Rearranging Prejudices: The Art of Real Thinking

In this episode, I explore how we often mistake rearranging old beliefs for real thinking, as William James called it “rearranging our prejudices.” I dive into how our tribal instincts keep us stuck, labeling new ideas as exceptions to avoid change. I share simple steps like questioning assumptions, sitting with discomfort, and admitting when we’re wrong to help us grow into a truer, more open version of ourselves.

SHOW NOTES

Quotes:

"Many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -William James

“Life is a process of becoming, a combination of states we have to go through. Where people fail is that they wish to elect a state and remain in it. This is a kind of death.” - Anaïs Nin

Social Media:

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/soulpodstudio

X @SoulPodcastShow

Check Out The Soul Pod Video Channels:

The SoulPod on Rumble

The SoulPod on YouTube

Take the listener survey here

Coaching - Free 30 minute Discovery Call https://www.stacey-wheeler.com/

Transcript

William James said,

"Many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

Welcome to The Soul Podcast. I’m Stacey Wheeler.

This episode is for you if you’re interested in leveling up your self growth.

Around the same time Car Jung was researching the workings of the human mind in Europe, halfway around the world, William James was doing the same. James was an American philosopher and psychologist. He is known today as 'The Father of American Psychology.’ James did the majority of his research and writing in the late 1800s. -and he was deeply interested in how the mind works. One finding he came to is the idea that our opinions aren’t easily changed once we decide we’re right. This impulse to settle on a way of thinking is so strong that we will even fool ourselves into believing we’re thinking, when we’re actually just slightly altering the way we look at our beliefs, while retaining the core belief. Essentially, we fool ourselves into thinking we’re thinking.

This is what James called “rearranging our prejudices.”

When James used the word "prejudices" in this quote, he wasn’t talking about racism or social biases like we often do today. He meant prejudicesas fixed ideas or beliefs someone holds without really examining them—snap judgments or assumptions they’ve already decided are true. For James, it was about mental habits or lazy thinking, where people shuffle around their old opinions instead of genuinely reasoning or questioning them. Think of it like stubbornly sticking to "this is how things are" without digging deeper.

We all fall victim to this reflexive way of being. In fact, the more certain you are that you’re not -the more likely it seems you probably are. That’s because it’s reflexive. You can only start to change it when you’re aware of it. And denying it’s a problem is the opposite of being aware of it. 

Imagine you believed "cat peopleare different from dog people. As long as you can remember, you’ve thought “weird people own cats.” You and a friend from work are great friends. But you’ve never hung out with her. One weekend you get together for a hike, meeting up at her place. When you get there you discover she has two cats. “But she’s so normal” you think to yourself. You’ve had dogs since you were a child. Never a cat. You had your mind settled about ‘cat people.’  This is a new experience for you. Instead of rethinking your belief, you think, “Well, this is an outlier. My friend is a normal person. Sometimes normal people have cats. But most cat people are weird. 

You’ve taken in new information, weighed against your belief system, and found a way to justify not changing your way of thinking -your prejudice.  Can you see how easy it is to assume we’re thinking, when we’re not? It’s so reflexive, you don’t even notice. We simply put the instance that challenges our long held beliefs into a neat little box. We call it an exception to the rule -and continue thinking the way we  have all along. This reflex to label something an “outlier” or “exception” keeps us comfy in our old beliefs without doing the hard work of real thinking. 

But so what. Why is it a problem, you might wonder? 

It traps us. When we fall into this reflexive way of lazy thinking, we miss out on truth or growth because we’re too busy defending our long-held assumptions. If every challenge gets boxed up, labeled as a fluke, an outlier or an exception we stagnate—never adapting, never learning. It’s like wearing blinders: we see only what fits our prejudice, and the world gets smaller. James saw this as a mental laziness that stops us from digging into life’s messiness and finding something real.

So, why do we reflexively do this? Why is defending our way of thinking so much a part of who we are as a species? 

We reflexively defend our way of thinking because it’s tied to our survival and identity. This is a deep, core programming. As a species, we’re wired to seek patterns and certainty—it helped our ancestors make quick decisions, like “that rustle means danger.” Sticking to what we know feels safe; changing it means risking confusion or admitting we were wrong, which can shake our sense of self. Psychologically, it’s called cognitive dissonance—our brains hate the tension of conflicting ideas, so we dodge it by clinging to the familiar. Plus, our beliefs often tie us to our tribe, our group. Challenging them feels like betraying “us.” It’s not just laziness; it’s a deep, human need for stability and belonging that makes shaking off prejudice so tough.

In the modern world we no longer have tribes, but our brains are still wired in a way to seek tribe approval and tribe think. So, we resist changing.

Consider your political position. How would it make you feel if you were to switch your political affiliation? You were team blue and now you’re team red. Or you were team red, now you’re team blue. Would you feel comfortable and casual about telling your friends? Most people would feel some resistance here. If I asked a handful of people how they’d feel about announcing to a friend group that they were changing teams, I’d get one of a handful of answer types:

• (Nervous): “I’d be sweating bullets. My friends would think I’ve lost it—years of arguing one way, and now this? They’d probably grill me or just stop inviting me out.”
• (Defensive): “I’d tell them, but I’d have my reasons ready. They’d probably say I’m a traitor or brainwashed. It’d feel like I’m on trial.”
• (Reluctant): “I’d rather keep it quiet. It’s not worth the drama—people get so tribal about this stuff. I’d feel like I’m letting my old side down.”
• (Conflicted): “I’d be okay with it eventually, but at first, I’d feel weird—like I’m not me anymore. My friends might respect it, but I’d still brace for some side-eye.”
• (Defiant): “I’d just say it. If they can’t handle it, that’s on them. But yeah, I’d feel a little exposed—like I’m shedding a skin I’ve worn forever.”

So, you see -most of us would feel resistance—some combo of anxiety, shame, or defensiveness—because it’s not just about politics or changing your mind. It’s about facing the group, risking rejection, and wrestling with that human itch to stay consistent. We’re still wired to seek tribal acceptance. That’s why the reflex to stick with the team runs so deep. That’s why we reflexively reject (even massive amounts of) data that should change our way of thinking. And people wearing a team red jersey or a team blue jersey are the least likely to change. The more all-in you are in your tribal mentality, the more resistant you are to change. 

But so what? Why should you even worry about whether you’re rearranging your prejudices?  If you’re stuck on a belief —despite the evidence that shows you’ve misread the truth, you’re not just stubborn; you’re choosing to be blind. And you’re choosing to be blind because the alternative is uncomfortable. 

So, what keeps people in a state of resistance to trying another way of thinking?

A mix of psychological and emotional factors keep people anchored in their mental rooms. Here’s what’s at play:

Comfort and Familiarity:The old way feels safe. It’s a worn-in pair of shoes. Trying something new means stepping into the unknown, and that can feel shaky, even threatening.  But comfort is a trap…

Identity Tie-In:These habits or beliefs often get tangled up with who people think they are. Changing the method might feel like changing themselves, and that’s a tough sell. We must make an intentional effort to challenge ourselves.

Confirmation Bias: People naturally gravitate toward evidence that backs their setup. Anything that fits gets a spotlight; anything that doesn’t gets brushed off as a fluke or irrelevant. 

Effort and Inertia:Rearranging prejudices takes less work than real thinking. Trying a new way means effort. Inertia keeps you sitting still; it’s easier not to think about other ways to do something or look at something -especially when the way we live seems “good enough.”

Fear of Being Wrong:Admitting another way might work better means their old way wasn’t perfect. That stings Protecting the ego keeps us stuck.

Social Pressure:People’s way of being often matches the people around them. Straying from that can feel like betraying the tribe, and no one wants to be the odd one out.

Resistance isn’t just stubbornness—it’s a shield. You’re not just rearranging furniture; you’re guarding a whole way of seeing the world. Breaking out takes curiosity, a hit to the pride, and a willingness to sit in discomfort—stuff that’s hard to muster when the old couch still feels fine. It takes effort. The lazy will not evolve. Will you?

So, how do we start to change -to improve?

To train ourselves to evolve and become more open, we’ve got to short-circuit that tribal reflex and lean into real thinking. Here’s how to start:

1. Question Your Defaults: Ask yourself, “Why do I believe this?” Trace it back—did it come from evidence or just your team’s playbook? Make it a habit to poke at your own assumptions.
2. Seek Out the Other Side: Don’t just skim the headlines that agree with you. Dive into what team red or blue (or neither) is actually saying—raw data, not filtered spin. It’s uncomfortable, but that’s the point. In fact, chuck the media all together. Trusting one media source is to outsource your thinking to someone with a financial interest in keeping you tuned in.
3. Embrace the Squirm: When new info clashes with your beliefs, don’t dodge the tension. Sit with it. That dissonance is where growth happens—let it marinate instead of boxing it as an “outlier.” Seriously -this is where it all starts! Embrace the squirm. 
4. Test Small Shifts: Try tweaking one belief, not your whole worldview. Like, “Maybe this policy I hate isn’t pure evil.” See how it feels. “Maybe what my channel of choice tells me isn’t the full truth.” Small wins build flexibility and help us retrain our minds and reflexes.
5. Own Being Wrong: Practice admitting when you’re off. Say it out loud—to yourself or a friend. It’s less about humiliation and more about rewiring your brain to see change as strength, not weakness. There’s something powerful about stating something out loud or writing it down. You’re taking a thought out of your head and empowering it.

Personal evolution is slow, messy work. You’re fighting instincts that kept us alive for millennia  but can trap us now. The trick is curiosity over loyalty—care more about what’s true than what keeps you in the tribe. James would call it trading prejudice for pragmatism: let reality, not reflex, shape you.

We’ve explored how our tribal instincts anchor us to prejudices—quick assumptions we cling to, even when evidence piles up against them. It’s why flipping teams, politically or otherwise, feels like a gut punch, and why we’d rather label something an “exception” than shift our view. The more entrenched we are, the tougher it is to move, but that stubbornness can trap us, both as individuals and as a collective. To grow, we need to question, engage, and embrace the unease of being wrong.

Let’s close with this from Anaïs Nin: “Life is a process of becoming, a combination of states we have to go through. Where people fail is that they wish to elect a state and remain in it. This is a kind of death.” It’s a stark reminder—personal evolution isn’t just nice, it’s vital; staying stuck isn’t living, it’s just existing.