Yesterday I asked my wise and worldly readers, who were happy to do so, to share stories of when they read something that changed their minds about something important.
It didn’t change my view that I have the best readers ever. Such thoughtful responses!
I promised discretion in revealing who said what, and I will keep that promise, so some of this will have to be a little vague.
Some readers write about reading or hearing perspectives from someone of a different race and/or gender that cast old views in a new light. In some cases it was heard by friends; in others he was reading something more official.
In a bit of fortuitous timing, I’ve seen a number of female economists on Twitter over the past couple of days talk (write? tweet?) about the sexual harassment and sexist snub they’ve endured from prominent men in their fields. A common thread in those stories is the fear of not being believed and/or an experience of unbelief. When a powerful group with blinders silences everyone else, the damage is not only to the people who are silenced. The accuracy of the field itself is compromised because people who would bring different perspectives to the table are pushed away.
All this seemed true to me. I’ve written before that the “women’s studies” courses (as they were then called) were some of the most useful classes I’ve ever taken. That’s because they examined things I thought I knew from different angles. The effect was like bringing a new light bulb into a familiar room: suddenly you see things in the corner that you didn’t notice before. This was helpful in getting a more accurate picture, which is great, but it was also helpful in learning some epistemological humility.
Another wrote about reading a review of To kill a mockingbirdd that presented him as an example of the white savior. She hadn’t thought of it that way before, but she saw the truth in it. My version of this was when the movie Mississippi burned left. I was in college at the time and got good reviews. Gene Hackman was good in it, but I remember having a vague feeling that making a civil rights movie centered around a couple of white guys didn’t feel right. I hadn’t heard the term “white savior” back then, but that’s what it was.
Some readers drew a distinction between “practical” and “ideological” issues. They variously suggested that practical issues served problem-solving dialogue and thus learning, but that people’s minds were largely closed to the latter.
As a political theorist by paper, this makes me squirm a little. What counts as “ideology” as opposed to “common sense” often reflects the power relations at the time. (The simplest version of this is “what I believe is common sense, and what you believe is ideology.”) Pragmatically, though, “pick your battles” is often good advice. When some extended family member starts taking political stances that I find appalling, I’m much more likely to change the subject or find something else to do than engage in combat. Their minds are made up, and they’ll likely say the same about mine.
Direct experience can teach. I heard from a reader whose husband had struggled for years to build a business and get out of debt; he opposed calls for student loan forgiveness on the grounds that no one forgave his debts. I’ve also heard from people who didn’t like the idea of forgiveness until they realized how high tuition has been in recent decades.
A college librarian wrote to mention that it had long been understood among college librarians that libraries do not carry textbooks. But as the #RealCollege movement grew and the basic needs of students became more apparent, their library softened. For a few years, it worked fine—until publishers got lucky and started playing games with access codes. But for several years, some students who otherwise might not have had access did. I wanted to applaud him.
A former department chair mentioned that the difficult experience in this role changed his view of leadership. I’ll just say it doesn’t stop at that level.
One particularly thoughtful reader shared the experience of working through bureaucratic hoops to get emergency aid and develop a yellow sense of government capability. I have the same reaction every time I see a policy with a star.
However, on the other hand, I got angry when someone mentioned the name The Myth of the Deficit, by Stephanie Kelton, as a mind-shifter. It had the same effect on me. Modern monetary theory explains a lot about the last 40 years or so, otherwise it is hard to explain. For example, if government deficits “crowd out” private investment, then why did the explosion of deficits under the Trump administration coincide with record low interest rates? This is the exact opposite of crowding out. MMT has an answer. If you have a politics nerd streak, I really can’t recommend the book enough.
The common denominator, to the extent that it existed, was that when minds were changed, it was usually as a result of an entirely new perspective. It didn’t come from a frontal attack on a debate; the effect was more of a “I never thought of that.” In those cases, people’s shields were down and the new information came less as a threat than as a missing piece of the puzzle.
I needed that.
Let’s keep those missing pieces coming. Thank you, wise and worldly readers!
