Conflicts of interest continually prevail in the world we live in, yet most of the time, it goes unnoticed or unacknowledged. In Dan Ariely's TEDTalk, "Beware conflicts of interest", Ariely explains his feelings of guilt after turning down an opportunity to receive treatment for his burned face. While recovering in the hospital, Ariely was approached by the chairman of the burn department, who suggested for Ariely to receive treatment in which he would get little black dots tattooed on the right side of his face (where he was burned), in order to mimic the appearance of shaved facial hair and to restore symmetry to his face overall. After Ariely had given the opportunity some thought, he decided that he was not going to receive the treatment after all.
Ariely then explains how he experienced an extensive guilt trip after the chairman questioned him, asking, "Dan, what's wrong with you? Do you enjoy looking non-symmetric? Do you have some kind of perverted pleasure from this?" As a result, Ariely implies that the chairman's responses made him feel abnormal and peculiar for not receiving the treatment, which contributed to his guilt trip. But as he questioned why this guilt trip was so extensive, it turns out that two patients had done this procedure already, and the chairman desperately needed a third patient for a paper he was writing.
Following that anecdote, Ariely gives another perspective on the same kind of story, in which he was running an experiment in his lab. Ariely encounters a problem where a person in one of the test groups that he was predicting to perform highly ended up giving a low performance, skewing the entire average of the group. Initially, Ariely wanted to throw this person out of the study altogether in order to get the results he desired, yet because that particular person was drunk during the first test, Ariely decided not to throw him out and rerun the experiments instead, making sure the test subject was sober this time.
So, how does this apply to arguments? Well, in both of theses anecdotes, we realize that our incentives can sometimes take control of our decisions, making us alter certain details and evidence in order for them to work in our favor. And this can be harmful when we try to prove a specific point while being ignorant to the details that might contradict our position. Consequently, it is important for us to approach an argument with good intentions and to carry out that process in a way that prevents us not only from falling under the influence of our incentives, but also from corrupting the authenticity of the topic we are debating.
-Rosecka M.
This comment from Abigail Jue:
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you because we too often see things subjectively. We have our own thoughts and opinions that we close ourselves off from the possibility of other perspectives. As a society we see too many things through our own biases causing us to make a personal judgment and assumptions about things that concern more than just us. We look at things too selfishly sometimes to where we don’t even try to understand the other person we just focus on defending our own beliefs. This is something we need to change because understanding is an essential thing we all have yet we choose, both consciously and subconsciously, to not use to our advantage.