How do you respond when confronted with information that goes against things that you believe are true?
First I cuss to the tune of, "Well, fuck." Next I begrudgingly accept the new information because it didn't confirm my confirmation bias. Then I spend an indeterminate amount of time fighting my confirmation bias until the acceptance phase is complete. After that, I just complain about how much it sucks that it isn't the way I thought it was.
Beliefs are just that, beliefs. Without evidence they remain so until evidence is shown to either prove or refute them. If your beliefs are proved to be false, then you should accept that gracefully and concede that you were mistaken....to do anything else would be wrong-headed and obstinate.
In grad school it was shoved down our throats that all arguments needed to be evidence based. However, the problem with data is that it is sometimes taken from a sample that is only representative of a small population. I would say do your research. Ask for the sources and see if you can come up with the same perspective as the one giving you the new information. People have a way of being biased towards their own beliefs and not looking at things objectively. So I would be open to new information , but willing to actively investigate.
First I get angry. I have either been lied to in the past or I am being lied to in regards to the new information.
I ask for sources, check the sources, ask people I trust on the subject until I am reasonably certain I have gotten as close to the truth as I can with the available information; because the truth is the only thing that matters.
I apply critical thinking. Research validity of the argument presented and person presenting it. Accept it if it is true or a better description. It's quite a buzz when that happens.
I don't think I believe anything is true. I just accept it probably is until proven otherwise.
Maybe factual things can be handled that way but what about moral things? While there is less murder now than ever before many people think things are worse. They blame guns. More people die in auto accidents than by guns but I don't hear to call to ban autos and trucks. From a factual stand point is murder bad?
I just heard on the news (fake or not) that professionals think spanking of any kind is bad. It leads to more trouble in adults. I remember what doctors were saying about smoking in the late 1940s and in the 50s. It is good for you they said, it relaxs you... etc . I don't believe doctors today any more than doctors in the 40s about smoking.
There’s a possibility that everything I think is true is actually false. Being confronted with information is different than being confronted with solid evidence, if they have solid evidence, then consider the possibility you are in the wrong. Look for information on the subject from different sources.
I rarely come across information that goes against what I believe is true. I try not to attach belief to things that I am uninformed of and rarely will get into a discussion on a topic of which I am ignorant. If I'm presented information and data that does oppose what I think is accurate, then I verify the data that does go against what I thought I knew, and then have no choice other than to assimilate it into my understanding.
I've become more careful with this over the years.
First things first, I try and keep things I believe away from the things I know are true. It's just better that way, particularly when dealing with this type of inquisitor. Be that the theist or the conspiracy theorist.
Speaking of which . . .
While I don't know the wholesale trick to deal with such things (does anyone?), a couple of tricks I've learned are:
1.) Know your boundaries
2.) Don't start by explaining your side, to which they will almost certainly have a built-in system of rebuttles for
The only appropriate response is that we integrate the new knowledge, and make changes to our working theory as appropriate. This is assuming it's irrefutable info. However... the level of proof which nears on irrefutable sets a mighty high bar. One could call that high bar a "bias"...or one could call it scientific. You can't prove or disprove something that is actually mumbo-jumbo. Unless it shows up and allows multiple sources to do some solid experimental work. I don't expect that to happen...But if the opportunity did present itself, and the experiments were all done, we'd have to change our outlook.
For years and years, I alwats believed that you only buttered on side of the bread when making a butty (sandwich), then my Mum told me that no, in fact both slices of bread are buttered, then you shove whatever you fancy in the middle. I listened to a more knowledgable person, I reviewed and critically analysed what I had formally 'known', I tried a new approach and by golly she was correct! Thats how we learn..
Define confronted by info? If you mean someone presents a book or a research paper? I would check sources (both in detail and validity), look at the pro and cons for the issue at hand, and try to weigh the proposal against common sense. if they are just presenting their opinion, then I leave in the category of opinion until I can confirm it.
For example: There are hundreds of media outlets reporting that Russia hacked the DNC and then released the contents via Wikileaks. There are a few people reporting that Russia was not involved at all, but that a DNC insider released the emails because that person was upset that the Clinton, Brazille, and Wasserman-Schutlz rigged the primary against Bernie. If only fringe outlets with partisan platforms are presenting one angle on this, and if every intelligence agency is presenting a different one, I think I'm going to have to go with the one with less fringe. In the end though, asserting either as FACT is outside my scope as I can't confirm either without relying solely on the work and opinion of someone else.