overall control of what we will feel about our job, our creativity, etc, we can select exactly what sorts of forces will impact these metrics. Aristotle, who's view on almost anything deserves searching for, created the phrase Akrasia, and this phrase can be applied to this bebate with possibly some worthwhile insights. It is Greek for "weak point of will". He declared that we are ethically responsible for the consequences of a choice in the long term, even if we are not morally totally free at the time of our choices. The best contemporary example of this is if one opts to get drunk one is accountable for one's actions while intoxicated even if one does not have the ability to control one's actions while drunk. So one is responsible for selecting the course that caused an action even if one is not straight responsible for that action. Of course, Aristotle chose the more controversial example of choosing to live a life of moral weakness and moral compromise which deteriorated the will to the point that one was not a good/moral person. He claimed that one was responsible for immorality not since we choose to become weak sufficient to do these acts. I believe that these various camps may acquire some insight into their nature/nurture dispositionalist/situationalist objective/subjective disputes if Aristotle's knowledge were headed more thoroughly.


I.e., our world is not always "distorted" by others opinions but others opinions actually play a role in identifying exactly what our world looks like. The "attribution theory of feeling" and the Nisbett and Wilson (1977) cognitive procedure loss of sight theory take this one step further claiming that we do not really see the world as we think we do at all.

They then declare that we are extremely uninformed that we are just seeing one method to translate the world. They continue (2) by showing that it is important to us that out world be in line with others in our group or reference set (social pressure) and they end (3) with the interesting claim that we misconstrue the world in a basic method (with mistakes in traits, etc). All constructions are heuristics simplifications intrinsically since the world does not have, unlike our building and constructions of the world, anchored causality just methodical temporal correlations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Comments on “Understanding Vs Truth”

Leave a Reply

Gravatar