I’m about to read that article, but for the quote, I totally agree with it, and would add that it doesn’t just depend on the depth of the particular belief, but the depth of the other beliefs that are in the same “belief web”… hope you understand what I mean by that phrase.

btw Jason, I just stumbled upon what I was trying to say over on John Wilkins’ blog, specifically:

But the likelihood of a belief being rejected is in inverse proportion to the depth and weight of the belief. A weighty belief that is deeply embedded in the belief web of an individual is the last to go under challenge.

I suppose you’re right, and I didn’t make my point clear when differentiating classes of beliefs based on theory versus fact. I see what you mean, it’s possible to consider something to be a fact, and base a belief on it, even if that fact is caused by flawed perception or understanding. As far as you see, it’s still a fact.

What I was trying to say is that some beliefs may change faster than others because, at least as far as we perceive, they’re based on concrete evidence, and strong enough evidence to counter the belief is likely to change it. On the other hand beliefs which are based on abstract concepts which have little or no concrete foundations, if firmly entrenched, are not easy to change, especially not quickly, because there’s no clear foundational belief to alter. If you do locate a core belief, and manage to change it quickly, it may seem as if an instantaneous change has happened, but as far as I see it, as long as all the associated beliefs are still lingering, and influencing your thoughts and behaviour (as they often do), then the change is not complete until it cascades through all those other associated beliefs. I.e., a belief doesn’t exist in isolation, and any single belief is really an amalgamation. Effectively changing a belief requires changing the entire group, though changing a core member of that group may feel like an epiphany.

And in case it sounds like I’m saying epiphanies are therefore bad, or false, that’s not what I mean. They can be hugely motivational, and I strongly suspect that the friend who inspired this entry (and others like her) was so motivated by the epiphany that the core change effortlessly, but gradually, cascaded through the associated beliefs, leading to the impression that the change was instantaneous.

What I’m saying, basically, is that if you hadn’t had the facts of not remembering things you wanted to remember, would you have had the belief that your memory was faulty?

I think the reason why non-factual beliefs take so long to change is that they are all interleaved. In other words, I think non-factual beliefs tend to reinforce each other… your belief in your low self worth is tied to your belief that you don’t do as well as you should, which is tied to your belief that your talents are not as important as other people’s talents, etc. The reason it takes so much work to change them, then, is because you have to change all of the interlinked beliefs at the same time.