I just want to throw this out there because I want to see some other opinions. Right now I am inclined to think that a lot of people intentionally misunderstand the people they discuss/ debate with. If you don't identify with someone title (atheist, Christian,Buddhist, well not Buddhist everyone like you guys,lol) then an assumption is made about the impending quality and variety of their contributions. Inadequate analysis is placed on their submissions and conclusions are swiftly drawn. I see a lot being missed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Intentional misunderstanding
- Thread starter TJ73
- Start date
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
Reminds me of a term I saw used by Noam Chomsky: Intentional ignorance. In the context that I use it, it means to deliberately avoid bodies of information in order to protect one's view of reality that is suspected false/out of date etc. We do it a lot more than we think we do.
Last edited:
And that's the only reason I mentioned it. Being that it is likely intentional, it will likely have no affect on the most deliberate offenders. But it may help remind those with a
real aim at learning. Self included.
Are you saying everyone is more or less equally biased? That there is no significant difference between, say, you and the people who once put Nelson Mandela in prison?
Phil, you've been misreading or misunderstanding my posts a bit lately. I hope it isn't 'intentional misunderstanding'!
Read my post again, emphasis on the words 'to some extent'.
LOL!! please refrain from all IM's. Did I coin a phrase, hu, did I?:drool:
I just think the emphasis you tend to put on "we are all alike" obscures important differences. Frankly, it irritates me. There is a world of difference between a person like Nelson Mandela and the people who put him in prison -- regardless of how many times you emphasize that they all probably shared some biases. So, I'm calling you on it.
And no, that's not an intentional misunderstanding on my part. I'm calling your emphasis wrong headed.
I think you are misunderstanding me.
I'm only responding within the context of the OP, which is referring to people who discussing/debating with one another. As this is a religious and multicultural forum, it brought to my mind that yes, I see a lot of bias assumptions being made on a daily basis from most members, whether it is by a Muslim vs Atheist, Westerner vs Easterner, Left Wing vs Right Wing etc.
We are human, and we all hold biases. Some people are more conscientious about their biases than other people. But we all have assumptions about one another, depending on how much education and experience we have had with the world.
Do you disagree?
Last edited:
Perhaps everyone harbors biases, but (1) some biases are more justified (i.e. more rational) than other biases, and (2) some people apparently harbor significantly fewer irrational biases than others.
I don't disagree with you. But then, perhaps now you do not disagree with me? Or now you understand a new meaning from my original reply?
You have to understand that had the OP asked a question like: why do human behave this way? What influences these assumptions and behaviour?
Then my response would have been more indepth. But what stood out for me was this: "I am inclined to think that a lot of people intentionally misunderstand the people they discuss/ debate with."
And so I identified the observed behaviour as human bias. And kept my post simple.
Last edited:
That is really to the point of my thinking. And also they'll try to convince you ( or themselves) that you not only said something else but that it is preposterous and you're stupid!
Renji
Well-Known Member
Very true. Me, being a Catholic for example has encountered a lot of presumptions and judgments about my faith. For example, how many times have I heard people saying that we worship statues, we worship Mary, etc, etc. But I guess I'm used to it. Actually, I sometimes make jokes out of it.
The bottom line here (maybe) is that you cannot judge someone else's belief without clarifying it directly from the source and not knowing it fully. It's like serving 'poison' to yourself.
The bottom line here (maybe) is that you cannot judge someone else's belief without clarifying it directly from the source and not knowing it fully. It's like serving 'poison' to yourself.
I've come to the decision in the past couple of days that there is no such thing as intentional ignorance. If someone makes believe that something isn't happening that is happening or vice versa, that wouldn't be called ignorance. Maybe it is hiding from the truth, but even if someone is hiding from the truth, they have to truly know the truth. And hiding from the truth, to me, is not ignorance.
As for the OP: Misunderstandings can only be unintentional. If it is intentional, then it is not a misunderstanding, but an excuse. An excuse for various different reasons.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I am 100% positive you're right. I can usually explain my beliefs pretty darned well. If I explain a particular doctrine, I can understand why a person might have a question on something I didn't go into in a lot of detail, so I'm always happy to take another shot at it. But it's not at all hard to see when a person is being "intentionally ignorant." They will zero in on one word or phrase, apparently missing my entire point, and try to tell me that I've said something completely different to what I've actually said. I know I explain things well enough that there is no real misunderstanding.
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
I can get onboard with you here, Christine, but one tiny, tiny detail I think makes it a credible idea. "Suspicion". That is the key. In essence, a person will shield themselves from mounting evidence to a contrary or unwanted experience or view of reality that is suspected, but not known to exist. Much like covering one's eyes immediately prior to a distasteful scene in a movie.
This seems like two separate issues.
-One issue is intentionally misunderstanding the people they are discussing with. Examples include utilizing the straw man fallacy, changing the subject and then declaring victory, or focusing on the smallest details rather than engaging the actual point being put forward. All of these are problematic and should be avoided.
-The other issue is predicting the impending quality and variety of an argument based on someone's religious or philosophical description. I do this all the time and I don't consider it to be a problem. I base my prediction of impending quality on past experiences (probability) and on deductive arguments (premise A logically leads to conclusion B). Sometimes it leads to issues when a person is using a given title in a way that is very unusual (like seeing someone say "I'm an atheist but I believe in god" or even in my own description as a practitioner of Karma Yoga which is used in a way different than the term is typically applied). Most of the time, however, it leads to efficiency in getting to points faster than would otherwise be possible. Categorization and prediction are useful tools. Any errors are quickly corrected if one realizes that the quality or variety of argument from this particular person is different than others normally associated with that term.
I agree; intentional ignorance is somewhat of a contradiction.
The only time I find that such a term may be useful would be to describe someone who purposely avoids viewpoints that they disagree with. In other words, if a given person believes in holy book A, and avoids reading holy books B, C, D, E, and F, either because they think they have all important knowledge after reading book A or they fear that reading books B through F will only serve to interfere with their acceptance of book A, then this is intentional ignorance. In other words, they truly are ignorant, but they are intentionally keeping their self in this state.