Knots of Like-Minded People Free from Curiosity
It simply feels good to find people who think like we do. We can give voice to strong feelings, we can find validation, and we can join in an amen chorus of affirmation. But unfortunately, we can also get stuck in a dead end – committed to ideas that don’t find acceptance in the real world. Because all too often, we cluster into knots of like-minded people, free from curiosity, promoting ideas that don’t hold up well in broad daylight.
Subtle Polarization
Of course, examples of extreme polarization are easy to find. The U.S. presidential election is rife with it. Minds are mostly closed to different ways of thinking, putting election outcomes in the hands of a very few “persuadable voters.”
But more subtle polarization seeps into places where it doesn’t belong. It gets in the way of progress on concerns about nutrition, physical activity, obesity, and health.
Passionate advocates for lifestyle medicine tell each other that these newfangled obesity medicines are stealing away an essential focus on diet and exercise. Fat acceptance advocates and obesity care advocates too often talk past each other and too seldom listen. Robust dialogue between nutrition scientists who work in industry and academia often seems impossible.
Conflicts and Suspicions
In Current Developments in Nutrition, David Mela suggests that stigmatization of collaborations with experts in the food industry is unhelpful:
“A singular and strict focus specifically on industry-related conflicts of interest may paradoxically exacerbate rather than mitigate imbalance and bias in the field.”
Perhaps curiosity about the insights of people whose views conflict with our own could do more for problem solving than seeking validation from like-minded people in closed circles. Especially if we want our ideas to thrive and bring change.
Click here for Mela’s article and here for perspective on the value of deep curiosity. For perspective on civil discourse between people with stark differences, click here.
Curious About the Letter a Girl Is Reading, painting by Joseph Wright / WikiArt
Subscribe by email to follow the accumulating evidence and observations that shape our view of health, obesity, and policy.
July 28, 2024
July 28, 2024 at 6:26 am, Joe Gitchell said:
As we have discussed, Ted, the tobacco and nicotine research zone shares many of the same patterns as nutrition and obesity, especially as regards polarization and silos.
And to make clear in which bubble I find myself, I’m a consultant for Juul Labs on tobacco harm minimization!
For a recent example, please see this commentary (Rose & Tan) in the house journal of the main professional society, and then responding letters. I hope the discussion continues as we all know that it is when the talking stops that we’re in a real troubling place.
https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/26/8/963/7664584
https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntae147/7691579
https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntae160/7704549
Joe
July 29, 2024 at 9:50 am, Mary-Jo said:
It’s been disheartening to see how polarization has caused so much bitterness, that, indeed, it has led to close minded stagnation on not just PROGRESS on contentious issues, but just getting anything done! Disagreements, dichotomous arguments used to be provocative, healthier, often leading to greater understanding, innovation, and improved effectiveness. The point you raise here is actually why I most often never minded when good researches would get funding from companies for investigations, especially in the fields of nutrition, exercise, obesity. What better use of profits, in my mind, than using them to do great studies?! So many really responsible and incredible scientists have been penalized for receiving corporate funding.
July 29, 2024 at 11:49 am, David Brown said:
Like-minded people in closed circles is essentially a groupthink scenario. Here are 6 of 8 symptoms of groupthink as described by Irving Janis.
1. Invulnerability
Members of the group share an illusion of invulnerability that creates excessive optimism and encourages taking abnormal risks.
2. Rationale
Victims of this behavior ignore and discount warnings and negative feedback that may cause the group to reconsider their previous assumptions.
3. Morality
Victims ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions and believe unquestionably in the morality of their in-group.
4. Stereotypes
Members of the group possess negative and/or stereotypical views of their “enemies”.
5. Pressure
Victims apply direct pressure to any individual who momentarily expresses concern or doubt about the group’s shared views. Members are not able to express their own individual arguments against the group.
6. Self-censorship
Victims avoid deviating from what the group consensus is and keep quiet. Doubts and concerns about the group are not expressed and victims of groupthink may undermine the importance or validity of their doubts.