No Room for Growth

Todd Hayen

Even if I am absolutely certain of something, I am still open to discussion with an opposing view. If nothing else, this is how I strengthen my argument. I want to know exactly what the contrary position is so I can see if there are any weaknesses in my own hypothesis.

There is always room for growth.

I do not typically go into these discussions with any intention to change someone’s mind, and usually, I do not expect the opposition to change mine, although I am open to that possibility.

With things I am not 100% aligned with, I definitely want to hear the other side, for obvious reasons. If I am not certain, the more information I get, the better I am set up to make decisions about the strength of my “side.” This just seems like common sense to me, and I am continually flabbergasted why everyone does not feel the same way. Well, a lot of people do. They are the shrews. I have not met a shrew yet that has a completely closed mind Well, I have met shrews who are a bit more close-minded about a few things, but never everything. I have met many sheeple-types who are completely closed up—to the point of hilarity.

Why is that?

Well, they would say that they are so certain about their position that anything opposing it is just nonsensical insanity. Take something like the germ vs the terrain theory. Nope, not a word allowed in. No room for anything that opposed Pasteur’s germ obsession. Or something even more controversial like the moon landing or the flat earth theory. Forget it. Anything that opposes the mainstream narrative on both of those issues is considered to be so nonsensical a person would be an utter fool to even listen to these opposing ideas.

I do have to admit that some things do indeed come up that I have a hard time giving much credence to, but I will still listen.

In fact, I become even more curious to hear the argument the weirder it might be. Usually, if the people on the “odd” side are intelligent and well-educated, I am doubly curious. But I’ll listen to anyone, even someone who has been diagnosed psychotic. I find people’s views of nature, science, and the world around them to be fascinating, no matter how “off” their ideas may seem.

But these are extreme examples. What about simpler ones, like whether a vaccine developed in 8 months could possibly be safe and effective? Even if leading doctors and scientists say otherwise. Isn’t that something that should stimulate the curiosity of regular people? Don’t people want to hear what others think, particularly people who “should know something”?

I’ve commented on this a million times, haven’t I? But it still perplexes me big time. People used to be curious about everything and equally skeptical about everything. Now everyone is a know-it-all.

That’s the problem, isn’t it? Everyone now thinks they are an expert. Or, more accurately, they think they have a corner on who out there is the expert. But they typically do not present it that way; they typically do not say, “Listen to so and so, he/she knows what he/she is talking about.” That would even be better than what they now do because then at least you could challenge their expert with your expert. No, they typically own it themselves. Even though nearly every single bit of information we claim to have has been received from somewhere other than our own experience, most people (at least the ones I am currently complaining about) claim it for themselves. “This is wrong (or right)” they exclaim, “I just know it, I don’t claim to be an expert, but it doesn’t take an expert to know what is right.”

How arrogant is that?

Of course, there is some truth to sticking to what you intuitively believe is correct. We shrews do that too. But when what you believe is something that a fact can alter, such as a “safe and effective” vaccine, intuition doesn’t cut it. If a plunging axe aimed at your skull can split your head open, it doesn’t much matter if your “intuition” tells you it won’t kill you.

I am not knocking intuition, it is very useful, and very reliable, in situations where facts are not clear (which is most situations). I am sure many of us can say (me definitely) that when the whole Covid insanity hit, we intuitively knew something was amiss. Intuition is not always just a feeling “out of the blue.” More often than not, it is based on a myriad of learned experiences, most now housed in the unconscious. Some of it, more than likely, is in the collective unconscious (information stored since the beginning of human existence.)

Coming out of the weeds a bit with this article and back to the basics about closed minds, it seems no one (or no sheeps) are willing to expand their knowledge base. That is a sad situation to be in. Needless to say, if we, as the human race, give up “opportunities for intellectual growth,” then we will eventually stagnate and perish. And before that imminent demise, we will constantly be at each other’s throats (like we are now.)

The game today is a game of ad hominem. Attack the messenger, regardless of any credence the message may have. Idiots, morons, science deniers, conspiracy theorists—all contemptible descriptions meant to diminish the person with the conflicting message in order to render them entirely useless. Usually, there are very few criteria present to do this—other than the “contrary to the narrative” message. These people don’t have to be uneducated, mentally deficient, hillbillies. They just must be carrying a conflicting viewpoint—a viewpoint that conflicts with the prevailing mainstream narrative.

So, what makes a narrative “prevailing and mainstream?” That might not be so easy to answer. The obvious reason is “who has the most authority,”—and it seems authority is measured today by who is highest up in the current government system. Or who the media favours. The highest in the government system does not always cut it (look at the current President-Elect). About half of the US population sees him as the devil incarnate. I would have to conclude that the absolute power to dictate the narrative that would be considered mainstream and prevalent would be the media. And of course, the media is controlled (owned) by the “elite”—or the “agenda.”

Who are they? Don’t get me started.

Todd Hayen PhD is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here