The Certainty Trap
Tablet | ILANA REDSTONE
Redstone describes the problem with “the Certainty Trap—a resolute unwillingness to recognize the possibility that we might not be right in our beliefs and claims…The Certainty Trap tells us that there are two possibilities for an opinion we disagree with: ignorance and hateful motives.” She then prescribes a solution that can help us resolve our broken conversations— “recognizing the profound limits of our own beliefs” in order to move forward with trust and openness.
She explains that “Certainty often leads to a tendency to be dismissive or disdainful of ideas, positions, or even questions that one doesn’t agree with—particularly when those ideas, positions, or questions touch beliefs we hold dear. The most difficult problems set in when we hold them so closely that we cease to realize they’re personal beliefs at all.”
When talking about two solutions—”combating dis- and mis-information and promoting civil discourse,” she says they “have value, but neither goes deep enough to transform our conversations.”
Instead, she says, “a third possibility emerges that can reshape how we engage: One might have principled reasons for the position they hold.”
Recognizing that someone has reasons for their position has limitations as well, however—”sometimes, when all we know is the person’s position, we still won’t be able to tell…[what] drives them.” She then goes on to discuss three barriers that if recognized and understood, can have “significant implications.”
“Recognizing the phenomena [of]…the Certainty Trap, the Settled Question Fallacy, the Fallacy of Known Intent, and the Fallacy of Equal Knowledge—can have significant implications… Breaking out of this trap provides a path forward based on curiosity and a more precise reflection of what we know about one another. It’s a path that can nurture openness and build trust.”
