Do you use doublethink?

[Rail Tracer]

I don't know how helpful it is aside from the realization that multiple viable perspectives exist and there is no clear right or wrong for many things.

This.
For many things, there are more than one answer.
For many things, there are only one answer.
For many things, there are no answer.

 

[Orangey]

This.
For many things, there are more than one answer.
For many things, there are only one answer.
For many things, there are no answer.

You guys do realize that this is not doublethink?

Simply believing that some questions can yield multiple answers, or that some questions cannot be answered given the state of our knowledge, or even that some questions can never be answered is not the same as tricking your mind into believing simultaneously in A and not A.

If, for instance, I can see that there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate over legalizing marijuana, it doesn't mean that I simultaneously believe both that it should be legalized and that it shouldn't be legalized. It just means either that I haven't made up my mind as to which side I think is more right, or that I don't believe either side is ever going to be right. In either case, it's not that you believe in contradictory things at the same time, it's that you have effectively given up on the enterprise of choosing your belief.

 

[Ginkgo]

If I believed I didn't use doublethink... would I be using doublethink?

 

[wildcat]

Doublethink -- The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

It was a concept introduced by Orwell's 1984.

I find it a very interesting concept, because I find myself using a similar process in many aspects of my life and reasoning. In many cases, I feel that it yields something closer to the truth than simply believing that things are or are not one way.

It seems very philosophically profound, realizing that all things are embedded within their opposite, and indeed cannot exist in the absence of their opposite. Things which seem to be contradictory, are not truly contradictory.

I used to experience cognitive dissonance a lot, but eventually I stumbled upon this idea... and I never experienced it again. It was gone from my mind.

So, my question is... do you use doublethink? Do you find that it helps you deal better with some aspects of your life to do so?

Athenian is a thoughtful individual.

A doublethinker is the heart of any party.
She is gregarious and kind.
A wolf in a lamb's clothing.

 

[rav3n]

In order to be religiously moderate, there has to be some degree of doublethink.

 

[Athenian200]

I'd say that if you can't recognize any form of "holding conflicting beliefs" in yourself that you are either:

a) an exceptionally clear (and organized) thinker, or
more likely:
b) you aren't trying very hard to find them.

That said, this thread is not just about holding conflicting beliefs - it's about willfully accepting both of them.


In some situations, I do think there is an objective truth and that you can uncover it and support it with evidence. In these cases, there is no reason to have two beliefs. That would be "willful ignorance."

In other situations, I think that Truth may or may not exist, and if it did exist, would I be able (with my human limitations) to understand it? Probably not. In these situations, I accept that there is a wide range of possibilities. I suppose I could say they are all "true", but really, they are all just (as far as I can tell) equally likely. So I just keep them in mind as such. (I'm sure there is a name for this in philosophy, anyone?)

Well, it seems to be that the assumption that there is one "truth," would be rooted in certain assumptions about the nature of reality, wouldn't it? And most of these assumptions would come from trusting the information provided by the senses... which is something I'm not inclined to do to any greater degree than I must.

Oh, and Orangey, do you have to keep trying to scare people with the worst quotes from the book, as if they were directly applicable?

 

[MacGuffin]

You guys do realize that this is not doublethink?

Simply believing that some questions can yield multiple answers, or that some questions cannot be answered given the state of our knowledge, or even that some questions can never be answered is not the same as tricking your mind into believing simultaneously in A and not A.

If, for instance, I can see that there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate over legalizing marijuana, it doesn't mean that I simultaneously believe both that it should be legalized and that it shouldn't be legalized. It just means either that I haven't made up my mind as to which side I think is more right, or that I don't believe either side is ever going to be right. In either case, it's not that you believe in contradictory things at the same time, it's that you have effectively given up on the enterprise of choosing your belief.

Yeah, I don't think everyone quite grasps the concept.

 

[cascadeco]

You guys do realize that this is not doublethink?

Simply believing that some questions can yield multiple answers, or that some questions cannot be answered given the state of our knowledge, or even that some questions can never be answered is not the same as tricking your mind into believing simultaneously in A and not A.

If, for instance, I can see that there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate over legalizing marijuana, it doesn't mean that I simultaneously believe both that it should be legalized and that it shouldn't be legalized. It just means either that I haven't made up my mind as to which side I think is more right, or that I don't believe either side is ever going to be right. In either case, it's not that you believe in contradictory things at the same time, it's that you have effectively given up on the enterprise of choosing your belief.

Right, this is something I think I can relate more to. There are certainly many - most? - subjects/areas in life that are rather gray and which I can see a variety of perspectives on, and am therefore unable to pinpoint one as absolutely Right. There are simply different ways of looking at things, which results in different answers. I think this is where many who are more prone to looking at things from various angles then don't end up 'committing' to any particular one, because they end up not being able to do so as a result of the very fact that they are holding onto these various perspectives.

Anyway, yeah, for me at least I don't view this as believing in both, or multiple, at the same time - it simply means what you've outlined above - that I am effectively letting go of committing/alligning myself with one and only one. (And perhaps the reason this subject is being brought up is because the nature of the examples that tend to fall under it (religion, abortion, death penalty, anything sociological/philosophical) are SO insanely subjective and often values-based that one can reasonably argue one position or the other)

Generally speaking, I also have always tended to believe there are ultimate Truths/Realities to how the universe operates and 'how things really happen', and I naturally, just like everyone else, have my subjective/personal lens and opinions about 'how things really are'/reality, which may be right or wrong. And, I might often pull things from various perspectives to try to hone in on this 'reality'. But philosophically I don't really believe two contradictions can be objectively true - there is only one true reality. Our subjectivity and the fact that many subjects ARE subjective is why we fall into the belief that we can hold two opposing view simultaneously - that, and us not wanting to commit to what in essence may be un-committable.

I could have done a better job of trying to articulate that, but... meh.

 

[Randomnity]

You guys do realize that this is not doublethink?

Simply believing that some questions can yield multiple answers, or that some questions cannot be answered given the state of our knowledge, or even that some questions can never be answered is not the same as tricking your mind into believing simultaneously in A and not A.

If, for instance, I can see that there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate over legalizing marijuana, it doesn't mean that I simultaneously believe both that it should be legalized and that it shouldn't be legalized. It just means either that I haven't made up my mind as to which side I think is more right, or that I don't believe either side is ever going to be right. In either case, it's not that you believe in contradictory things at the same time, it's that you have effectively given up on the enterprise of choosing your belief.

Ex-act-ly...

I can't tell if the OP is talking about this or about "real" doublethink, it seems to go back and forth....

 

[Athenian200]

You guys do realize that this is not doublethink?

Simply believing that some questions can yield multiple answers, or that some questions cannot be answered given the state of our knowledge, or even that some questions can never be answered is not the same as tricking your mind into believing simultaneously in A and not A.

If, for instance, I can see that there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate over legalizing marijuana, it doesn't mean that I simultaneously believe both that it should be legalized and that it shouldn't be legalized. It just means either that I haven't made up my mind as to which side I think is more right, or that I don't believe either side is ever going to be right. In either case, it's not that you believe in contradictory things at the same time, it's that you have effectively given up on the enterprise of choosing your belief.

Well, that isn't what I do. You're arguing semantics and making assumptions about what "belief" is that really aren't important. You see it as being, by definition, something that is not malleable.

In my case, I actually DO change my belief and arguments at various times. I've become very good at doing this. I think that it's an important ability to have.

The mind is reality. There is no external reality worth mentioning, unless you simply decide to fully trust in the evidence of your senses and memory for more than a few purposes...

 

[MacGuffin]

Well, that isn't what I do. You're arguing semantics and making assumptions about what "belief" is that really aren't important. You see it as being, by definition, something that is not malleable.

In my case, I actually DO change my belief and arguments at various times. I've become very good at doing this. I think that it's an important ability to have.

The mind is reality. There is no external reality worth mentioning, unless you simply decide to fully trust in the evidence of your senses and memory for more than a few purposes...

Changing your mind isn't doublethink either. When using doublethink, you believe two contradictory ideas at the same time, when it is impossible for one idea to be true if the other idea is true.

 

[Athenian200]

Changing your mind isn't doublethink either. When using doublethink, you believe two contradictory ideas at the same time, when it is impossible for one idea to be true if the other idea is true.

Not at the SAME time, but you change your mind to something specific, in different contexts. Read this, for example:

'But the rocks are full of the bones of extinct animals -- mammoths and mastodons and enormous reptiles which lived here long before man was ever heard of.'

'Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing.'

'But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach for ever.'

'What are the stars?' said O'Brien indifferently. 'They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.'

Winston made another convulsive movement. This time he did not say anything. O'Brien continued as though answering a spoken objection:

'For certain purposes, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometres away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?'

All it requires is setting up your worldview so that truth and belief are contextual instead of absolute.

 

[MacGuffin]

You're probably going to come up with a personal example, then. Altering ideas based on context isn't always doublethink. The quote you use is classic doublethink, believing something is true when knowing it is false. It's intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Athenian200]

You're probably going to come up with a personal example, then. Altering ideas based on context isn't always doublethink. The quote you use is classic doublethink, believing something is true when knowing it is false. It's intellectual dishonesty.

Well, what's wrong with intellectual dishonesty? I don't think anyone really cares about it except NTs, and maybe STs.

It's important to be able to adjust beliefs (not just ideas) dynamically, in order to avoid feelings of dishonesty or cognitive dissonance. Otherwise, conformity is difficult.

 

[MacGuffin]

Well, what's wrong with intellectual dishonesty? I don't think anyone really cares about it except NTs, and maybe STs.

It's important to be able to adjust beliefs (not just ideas) dynamically, in order to avoid feelings of dishonesty or cognitive dissonance. Otherwise, conformity is difficult.

Because those people are not to be trusted, esp. when put in positions of power (aka see 1984).

 

[Haight]

Oh . . . now I get it.

Can I change my vote?

 

[Athenian200]

Because those people are not to be trusted, esp. when put in positions of power (aka see 1984).

But isn't it inevitable that such people will be more successful in reaching positions of power?

 

[Haight]

Okay, I'm going to change my mind again.

 

[MacGuffin]

But isn't it inevitable that such people will be more successful in reaching positions of power?

I'd argue no. Blatant inconsistency like that leads to poor decision making.

Remember, we are talking about true doublethink. Not someone being deceitful like a politician.

 

[CrystalViolet]

I don't think I've ever knowingly used double think. I have come across people that do. I can even think of a specific example*. It's manipulative, and lacking in integrity. It's a slimey way of thinking, and reminds me of the worst kind of brown noser. (inflamatory comment finished) Isn't it just easier to remain silent, when faced with dissention, than openly agreeing? You don't have to make a stand.
* A manager I worked for would quite often say one thing to your face and another to her superiors, it was all about maintaining power. She'd often spout out about company policy. My specific example is how she kowtowed to a doctor, because according to managment and company policy, we as her staff had done the wrong thing. We even provided her with documented proof that we followed company policy. She maintained her position contrary to the evidence. The next week, a less favoured doctor (one who didn't bring in as much money) pulled the same stunt, so this time we caved, but we were still in the wrong, because we didn't follow the documented policy, and managment were less accomadating because the doctor in concern sent the majority of his work to another company. So they followed policy to the letter. Inspite of doing the opposite the week before, and maintaining there were no breaks with policy inspite of simillar circumstance with opposite outcomes. No-one knew where they stood in that place unless they were in the inner circle of the favored. That my friends is a real life example of double think.