“Trust me — this is how it works”. Part 3 : The danger of belief systems. [Frameworks]
This is Part 3 of a 3-part series.
Read up on why belief systems emerge in Part 1
Read up on a story that illustrates dangers of useful beliefs in Part 2
Means to an end vs End in itself
An observable human tendency is that the more time we spend with certain concepts & frameworks (e.g., as we age), the more closely those frameworks become attached to our sense of self-worth.
[Slight aside: I urge you to read up on the sense of self-worth if you haven’t done so, as I believe it to be a great framework to explain feeling of joy and sadness in humans.]
Because frameworks with sustained exposure get so enmeshed with our self-identity — we often forget why frameworks were important to begin with.
Remember, frameworks originated from curiosity (“trying to find the most accurate approximation of reality so surviving & thriving is easier”).
But over time, belief systems become an end-goal in themselves. We forget that they should be in service of our desires to survive & thrive.
Rather they get so enmeshed with our sense of self that they become the reason for us to live.
Essentially curiosity is slowly replaced by a desire to protect one’s worldview.
Protecting one’s worldview isn’t necessarily a bad thing; in fact it is likely a good adaptation for survival. When one is just starting out, trying to make sense of the world (i.e., when one’s young), they need a compass to navigate the world & guide their decision-making. The most pressing need of the hour is to develop a framework that can help you maximize resources in a world where resources are scarce & competition is high.
However, after spending time with a framework that seems “good enough”, one must make sure that it doesn’t change too often. Changing a framework too often could lead to bad changes too.
But it isn’t always that straight-forward.
Not updating your belief systems makes sense in a world that is slow to change. However, it can become counter-productive in a world where change is always accelerating.
And just like Mr. Smith, disaster could follow when we fail to realize that the frameworks we use aren’t us, but merely tools to be discarded (if necessary).
Evolutionary Constraints
Unfortunately, humans have been hardwired & designed in a world where change was slow to occur. This makes us all the more susceptible to playing out Mr. Smith’s predicament time after time.
Think about someone who will go to great lengths to preserve their frameworks — often putting themselves in situations that are as disastrous as adopting a worse-off framework.
It is likely that you have done so yourself as well. We all have the same human blueprint after all — and any one of us can easily become Mr. Smith.
At a societal level, the problem gets amplified when you have multitudes of Mr. Smiths — all unable to reflect upon the validity of their belief systems in the face of changing conditions.
Unsurprisingly, a world where many people are unable to examine their existing beliefs has several pitfalls.
Firstly, I believe it to be one of the root causes of a lack of empathy that I see around us. And this lack of empathy leads to real world consequences such as apathy towards less fortunate, exploitation and inequality.
Secondly, I believe that it slows down progress for our species as a whole. It is said “science progresses one funeral at a time”. This phrase holds true of most progress, not just science. For example, our views towards others that are different than us (race, sex, class) seems to have markedly improved & continues to do so. This is likely due to the fact that people with unchangeable beliefs (another word for framework) die and are replaced by more malleable individuals. How sad is it that we must wait for people to die to change for the better?
Finally, true innovation & break-throughs are less likely to occur once we get wedded to frameworks vs trying to remain curious. If the old ways aren’t working, maybe it is time to ask what is more important: solving the problem or protecting the old ways.
The “so what…”
This article itself is bit meta — i.e., a framework on frameworks. The purpose of this article is not some sort of intellectual grandstanding, but rather developing a common vocabulary that will be helpful in further explorations of human behaviour (a topic that features heavily in my writings).
Furthermore, I wanted to specifically address this topic because it is always helpful to remember that everything you read (including this article) and believe are simply frameworks that are best-effort approximations of certain aspects of reality.
We must be humble (as proposers of our frameworks) and discerning (as consumers of others’ frameworks) enough to understand that the universe may be more complex than any framework we come up with.
The corollary being that there will always be frameworks that may approximate reality better. In fact, it is likely that there DOES exist a framework out there that is a better representation of reality than whatever it is that you currently believe in.
I hope this article persuades at least some people to view frameworks from a utilitarian viewpoint and to be willing and able to discard ones that have outlived their usefulness.
To adopt a new framework is often portrayed as a mark of weakness (“flip-flopping/fickle-minded”), but could easily be viewed as a mark of wisdom.
If nothing else, I hope that viewing frameworks in such a light will help some of us become more humble, more discerning and capable of empathy. That’s a world worth hoping for.
