The results of the study: introspection is not reliable. When we soul-search, we contrive the findings.
The belief that reflection leads to truth or accuracy is called the introspection illusion. This is more than sophistry. Because we are so confident of our beliefs, we experience three reactions when someone fails to share our views. Response 1: Assumption of ignorance. The other party clearly lacks the necessary information. If he knew what you knew, he would be of the same opinion. Reaction 2: Assumption of idiocy. The other person has the necessary information, but his mind is underdeveloped. He cannot draw the obvious conclusions. In other words, he’s a moron. Response 3: Assumption of malice. Your counterpart has the necessary information — he even understands the debate — but he is deliberately confrontational. He has evil intentions. This is how many religious leaders and followers treat disbelievers: if they don’t agree, they must be servants of the devil!
In conclusion: nothing is more convincing than your own beliefs. We believe that introspection unearths genuine self-knowledge. Unfortunately, introspection is, in large part, fabrication posing two dangers: first, the introspection illusion creates inaccurate predictions of future mental states. Trust your internal observations too much and for too long, and you might be in for a very rude awakening. Second, we believe that our introspections are more reliable than those of others, which creates an illusion of superiority. Remedy: be all the more critical with yourself. Regard your internal observations with the same scepticism as claims from some random person. Become your own toughest critic.
January 20, 2014 @ 9:28 pm
When we soul search, we contrive the findings; when we dont soul search, we contrive the findings more. Reflection leads to truth and accuracy, as much as those are possible, when we reflect on our errors. Look, there are no perfect ideas. Eliminating confusion, conflation, bias, misapprehension, and misunderstanding is an endless task. Don't blame introspection, which is useful. Blame a lack of skepticism of ones own "findings", which is stupid, but, unfortunately, common.
January 21, 2014 @ 12:49 am
I grew up surrounded by idiots. Fortunately, my superego kicked my ass so often that I couldn't get complacent. There's no rude awakening when you expect to be wrong all the time, as we all are.
January 21, 2014 @ 1:15 am
The proposition that internal observations are short sighted and without discernment or good judgement confuses what is generally true with what is necessarily true. Others are are only helpful if they are more intelligent than you.
January 20, 2014 @ 11:05 pm
Isn't that what he's saying, though? "Trust your internal observations too much and for too long, and you might be in for a very rude awakening." True, introspection is the least worst option, and we can only do the best we can with it. But the following sentence was the one that made me smile: "Second, we believe that our introspections are more reliable than those of others, which creates an illusion of superiority." The fact that other people, whom I may think are obviously deluded, came to their conclusions after their own introspection, is a reminder that introspection is only half the job — you still need to bounce ideas off of other people to see how they hold up.
January 21, 2014 @ 11:43 pm
But the term "intelligent" is in itself problematical, noel. People can be "idiots" on some topics, and very wise on others. To dismiss others who surround you as "idiots" means you may miss insights, experiences, even wisdom.
Certainly, the intelligent are NOT more moral, kinder, or superior human beings. Sociopaths are often very intelligent.
January 22, 2014 @ 5:58 pm
Yeah, I spoke inartfully. Let me try again: the problem isn't introspection at all; it is a lack of skepticism. It's true that people neglect being skeptical of their own ideas; nevertheless, introspection is a good thing, and certainly should not be discouraged.