Are you really a fence-sitter?#
When we say someone is a "fence-sitter," it may mean that this person goes along with whatever others say and lacks their own opinions. In other words, they only believe in the last viewpoint they heard.
The term "fence-sitter" undoubtedly carries a negative connotation, while the opposite type of person is often praised for being "self-assertive" and having their own opinions.
Wait a minute. If we use a different word to describe these two types of people, the situation might be completely different.
A is a person who can "adapt to changes and accept others' opinions," while B is a person who is "stubborn and self-righteous."
At first glance, A leaves an impression of an open-minded person, while B is seen as narrow-minded and arrogant.
Have you noticed? Simply reversing the positive or negative connotations of similar words completely changes the meaning conveyed.
If you agree with my viewpoint, then let me ask you again: since I have convinced you, are you really a fence-sitter?
You may not think of yourself as a fence-sitter, or at least not willing to admit it. You may want to argue against it, but it may be difficult to distinguish between the two.
In fact, the difference between the two is quite simple. Let me tell you my thoughts.
You have simply labeled yourself as a fence-sitter.#
Perhaps, you are actually engaging in "moral coercion" on yourself, convincing yourself to give up believing in new information and viewpoints to maintain your "own opinions." What's even scarier is that this process may be implicit, and you may not even be aware of it.
The following excerpt from a book I recently read, "The Art of Asking Questions," may give you some new thoughts.
Our culture lacks broad tolerance for those who change their viewpoints. We often label them as "fence-sitters" or "hypocrites," without realizing that changing our viewpoints when new evidence emerges is not only natural but also responsible and accountable behavior.
- "The Art of Asking Questions" by Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley
This passage resonated with me and sparked many thoughts. Often, it is ourselves who impose moral constraints on ourselves, leading to excessive self-reflection on our actions. It is this constraint that hinders us from further analysis and thinking.
I have always been against simply using a label to silence others, to make a final judgment about them. What's even more frightening is that this label can unconsciously make our brains act according to System 1 described in "Thinking, Fast and Slow," causing us to evaluate others' viewpoints with biased lenses.
System 1 refers to the brain's tendency to give quick and direct responses based on past experiences, in simple terms, "taking shortcuts."
With the label "fence-sitter," we may unknowingly place mental shackles on our brains that hinder thinking, after all, "persisting" in our original ideas is the easiest choice for our brains to accept. It is terrifying that we are often unaware of this.
You may have a question in your mind: when is someone considered a "fence-sitter," and when are they considered someone who can "accept others' opinions"?
In fact, this question is quite simple.
My idea is that a good way of thinking should be:
- Make reliable judgments based on constantly emerging new information and then update your beliefs;
- Rather than selectively accepting certain information based on your beliefs.
No one is perfect, and no one is always right, nor is there a viewpoint that is flawless from its inception.
Standpoints and opinions are born from reliable information, not the other way around, selecting information based on existing standpoints and opinions.
So, the key to this question lies in how to select "reliable" information. This is another topic, and I will talk about my understanding and thoughts on it when I have the opportunity. (To be continued)
We should not view other viewpoints or evidence with biased lenses but should maintain a neutral stance. At the same time, when we think about the reasons that support our own viewpoints, we should not avoid factors that may be unfavorable to our existing beliefs.
Seeing this, you may ask, isn't this just self-defeating? Who would look for reasons that do not support their own viewpoints?
Seeking truth or seeking victory?#
This brings us to the purpose of how we think about problems: seeking truth or seeking victory?
We often have the experience of debating a certain viewpoint with someone, and neither can convince the other. Both sides start from their own viewpoints and positions, searching for reasons that best support their own viewpoints and eagerly present them to the other person. The result is often inconclusive, with neither side being able to convince the other.
This is somewhat similar to a debate: the affirmative and negative sides both vigorously present reasons that support their own viewpoints while attacking the other's viewpoint. However, unlike a debate, where a referee scores and determines the winner, the affirmative and negative sides cannot change their positions and admit the other's viewpoint (at least I have never seen it). In this game, their goal is to seek victory.
Unfortunately, although life is not a debate, for various reasons, opportunities for seeking truth are few and far between.
But when a person calms down and thinks without any other motives, I hope they can let go of everything, including their own existing positions, and approach problems with neutrality, consider others' viewpoints, and analyze the reliability of information... even though this is an almost impossible task, having the attitude of "striving for it even if it is unattainable" is also a good approach.
Other#
This is the first time I have truly organized my thoughts into a blog post. In the past, I may have just thought about it in my mind or discussed it with friends, but this time I hope to share my thoughts with more people.
I named this series "耕读" (Geng Du). In this increasingly fast-paced society, having leisure time for reading and contemplation is truly a luxury. Therefore, although I do not wish it, this series may only have this one article.
Of course, I am not writing this blog post to convince you, but to provide a direction for thinking. If you disagree with my viewpoint, feel free to discuss it with me. I hope to seek truth as the goal.