User Tools

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
knowledge:coherentism [29.06.26, 13:35:29] – [Freudian Psychoanalysis] adminknowledge:coherentism [29.06.26, 14:01:59] (current) – [Coherentism in Everyday Life] admin
Line 130: Line 130:
 ===== Practical Implications ===== ===== Practical Implications =====
 ==== Coherentism in Everyday Life ==== ==== Coherentism in Everyday Life ====
-=== Avoidance Strategies ===+ 
 +Ideologically motivated aberrations and pseudosciences are of course perfect examples for this article, since the fundamental flaw in reasoning is most easily recognizable in these cases. However, this should not be taken to mean that an overly dogmatic approach to coherence is a problem only in these fields—and even less so that it is a clear distinguishing feature of pseudosciences.  
 + 
 +In fact, we all commit such fallacies – and we do so on a daily basis. Here are just a few simple everyday examples: 
 + 
 +An important example of this is when people believe news stories that may come from a dubious source but fit well with their own worldview (<span maniculus "See:">[[psychology:cognitive_biases:confirmation_bias|Confirmation bias]]</span>). Or when they share such news stories on social media without verifying them because they align with the prevailing narrative within a group (<span maniculus "See:">[[psychology:glossary:groupthink|Groupthink]]</span>). All too often, this contributes to the spread of “[[wp>Fake news|fake news]]” or, at the very least, reinforces an incomplete and unbalanced worldview (<span maniculus "See:">[[psychology:glossary:echo-chamber|Echo chamber effect]]</span>).  
 + 
 +Another area where a similar fallacy occurs, however, is the so-called “[[wp>Sunk_cost#Fallacy_effect|Sunk-cost fallacy]]” (also known as “[[wp>Escalation of commitment|Escalation of commitment]]”). This involves continuing to pour more and more money into a project or investment simply because that is consistent with the original investment decision, without critically assessing whether it still makes sense at all.  
 + 
 +An important aspect of our thinking is the tendency to interpret our lives (and those of others) as a story or narrative – that is, as a sequence of causes and effects. However, what helps to structure a narrative can, when applied to real life, lead to important aspects being overlooked or ignored because they do not fit into the given narrative structure. The personal narrative thus becomes a //system of coherence// in its own right, determining which experiences are considered significant (<span maniculus "See also:">[[:psychology:cognitive_biases:narrative|Narrative fallacy]]</span>). 
 + 
 +These and similar examples show how quickly an uncritical approach to coherence can lead to consequential errors This raises the question of how this fallacy can be avoided.  
 + 
 +==== Avoidance Strategies ==== 
 + 
 +The parallels to the [[psychology:cognitive_biases:confirmation_bias|Confirmation bias]] and [[psychology:glossary:groupthink|Groupthink]] is also evident in the fact that the possible strategies for avoiding these cognitive biases are generally the same: 
 + 
 +First, one should be //aware of// the framework within which a statement or piece of knowledge is being considered. Only then is it possible to recognize the limits of that framework – and thus also to recognize when those limits are being overstepped. 
 + 
 +Likewise, we should acknowledge that our own worldview may not always be the only way to interpret events. To avoid becoming trapped in one's own [[glossary:narrative|narratives]], it is helpful to actively seek out other opinions, perspectives, and ways of interpreting situations, and to continually ask ourselves how others might interpret the same situation. 
 + 
 +This is especially important when it comes to //group beliefs.// It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about an informal circle of friends or an academic institution. The views of other groups, outsiders, or dissenters aren’t always correct, but they usually help broaden our own worldview. 
 + 
 +In many cases, it can even be helpful for someone to actively take on the role of "devil’s advocate" (<span maniculus "See:"><i :la>[[glossary:advocatus_diaboli|advocatus diaboli]]</i> </span>) – that is, to deliberately ask critical questions about supposedly indisputable truths – with the goal of scrutinizing one’s own position and refining one’s line of reasoning. 
 + 
 +Another helpful trick is to approach the problem from the other side and ask yourself: “What facts or arguments could cause me/us to change opinion?” (<span maniculus "See:">[[glossary:falsification|Falsification]]</span>). 
 + 
 +And finally, as a general rule: The more important a question is, the more one should allow oneself to think it through rationally and without time pressure in order to arrive at the best possible result. 
 + 
 +One of the goals of this website is also to provide the necessary tools for this. 
 ===== See also ===== ===== See also =====
  

This website uses cookies. By using the website, you agree with storing cookies on your computer. Also, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy. If you do not agree, please leave the website.

More information