The Vegetarian Effect

I have another blog that I started awhile ago called Start Change Inside. I don't know why it never took off in my heart, but I still adore it.

One of the posts I put up was called "The Vegetarian Effect" and was written by Jim. I enjoy it and it seems to explain how the majority of people react to new information, especially when they think it is geared at their personal life.

Here it is for your viewing pleasure darling:

People hate having their comfort zone pushed. So much so that they will take an assumptive leap to enter into a debate on a subject they assume they were challenged on.

For instance: There are two people at dinner. One person casually mentions they are vegetarian. The other immediately jumps into a defensive dialogue about why they eat meat. The vegetarian was in no way challenging the other person.

However merely knowing the person had an alternative standpoint on diet put them in a defensive mode. This is not a unique scenario. You can test this effect yourself. Next time you are in a group of people say that you, for example, believe cell phones cause cancer or brain tumors. It is very likely one person will challenge you on that issue or start talking about how they limit their own cell phone use.

There are four ways that people can respond to information. Passively perceive it (listen but make no comment), actively engage it (inquire objectively for more information), challenge it or bandwagon it (immediately say that they do exactly what you are talking about). I have noticed that in these situations where personal health related issues are brought up, the vast majority of the time people choose the third way of handling information- to dispute.

I am not saying I am the be all end all of health nor am I privy to special information. I am merely wondering why, on issues of personal health, people do not automatically opt to actively engage information. It seems to me that on an issue where most people outsource common sense and intuition to the minds of doctors, people ought to be getting as much information as possible from as many sources as possible- however much what you are hearing may conflict with what you believe and your current habits.

So if you are in a situation and someone says licking a piece of rubber daily improves your immune system rather than saying, "That is stupid, you are wrong," why not say, "that's interesting can you tell me more about how you came to this conclusion."

Then listen as objectively as possible and try to conclude the merit of the information of its own accord, rather than based on how the information conflicts with what you already know, have heard, or just think is true.

Does it resonates with you?

You know more than you think. Does what you hear feel like it is wrong or different? Objecting because it feels wrong to you is admirable, objecting because it feels different is embracing stagnation.

Embrace this method and you will find yourself asking more, better questions and coming to stronger, more universal truths.