One phenomenon that continues to fascinate me is the habit of individuals to take on outside programming seemingly without conscious thought.
For example, if you ask people whether Nazis should be punched, you will likely receive one of two responses: yes or no. This become interesting when you press either side to explain their reasoning.
Those who are against punching Nazis will explain that they oppose using violence in response to mere speech. However, if you press them by submitting scenarios where speech an lead to deadly consequences and ask them where the line is drawn, they usually won’t be able to provide much in the way of a response.
Those who are in favor of punching Nazis will explain that Nazis are dangerous individuals and therefore must be dealt with before they obtain power. However, if you press them by asking them why they only want to punch such deadly people instead of outright kill them, they usually won’t be able to provide much in the way of a response.
Both sides are usually regurgitating programming they’ve received from others. One side is regurgitating the ideal of free speech whereas the other side is regurgitating the ideal of using force preemptively to prevent a more dangerous situation from arising.
All of us unconsciously accept programming to some extent. But we are capable of rational thought and therefore capable of overcoming programming (or deciding whether the programming is actually beneficial and keeping it). However, employing rational thought to overcome programming seems to be uncommon and some people even actively push against doing so. It’s almost like people enjoy the fact that they’ve unconsciously accepted programming.