A drop in the ocean: Another Aspect of Love

I think I’ve already mentioned TED.com where good and even better thinkers share their ideas. One of my personal favourites is Margaret Heffernan’s speech in which she is speaking about conflicts and claims that good disagreement is essential to progress. Moreover, after introducing the details of a successful cooperation between a physician and a statistician, she is saying that a well-based rational criticism and the endeavour to reach it is a form of love.

If you have time, watch the video. Subtitles will help you to understand the story and her thoughts. If you are short of time, read my favourite part of her speech:

So what does that kind of constructive conflict require? Well, first of all, it requires that we find people who are very different from ourselves. That means we have to resist the neurobiological drive, which means that we really prefer people mostly like ourselves, and it means we have to seek out people with different backgrounds, different disciplines, different ways of thinking and different experience, and find ways to engage with them. That requires a lot of patience and a lot of energy.

And the more I've thought about this, the more I think, really, that that's a kind of love. Because you simply won't commit that kind of energy and time if you don't really care.

WALK inEnglish

A drop in the ocean: The way you see the world

Has it ever happened to you that after visiting your astrologist, participating in a training or being heavily affected by an incredibly revealing speech you started seeing the world working in just the same way as you had been said? 

What happened then? Probably you told your friend about your astonishing revelation. And how about his reactions? Could you infect him with your enthusiasm? If yes, you must have a great charisma. If not, let’s see one possible part of the explanation.

Tremendous amount of theories aim to describe the process of new information acquisition and information storage. A key term in relation to learning is schema. In Wikipedia you find the following:

A schema describes an organized pattern of thought or behaviour. Schemata (= schemas) influence attention and the absorption of new knowledge: people are more likely to notice things that fit into their schema, while re-interpreting contradictions to the schema as exceptions or distorting them to fit. Schemata have a tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of contradictory information.

So why might it have happened that your friend did not have the AHA experience when hearing your story? It’s quite likely that you had had a more detailed explanation than the one you were giving to him therefore you had more proofs to reset your structure of beliefs and ideas than him. And it’s also possible that he is more critical to acquiring new information.

Observe yourself: Do you tend to neglect things that contradict your schemas or you feel free to distort them to fit the events? If I say that the more complex your worldview is, the wider range of things can be accepted and explained by your schemas, do you agree with me?


WALK in English.