YOYO English Club

9/12(Tue)Why you think you're right, even if you're wrong (Host: Wenhan)

Dear All,

It has been centuries passed since my last hosting in YoYo. It's my pleasure to be the host again for the sessions on 09/12, Tuesday, and I would have to ask you to bear with my rusty English then, btw.

Recently I have been reading a book "Think like a monk", and it mentions a topic "ego" which could be applied on a person or an organization and eventually it could change the landscape of the fact to a person or an organization. This TED talk came out there as the reference to further explain the psychological mechanism to form that prejudice

Please kindly spare 15 minutes to watch this video prior to this meeting, thank you! And I hope to see you, my friends, as many as possible, then.

QUESTIONS

SESSION I

1. Please kindly share with your table members. Under what kind of circumstances, would you possibly exhibit Solider Mindset to defend what you believe? Likewise, for what conditions, would you likely present Scout Mindset to push things moving forward?

2. Similar to above, what are some specific examples of how you have seen the Soldier Mindset and the Scout Mindset play out in the world around you?

3. What are some examples of times when you've been open to new information and perspectives that challenged your existing beliefs? What was the outcome?

SESSION II

4. What are some challenges you've faced in having conversations with people who have different beliefs than you? How have you overcome these challenges?

5 . What are some common cognitive biases that can lead us to believe we're right even when we're wrong? Personally, for ourselves, were you ever aware that we may possess some cognitive biases inside ourselves (which could be differed from a person to person or culture to culture)? Could you identify your cognitive biases, if any?

6. If you are a manager or an owner of a company, how would you facilitate to develop intellectual humility and create a culture that values open-mindedness and critical thinking?

---

Agenda:
6:45 ~ 7:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
7:00 ~ 7:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
7:10 ~ 7:45pm Discussion Session (35 mins)
7:45 ~ 8:00pm Summarization (15 mins)
8:00 ~ 8:05pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 5 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
8:05 ~ 8:40pm Discussion Session (35 mins)
8:40 ~ 8:55pm Summarization (15 mins)
8:55 ~ 9:00pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements

---

Meeting Date: As shown on the Subject Line
Meeting Time: 7:00pm – 9:00pm
Meeting Venue: 丹堤咖啡 Dante Coffee (Minimum Order $85)
Address: 台北市濟南路三段25號[MAP]-捷運忠孝新生站3號出口步行3分鐘

Important Notes:
1. We suggest that participants read the articles and think about the questions in advance.
2. Newcomers should prepare a two-to-three-minute self-introduction in English to deliver when called upon by the host before the start of the discussion.
3. We welcome newcomers and other guests to attend the meetings and join the discussion freely for three times. After that, we hope you will consider becoming a YoYo English Club member. We charge a NT$1000 lifetime membership fee, or NT$500 for students.

Even if you're smart enough to know "not to wear the shoe unless it fits," glancing at that meeting topic can still make you wonder, "Is this about me?"
We all have been down that road, wrongly insisting we were right at some point, so it's hard not to take it to heart.

The story mentioned in the video, the Dreyfus Affair, strikes a familiar chord. Wasn't the fate of Oppenheimer cut from the same cloth?

Hi Iris,

Thanks for your insightful response. Indeed, history repeats itself. Oppenheimer's instance involving McCathyism is really a replication to Dreyfus'. Ironically, it tells a truth that the advancement of technologies, 20th century in Oppenheimer's case, didn't really help people spear to better clarity in mist, but was turned as a weapon to shape the public's opinion.

It reminds me an extension to this topic, with the flooding information we are in touch with from all forms of media, does it help us explore different options with Scout Mindset? or it actually facilitates to keep us stay in our fortress with Solider Mindset more than before?

Does the massive amount of information help us reach a more objective understanding of truth, or does it drown us in a sea of information with an even stronger "soldier mindset"?
That’s a great question, Wenhan!

First, in Oppenheimer’s case, I would say the issue primarily revolved around the conflicts of “core value and identity.” His opponents placed the so-called "national security" as their top priority. In this zero-sum game, anyone or anything obstructing this agenda was labeled as treasonous and targeted for removal. They tried every means to silence him; when that failed, they resorted to destroying his reputation, ensuring he would be forever deemed untrustworthy.

In this particular instance, "national security" stands as a core value. While Oppenheimer certainly subscribed to this concept as well, he appeared to have broader objectives in mind—such as sharing nuclear expertise in a spirit of global collaboration and utilizing it for energy generation, rather than fueling a competitive arms race.

Unfortunately, neither side (Oppenheimer and his opponents) could find faults with their own objectives. These are beliefs. Beliefs often enjoy the status of unquestioned truths in our minds.

Consequently, when these beliefs come under scrutiny, people are inclined to slip into a "soldier mindset," resolutely defending their positions.

When it comes to beliefs, core values, and issues tied to identity, I am somewhat pessimistic about the hope that the Scout Mindset can prevail.

Hi Iris,

Your question somewhat addresses the fundament of my question 6th, in the perspective of organizational level. The similar example was also raised in the book "Think like a monk" but in a smaller scale, a corporate. The author used the case Blockbuster v.s. Netflix to further underline the "ego", which an organization believes to be the very recipe of their past success, could imprison them in their own fortress to annihilation.