The hardest thing to stop is a charging narrative

We have an unfortunate tendency to make up our minds on a myriad of issues, subjects and topics and not allow our minds to change even when compelling, contradictory evidence is presented.

I was reading recently about the East Anglia University "Climategate" scandal and how worried researchers were that the email leak would make people think man-made climate change was a hoax, when I found an interesting tidbit:

Those East Anglia climate researchers were contacted by social scientists who essentially told them, "Most people have already made up their minds one way or another about climate change. You're not going to convince people who don't believe, and guess what? You're probably not going to change the minds of people who accept your research, either. That's how the human brain generally works."

So I was researching another hot topic from recent years, the Rochdale grooming gangs scandal, which gave the UK the phrase "Asian grooming gangs." What surprised me this time is that last year, a Home Office report came out which basically said the word "Asian" should be removed from that phrase:

The majority of child sexual abuse gangs are made up of white men under the age of 30, an official paper has said.

The report, which covers England, Scotland and Wales and summarises a range of studies on the issue of group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE), also known as grooming gangs, said there was not enough evidence to conclude that child sexual abuse gangs were disproportionately made up of Asian offenders.

High-profile cases including in Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford have involved groups of men of mainly Pakistani ethnicity, fuelling a perception that it is an “Asian problem”.

Advertisement

As a result “Asian grooming gangs” have become a cause celebre for the far right, with a number of high-profile figures mounting campaigns across the country.

The Home Office paper into the “characteristics” of such gangs, first promised by the former home secretary Sajid Javid in 2018, says while some studies show a possible overrepresentation of black and Asian offenders, it is not possible to conclude this is representative of all grooming gangs.

Did anybody else know that the Home Office came to this conclusion? I bet some did, and others didn't. But more importantly, I bet that the people who readily accepted the idea that UK child-rape grooming gangs were mostly Pakistani will call the Home Office report a hoax -- and that those who rejected the idea that UK grooming gangs are predominately Asian didn't need a report saying that most grooming gangs are made up of white men to convince them of that fact.

Why do we let narratives become so powerful; why do we become so invested in them being true? Or false?

Do we define ourselves so much on the basis of what we believe that we can't allow our minds to be changed? And if so, is that healthy?

If becoming so personally attached to an opinion or belief isn't a good way to define who you are, what might be a better approach?

I think we should discuss this part of your post rather than concentrate on the examples you gave:

Why do we let narratives become so powerful; why do we become so invested in them being true? Or false?

Do we define ourselves so much on the basis of what we believe that we can't allow our minds to be changed? And if so, is that healthy?

If becoming so personally attached to an opinion or belief isn't a good way to define who you are, what might be a better approach?

eddie wrote:I think we should discuss this part of your post rather than concentrate on the examples you gave:

Why do we let narratives become so powerful; why do we become so invested in them being true? Or false?

Do we define ourselves so much on the basis of what we believe that we can't allow our minds to be changed? And if so, is that healthy?

If becoming so personally attached to an opinion or belief isn't a good way to define who you are, what might be a better approach?

People can change but that has to come with their openness

I was once Catholic and conservative

Now I am atheist and center left

That came about from listening to sound reasoning

It also came from applying a view to test my beliefs, from looking an outside position at my own beliefs

Whether they held up to scrutiny

To me that is what people need to do, apply how they apply their own arguments to others on themselves

“I was once Catholic and conservative
Now I am atheist and center left”

Didge, don’t you think that by giving yourself these “labels” you are still telling yourself a narrative? It might be a “better” narrative for you, but it’s still a narrative.

eddie wrote:“I was once Catholic and conservative
Now I am atheist and center left”

Didge, don’t you think that by giving yourself these “labels” you are still telling yourself a narrative? It might be a “better” narrative for you, but it’s still a narrative.

That is a fair point

The atheist part is open, but I see no evidence otherwise at present

Left center is more based on secular liberal values

If I can argue against myself to others better, then point me in the direction of them and i will test them


Nothing is ever set in stone, except history

Fair enough, thank you for your honesty.

The only thing I may disagree with is “history being set in stone” because sometimes, it is only a person’s interpretation, other than that, I have no problem taking a historical fact as read.

Interesting topic though, to think that we may all be guilty of sticking to our own narrative. Food for thought.

eddie wrote:Fair enough, thank you for your honesty.

The only thing I may disagree with is “history being set in stone” because sometimes, it is only a person’s interpretation, other than that, I have no problem taking a historical fact as read.

Interesting topic though, to think that we may all be guilty of sticking to our own narrative. Food for thought.

You mistake my meaning Eddie 

By set in stone, i mean literally

The buildings of the ancients are set in stone. 

How we interpret that history is another matter, as we are constantly reviewing our understanding of the past. What does not change is these very awesome buildings

They are literally set in stone

Ok fair point. Can’t argue that one!

But I’d like to discuss the topic of people telling themselves a narrative. It’s a very interesting topic.

Why do you think people do that?

eddie wrote:Ok fair point. Can’t argue that one!

But I’d like to discuss the topic of people telling themselves a narrative. It’s a very interesting topic.

Why do you think people do that?

People are controlled by their fears

When they are, they fear being wrong

I was once like this and got upset in debate through a fear I might be wrong. When we fear we might be wrong the best thing to do is question our beliefs, not create a barrier to them

Its made me stronger to tackle and question many things

I have no fear to challenge myself

Hence we have to be open to different ideas and test them. Not through presumption simple shut them down, unless they are really stupid like flat earth theories

Things like that should be ridiculed

If I could jump in and throw a whole new idea into this -- I think people might simply be like magpies, stealing shiny things to make up our sense of self rather like a nest. And just like our homes, we tend to put things into our heads and become attached to them, like the music you listened to as a teenager.

I think we all find a way to fill ourselves with whatever our surroundings offer, and that we do that without giving it much thought. We have to be *somebody* after all, so we decide to be this or that on the basis of how we feel and how it makes us feel.

Two good points by you both, Ben and didge.

I think people also tend to get stuck in a rut with their beliefs, exactly like they do with a haircut...it looks nice, it’s easy to handle and they don’t have to think much about it.
Your hair is a part of you, right? Little point in changing it if it works....

Ben Reilly wrote:If I could jump in and throw a whole new idea into this -- I think people might simply be like magpies, stealing shiny things to make up our sense of self rather like a nest. And just like our homes, we tend to put things into our heads and become attached to them, like the music you listened to as a teenager.

I think we all find a way to fill ourselves with whatever our surroundings offer, and that we do that without giving it much thought. We have to be *somebody* after all, so we decide to be this or that on the basis of how we feel and how it makes us feel.

Great point and indeed I think it does point to self worth in people, but it also shows an arrogance in humans as a species

That we tend to only think of ourselves. Not always and humans can be the most sharing and giving of people, but again is it for their own self worth and standing in society

This boils down to again a selfless deed

Do we have to be somebody?

What is it to be somebody and what does this entail?

If being somebody is important, and getting recognition for helping someone else. Then are we truly helping someone or have we acted out of a need of recognition for ourselves?

Didgee wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:If I could jump in and throw a whole new idea into this -- I think people might simply be like magpies, stealing shiny things to make up our sense of self rather like a nest. And just like our homes, we tend to put things into our heads and become attached to them, like the music you listened to as a teenager.

I think we all find a way to fill ourselves with whatever our surroundings offer, and that we do that without giving it much thought. We have to be *somebody* after all, so we decide to be this or that on the basis of how we feel and how it makes us feel.

Great point and indeed I think it does point to self worth in people, but it also shows an arrogance in humans as a species

That we tend to only think of ourselves. Not always and humans can be the most sharing and giving of people, but again is it for their own self worth and standing in society

This boils down to again a selfless deed

Do we have to be somebody?

If being somebody is important, and getting recognition for helping someone else. Then are we truly helping someone or have we acted out of a need of recognition for ourselves?

Standing alone is hard but this is what we need to teach children.

eddie wrote:

Didgee wrote:


Great point and indeed I think it does point to self worth in people, but it also shows an arrogance in humans as a species

That we tend to only think of ourselves. Not always and humans can be the most sharing and giving of people, but again is it for their own self worth and standing in society

This boils down to again a selfless deed

Do we have to be somebody?

If being somebody is important, and getting recognition for helping someone else. Then are we truly helping someone or have we acted out of a need of recognition for ourselves?

Standing alone is hard but this is what we need to teach children.

I agree and disagree

Its important to be self reliant but never to shy away from help if you need this.

People can be stubborn to help, due to a really absurd attitude of pride within themselves

I have seen this happen more times than I care to remember

Sometimes we all need to reach out. Humanity would have never survived if not for the collective sharing of knowledge, wealth, education and medical knowledge

We all owe our survival to the advancements of individually unselfish people who placed the needs of others above themselves. Who passed on their wisdom to others

Didgee wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:If I could jump in and throw a whole new idea into this -- I think people might simply be like magpies, stealing shiny things to make up our sense of self rather like a nest. And just like our homes, we tend to put things into our heads and become attached to them, like the music you listened to as a teenager.

I think we all find a way to fill ourselves with whatever our surroundings offer, and that we do that without giving it much thought. We have to be *somebody* after all, so we decide to be this or that on the basis of how we feel and how it makes us feel.

Great point and indeed I think it does point to self worth in people, but it also shows an arrogance in humans as a species

That we tend to only think of ourselves. Not always and humans can be the most sharing and giving of people, but again is it for their own self worth and standing in society

This boils down to again a selfless deed

Do we have to be somebody?

What is it to be somebody and what does this entail?

If being somebody is important, and getting recognition for helping someone else. Then are we truly helping someone or have we acted out of a need of recognition for ourselves?

hi didge - great to make contact again

i picked up on the bib as i know someone like this.

I once had to really bite down on my tongue and use all my self restraint not to say

''yes, I get that you get a lot of enjoyment out of helping other people, but not nearly as much enjoyment as you get out of telling the world how much you help other people''

i felt like a bitch just thinking it but that's how it comes across and i find it off putting.

i also love helping other people but once it's done it's done and i would see no point in bringing it up time and time again - fucking move on


also what's your twitter id? i'd like to make contact over there,,,,

gelico wrote:

Didgee wrote:


Great point and indeed I think it does point to self worth in people, but it also shows an arrogance in humans as a species

That we tend to only think of ourselves. Not always and humans can be the most sharing and giving of people, but again is it for their own self worth and standing in society

This boils down to again a selfless deed

Do we have to be somebody?

What is it to be somebody and what does this entail?

If being somebody is important, and getting recognition for helping someone else. Then are we truly helping someone or have we acted out of a need of recognition for ourselves?

hi didge - great to make contact again

i picked up on the bib as i know someone like this.

I once had to really bite down on my tongue and use all my self restraint not to say

''yes, I get that you get a lot of enjoyment out of helping other people, but not nearly as much enjoyment as you get out of telling the world how much you help other people''

i felt like a bitch just thinking it but that's how it comes across and i find it off putting.

i also love helping other people but once it's done it's done and i would see no point in bringing it up time and time again - fucking move on


also what's your twitter id?  i'd like to make contact over there,,,,

Hi Gelico

Yep, once you have helped, then time to move on, agree entirely

My twitter is @Phildidgee

Gels, I hear you. I cannot stand self-righteous people either. It’s like a lot of people who get the covid vaccine and then have to go on about it...

“Oh I got the vaccine so I could save other people!”

No you didn’t. You got the jab because you were worried about yourself first and foremost (and that’s okay!) and you also wanted to go on holiday...

And that, is a perfect example of someone telling themselves a narrative.

I got the jab to protect those I care about, to do my part to try to end this shit. It did feel good to think I was doing something, however things turn out, to help.

I didn’t go on about it because that wasn’t the point in doing it.

I still think it’s weird to condemn people for trying to help.

Ben Reilly wrote:I got the jab to protect those I care about, to do my part to try to end this shit. It did feel good to think I was doing something, however things turn out, to help.

I didn’t go on about it because that wasn’t the point in doing it.

I still think it’s weird to condemn people for trying to help.

I know why you did it.

But I’m talking about the people that go on about it all over social media, like it’s a badge of honour.
You’re not like that.

eddie wrote:Gels, I hear you. I cannot stand self-righteous people either. It’s like a lot of people who get the covid vaccine and then have to go on about it...

“Oh I got the vaccine so I could save other people!”

No you didn’t. You got the jab because you were worried about yourself first and foremost (and that’s okay!) and you also wanted to go on holiday...

And that, is a perfect example of someone telling themselves a narrative.

Are you saying that people didn’t do it for that reason?

I’m not at risk and holidaying is out till next year regardless. I did it because I want society to get back to normal and for lockdowns to end - which sure is a selfish reason to a degree. But it was also because I know there are other people I see who are more at risk. It isn’t ‘saving other people’ and I’ve never seen people put it that way, but letting people know there ARE unselfish reasons to have it is important imo. Especially when one of the main given reasons not to get it is literally “well I’LL be alright.”