Beyond Feelings

CHAPTER 12 Errors of Reaction
Automatic Rejection
137
As critical thinkers we need a reasonable basis for accepting or rejecting
any argument or claim, including challenges to our ideas. The only way
to establish that basis is to evaluate the challenge and make an honest
determination of its worth. Liking or disliking it, feeling pleased or displeased
with it, is not enough. To reject criticism without giving it a fair
hearing is to commit the error of automatic rejection.
Some years ago I was discussing a thought-provoking article on the
effects of marijuana with a college instructor friend. The article, which
appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, reported the
results of a clinical study of marijuana use. 2 The authors concluded that
“contrary to what is frequently reported, we have found the effect of marijuana
to be not merely that of a mild intoxicant which causes a slight
exaggeration of usual adolescent behavior, but a specific and separate
clinical syndrome.” The principal effects they noted were “disturbed
awareness of the self, apathy, confusion and poor reality testing.” They
presented the details of thirteen actual cases to demonstrate these effects.
My friend confided that his own experiences with marijuana while in
college showed all these signs and that the changes in his behavior
closely paralleled those described in the thirteen cases. That is, he had
become somewhat slovenly, irritable, and forgetful; had experienced difficulty
concentrating on his studies and paying attention in class; and had
suffered frequent headaches. Yet at that time, he explained, he not only
dismissed the then-available medical research that challenged his view
that pot smoking was harmless—he also denied the testimony of his personal
experience with the drug! His automatic rejection of whatever challenged
his view was so effective, he noted, that five years passed before
he was able to consider the evidence fairly.
A college professor colleague of mine shared a similar experience of
automatic rejection of unpleasant ideas. While reading a book that discussed
effective teaching, she explained, she encountered a chapter that
examined a particular classroom practice and showed how it was not
only ineffective but actually harmful to learning. As soon as the approach
was identified, she recognized it as one of her own favorite approaches. As
she read further into the author’s criticism of it (she recounted to me
later), she began to feel defensive and even angry. “No,” she mumbled to
herself, “the author is wrong. The approach is a good one. He just doesn’t
understand.” The professor had nothing rational to base these reactions
on—simply the impulse to save face. No one else was around. She was
alone with the author’s words. Yet defending the approach, and saving
herself the embarrassment of admitting she didn’t know as much as she
thought she did, became more important than knowing the truth.