So as a smart person, either you are some sort of “schizophrenic” or you ignore some facts and possible interpretations and stick firmly to one side of the coin. Both is difficult
The first time I came across the notion that there might be a downside to keeping everything 'hypothetical' was in reading William James (I think it was in his Pragmatism lectures). He points out the opposition between 'thought' and 'action'. There is a tradeoff in continuing to think about certain subjects in that your ability to act on things related to the subject is impaired. If there is nothing left to question in relation to some domain in which you'd like to act, then the actions you take will carry force and generally be more effective.
A more concrete example: let's say you're a tennis player and working on improving yourself. You can keep on questioning whether a certain technique for swinging is the best one or not, and if you keep questioning for a longer time, you have a better chance of finding the best technique. But, you're ability to execute that technique is another thing entirely, and if you're still questioning it while playing a game, you will perform worse than if you acted with conviction.
In life, perhaps unfortunately, we don't get the clear distinction between when it's a 'game' vs. 'practice', and force of habit is a thing, so how to handle this for optimal results is not such an easy problem.
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Why? To understand what is actually going on one doesn't have to be in the "dissonant" state. What's needed is just the understanding that simplifications we use to "model" the surroundings are just that, and be aware of the cases when our models are too wrong to even be the right simplification in the given context.
In short, in some contexts, a "spherical cow" is approximate enough, in some others, it isn't. And both the "model" and what is "enough" can be checked for validity of the assumption.
The same should be done for the sources of your information: are they biased by design? Do they have an agenda? Can you directly confirm that the information they present is valid? Sometimes even a lot of "information" hides some basic facts that, when considered, would invalidate the whole premise of the specific "presentation."
Politically, you don't have to believe in everything the "messenger" stands for to check and accept that some specific information is true. An example, one thinker noted:
- The effective political definition in the USA media of the "peace process" is simply "whatever option the USA wants in the moment." Therefore, it's by definition impossible that the USA is "against the peace process" and such news you will never read, even if the USA actively supports the war for years.
This claim can be verified. And if true, it gives you a different perspective of the news you read. Orwellian, in 1984 sense? Sure. People always think that such works of fiction are "simply a fiction." In fact, they are very much based on the real-life experiences of the author in his world in the time he lived. The ways humans interact doesn't change fast, the same patterns can be traced through the centuries.
Another example: I've found out that Tom Lehrer sung "The Wild West Is Where I Want to Be" in 1953. (Knowing the lyrics is needed to be able to follow). Not knowing enough, I didn't understand that he was able to make such a song then. But checking his biography (on the internet) it seems that he as a mathematician before he wrote the song worked for the NSA (or whatever the equivalent was called then) in the places where actual atomic bomb tests were prepared. He personally seems to confirm that in some of his recorded appearances cheerfully saying something like "I was in the West working as the spy." Understand that gives you a new view to his lyrics.
The third example, real life actually has enough "movie like" stories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
And a decision to stick to one side is, in my opinion, a little lazy. No insult meant, it’s just that you seem unwilling to do the work and exert the extra mental effort, which is the dictionary definition. It seems like you have deemed dealing with complexity impossible so as to give yourself an excuse to remain biased. It’s not so difficult to enjoy being skeptical of both sides, and to prevent yourself from blindly accepting the narrative of one coin. And I feel like the world would be a great deal better if we all stopped preferring one side of the coin and appreciating both.
Often the expected value of committing to one side, even if it is not the optimal choice, exceeds the probable value of the optimal choice delayed for additional evaluation.
But there is a human tendency to increasingly feel that one's choice is more obviously correct than it really was, leading to discounting contrary evidence and even demonizing those who make the opposite choice.