There are plenty of loud voices in audio. Is it incumbent on us to answer them?
What is it in our nature that when we're faced with a proposition we don't agree with we revert to crossing our arms and assuming a defensive posture? Is it a form of protection and, if so, protection from what? The shattering of our ego?
I am constantly intrigued by this series of questions and so please forgive me as I once again examine their origins and try and get to the bottom of their meaning.
It seems to me that when we demand proof of an uncomfortable viewpoint we're not really looking for the facts that will sway us. In fact, I don't think we want to be swayed at all.
What I have found is that long-held viewpoints are challenged in the hopes of discovering cracks in the argument—cracks we can use to demonstrate we're right and the others are wrong. It's not the truth we're after, but rather, supporting evidence for our world views.
One of the ways we can check our theory is to measure a person's investment in their beliefs. The more invested, the louder the voice. If you spent your life preaching this or that, evidence to the contrary isn't likely to easily change your mind. And the opposite is true.
Imagine walking up to a total stranger in an airport and suggesting the quality of audio cables makes a difference we can hear. I suspect you'd get a polite shrug of the shoulders and not much of a fight—an interesting piece of information without any relevance to the listener.
Consider your level of investment in long-held beliefs as a metric for determining the likelihood of being open to new ideas and viewpoints.
It might just help a different approach to creep in.
