I've always been somewhat aware of the important role that narrative plays in belief, but a few months ago I had an epiphany that really pushed it to the forefront of my thinking on the subject.
I have written before about Sue Sternberg, a dog behaviorist who has run several shelters and has developed a protocol for evaluating the adoptability of dogs. I heard her speak again earlier this year (always a great speaker), and she shared the story of a gentleman in England who heard her speak, and during the question and answer period asked her in what way she was any different from Hitler?
He was speaking of Sternberg's opposition to the concept of no-kill shelters. While these shelters make us feel warm and fuzzy about saving the lives of innocent little animals, Sternberg argues that it is actually more humane to euthanize an animal than to subject it to endless months of psychological torture being penned up in a tiny space while being subjected to a cacophony of overstimulation from all sides. Dogs in this situation, she has learned, begin to deteriorate after just a few weeks and soon after start to display stereotypical (OCD-like) behaviors such as endless circling, self-mutilation, or simply rhythmic, pointless barking.
Her logic is impeccable, so why, I began to wonder, is there so much opposition to her viewpoint? The answer is simple: Euthanizing an animal to end suffering that we ourselves have imposed on it, with the best of intentions, is not a satisfying narrative.
A better one is, "It lives happily ever after in some place, somewhere". The story doesn't have to be true, it just has to be simple, straightforward, and satisfying.
It was then that it hit me: This is the basis of practically every misguided meme that permeates our society. We all try to understand our existence in terms of narratives, and we want those narratives to have the three S's: Simple, straightforward, satisfying.
We want there to be a good guy and a bad guy, a beginning, middle, and end, a climax and denouement...all the elements that we have learned to expect in a good story. If they don't actually exist in real life, we make them up.
That's why there are people who believe that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. It's a more satisfying narrative than "a relatively small group of fanatics can cause widespread pandemonium whenever they feel like it." It's why people believe our vaccines are dangerous; it's preferable to the reality that sometimes children get terrible diseases at random and there's nothing doctors can do about it. It's why people believe in Hell, because that's better than believing that evil people can live in luxury and never pay the consequences for their actions (Even if by "evil" we mean they don't share the same beliefs as we do).
I realize that this revelation is really nothing new; I've known that narrative was an important part of the puzzle. I just didn't realize HOW important, and now I look at the weird beliefs of others in a completely new light.
I have written before about Sue Sternberg, a dog behaviorist who has run several shelters and has developed a protocol for evaluating the adoptability of dogs. I heard her speak again earlier this year (always a great speaker), and she shared the story of a gentleman in England who heard her speak, and during the question and answer period asked her in what way she was any different from Hitler?
He was speaking of Sternberg's opposition to the concept of no-kill shelters. While these shelters make us feel warm and fuzzy about saving the lives of innocent little animals, Sternberg argues that it is actually more humane to euthanize an animal than to subject it to endless months of psychological torture being penned up in a tiny space while being subjected to a cacophony of overstimulation from all sides. Dogs in this situation, she has learned, begin to deteriorate after just a few weeks and soon after start to display stereotypical (OCD-like) behaviors such as endless circling, self-mutilation, or simply rhythmic, pointless barking.
Her logic is impeccable, so why, I began to wonder, is there so much opposition to her viewpoint? The answer is simple: Euthanizing an animal to end suffering that we ourselves have imposed on it, with the best of intentions, is not a satisfying narrative.
A better one is, "It lives happily ever after in some place, somewhere". The story doesn't have to be true, it just has to be simple, straightforward, and satisfying.
It was then that it hit me: This is the basis of practically every misguided meme that permeates our society. We all try to understand our existence in terms of narratives, and we want those narratives to have the three S's: Simple, straightforward, satisfying.
We want there to be a good guy and a bad guy, a beginning, middle, and end, a climax and denouement...all the elements that we have learned to expect in a good story. If they don't actually exist in real life, we make them up.
That's why there are people who believe that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. It's a more satisfying narrative than "a relatively small group of fanatics can cause widespread pandemonium whenever they feel like it." It's why people believe our vaccines are dangerous; it's preferable to the reality that sometimes children get terrible diseases at random and there's nothing doctors can do about it. It's why people believe in Hell, because that's better than believing that evil people can live in luxury and never pay the consequences for their actions (Even if by "evil" we mean they don't share the same beliefs as we do).
I realize that this revelation is really nothing new; I've known that narrative was an important part of the puzzle. I just didn't realize HOW important, and now I look at the weird beliefs of others in a completely new light.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/U6fnYY
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire