This article has a pretty interesting perspective, and I like the idea of humility as a precursor to being open-minded and engaging in critical thought. The art of debate requires at least someone involved being open to changing their mind.
But I see a couple problems with this article:
1) Psychology and cognitive science, as they currently stand, are mostly guess-work and observations. We don't know enough to make concrete diagnosis or prescribe solutions in such a steadfast manner, unless we're happy with possibly inflicting more damage (which we often do). Intellectualizing distrust by claiming it's because of a lack of humility and the mechanisms of ontological security seems a bit much. Why not approach combatting disinformation by becoming trustworthy?
2) The author conflates conflicting narratives with disinformation. How do they know what's true? Did they figure it out themselves or did they listen to a specific narrative? Why should anyone trust their opinion?
But I see a couple problems with this article:
1) Psychology and cognitive science, as they currently stand, are mostly guess-work and observations. We don't know enough to make concrete diagnosis or prescribe solutions in such a steadfast manner, unless we're happy with possibly inflicting more damage (which we often do). Intellectualizing distrust by claiming it's because of a lack of humility and the mechanisms of ontological security seems a bit much. Why not approach combatting disinformation by becoming trustworthy?
2) The author conflates conflicting narratives with disinformation. How do they know what's true? Did they figure it out themselves or did they listen to a specific narrative? Why should anyone trust their opinion?