How receptive are you to others’ beliefs?
Patrick Krook’s timing was perfect. “For clarity’s sake, you mischaracterize (Joe) Rogan’s actions, attack the general credibility of a preeminent medical research institution, AND insult the baseline intelligence of your average reader to achieve what?” he asked. “Defend the errant and heavy handed policies of the political establishment and gird yourself from your own biases being challenged?”
Brilliant response, I thought. And appropriately timed. I read his response just after taking an 18-point quiz to measure my receptiveness to other people’s views, opinions and convictions that oppose my own. As a newspaper columnist, I hear from readers every day who challenge my viewpoints and my receptiveness to theirs.
“People who are more receptive are more willing to engage with information that opposes their beliefs on important, hot-button topics,” according to the Receptiveness to Opposing Views project. “For example, they might be more willing to read news or social media from the other side, or have conversations with people they disagree with.”
This is a difficult endeavor for most of us, even for professionals like me who must respond to every form of feedback on every kind of platform — social media, email, voicemail, handwritten letters, and face-to-face encounters. Most of us would rather avoid such confrontation, instead sticking to people within our own tribe. Facebook, for example, caters to this human trait by grouping together users with similar viewpoints despite the social vacuum it creates that keeps us apart.
“More receptive people are more willing to think hard about the opposing perspective, instead of quickly dismissing it,” wrote the researchers behind the quiz. “This often leads to having a more favorable opinion of those on the other side and the arguments they make.”
One important point to keep in mind: being more receptive does not mean you are willing to change your mind or compromise your stance. It simply means you are ready to seriously consider the arguments on both sides of an issue. Do you already do this? Can you do this?
“Your opinion article postures from a position of fighting confirmation bias without directly refuting the evidence or analysis offered by Johns Hopkins, a highly esteemed institution renown for its intellectual rigor, by attacking it as fodder for ‘lazy simpletons’ by which to be easily taken in,” Krook wrote to me.
The business owner from Lake Villa, Illinois, shared his viewpoints with me in response to my column last week comparing a new “Johns
Hopkins study” to a Joe Rogan rant. That study — which is actually a “working paper” that’s not commissioned or endorsed by Johns Hopkins — concluded that government lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic were pretty much ineffective, reducing mortality by only 0.2%.
“Truth is, this study has more blind spots than a Joe Rogan rant,” I wrote in my column. “And, like many of Rogan’s rants regarding COVID19, this study capitalizes on people’s innate ignorance and political leanings.”
I stand by that stance.
The lazy simpletons I referred to are those people who heard about a “Johns Hopkins study” that reflected their politically motivated stance against government lockdowns and mandates during a global pandemic. They likely didn’t read the 62-page study. They likely didn’t explore its authors’ histories or motivations about this issue. No, they simply regurgitated its bottom-line findings, regardless of its bias or incompleteness.
“Nowhere did Joe Rogan ‘rant’ about COVID treatments or policies,” Krook told me. “He conducted long form interviews with open ended questions with multiple credentialed professionals preeminent in their fields which related directly to COVID treatments; implications of policies on
the current state of public health.”
With all due respect to Krook, Rogan isn’t a public health expert from a highly esteemed institution. He’s a stand-up comic, podcaster, mixed martial arts fanatic and psychedelic adventurer, according to his own website. Sure, he’s funny, opinionated and has a massive fan following. He’s also someone whose opinions on the complexities of a global pandemic don’t sway me.
“I talk (expletive) for a living,” Rogan told fans last week at a standup gig in Texas. “If you’re taking vaccine advice from me, is that really my fault? What dumb (expletive) were you about to do when my stupid idea sounded better? If you want my advice, don’t take my advice.”
I agree 100% with Rogan on this one. I also agree 100% with Krook for countering my previous column’s assertions about those people who are too lazy to more deeply explore any issue. If I insulted the “baseline intelligence” of anyone, it wasn’t my average reader. It was the average American who cherry-picks facts, truths and “studies” to bolster their beliefs, values and political stance.
Too many people read or watch the news for confirmation of their opinions rather than for information to challenge those opinions. It’s the difference between delusion and discernment, an unpopular topic I’ve
written about in previous columns.
Conversational receptiveness is the use of language to communicate your willingness to thoughtfully engage with opposing views. The quiz I took is based on several peer-reviewed research papers that have been published in top journals in psychology, decision science and management. One of its authors, Julia Minson, an associate professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, was kind enough to send me a paper version of the quiz.
It took me less than 10 minutes to complete it, resulting in a score of 5.9 on a scale from 1 to 7. The results share a breakdown of four separate components: negative emotions, curiosity toward opposing views, derogation of opponents, and taboo issues. And also collective data based on group demographics such as age, education level and political affiliation.
I strongly encourage you to take the 18-point quiz at receptiveness.net. If not for yourself, then for all those people whose opinions possibly anger you, annoy you or alienate you. As Krook reminded me with his articulate, well-written critique of my work, we need more dialogues and less monologues.