“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation”

Really examine this statement – it has profound implications for us. It determines absolutely how we live: do we live in truth or do we block out information we don’t like to create a self-serving paradigm of the world?

Think of a child putting his hands over his ears, scrunching his eyes shut, repeating over and over, “I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you.”  Blocking out information that might change your opinion of something is essentially child-like.  You think one thing. You are comfortable thinking it. Something comes up that disturbs your world view. You don’t like how that feels – that’s called cognitive dissonance. Some people feel pretty comfortable with cognitive dissonance. They get that it’s part of life and sometimes you have to re-examine your world view. Some people are utterly and totally uncomfortable with these feelings. They shut down. They block out the “extraneous” information.

One characteristic that is pretty common among people who have contempt prior to investigation is a sort of seething anger. They feel hostility toward anyone different from them – especially people who think differently than them – because it’s like a thorn in their side continually nagging at them. They REALLY need to be left alone so they can continue to believe what they want to believe regardless of the new facts brought to their attention.

Most of us have gone through phases where we were immediately judgmental – then later thought, wow, I was totally wrong about that.   Some of us just continue to judge.

The ability to recognize we are wrong about something is profoundly adult. It is a developmental stage that, unfortunately, not everyone gets to.  People who are racist are a good example.  It doesn’t matter how much they see to the contrary – their beliefs about a race are their beliefs. They only need a few “confirmations” to prove their point, and they consider those who do not confirm it the exceptions rather than the rule, despite how obviously jaundiced this view is and how obviously incorrect it is.

This is sort of like the guy who encounters a bad woman driver and says, “See, women are bad drivers.”  Thousands of women share the road with him that he never has a problem with. He doesn’t notice them  just the one or two who annoy him. Even worse, he encounters ten bad male drivers and NEVER says, “See, men are bad drivers.”

In recovery this concept is mainly used to help people overcome a resistance to spiritual principles. The guidance is not: You MUST believe this. It is: You need to be open to these concepts. Not saying you’ll ever get it, but just listen, be open, don’t shut down, don’t show hostility or contempt for the possibilities.

One of the ways we become richer and more compassionate and empathetic is by stopping ourselves from forming an absolute position to the point where we cannot hear new information. I’m not talking about being willing to consider baloney – but certainly willing to take in new data so to speak, assess it logically and with an open mind, and examine your motives if you decide to reject the new information.