"You're a nice young lady. Tell me, do we really come from apes?"

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I was not sure where to put this thread, so mods, feel free to move it if you feel it would be more appropriate elsewhere.

Recently I had such a perfect, shining examples of how beliefs are formed.

I usually take the subway to work, but in bad weather, running late, etc, I will take a cab. There is a cab stand near my apartment, and the same drivers work the stands. There is one driver who tends to be there before I go to work, so I get him pretty often. We chit chat, and he knows a bit about me, but obviously no more than can be gleamed from a few minutes here and there for conversation. He is from Ethiopia, and we spend most of our time asking questions about each others homelands, backgrounds, etc. He knows that I work in health care, and that I am a college graduate in anthropology and that I have been studying up for when I started classes back up this Fall for a masters in biology in anthropology.

So the other day, when I got in his cab, he said to me,

"Young lady, I know you to be very nice and smart. I have heard of this 'evolution' thing. Can you tell me, is it true, and did we really come from apes?"

I explained to him that evolution is true, though I explained to him that we did not come from apes, we merely had a common ancestor. I gave him a very, very brief explanation on the mechanics of evolution.

When it was time for me to depart, he grinned and said, "Very interesting! Thank you young lady! To think that we are cousins with apes!"


This really got me thinking. It's not like I had any scientific papers, or plaster replicas of fossils with me when I explained it to him. It's not like this guy read any books that clearly and exhaustively list the actual evidence of evolution and delves into the mechanics of it. All he did was listen to me give an extremely brief (5 minutes or less) explanation. And he believed me, without question, because he thinks (and really, he has no basis for thinking this, because he knows so little about me) that I am a smart, nice lady, and because he knows me to be more educated than himself.

If I had been a creationist, and I had told him that evolution was not true, he would have believed me just as easily.

It is interesting, because even though this guy now will think that evolution is true, he came to that conclusion using "woo" tendencies rather than scientific inquiry. Someone he trusts said it's true, so he believes them, for no reason other than they said it.

[Tricky]

Maybe he asks all his customers and he's honestly evaluating the responses. Certainly it is beneficial to being believed to present your position in a friendly and knowledgeable way. You did the right thing in any case.

[Mirrorglass]

" Tell me, do we really come from apes?!

Yes, 2/3 of the population, the rest from another planet!!!!

Connie

Well, that was random.

To the OP, it really is an interesting find. A well-spoken person who's known to be educated or otherwise intelligent - or who can give the impression of being such - is very often believed without question. Woo promoters take advantage of it, of course, and to an extent, so do promoters of critical thinking.

An interesting detail, in my opinion, is that the effect exists whether the speaker wants it to or not. I've sometimes seen people make statements of opinion or guesses on matters they are not certain about, but do it with such confidence that the idea is accepted as fact and not necessarily questioned at all. It's happened to me, a few times, and I suspect there still are many 'facts' in my mind that are based on nothing more than a firm opinion by a charismatic speaker.

[Dunstan]

It is interesting, because even though this guy now will think that evolution is true, he came to that conclusion using "woo" tendencies rather than scientific inquiry. Someone he trusts said it's true, so he believes them, for no reason other than they said it.

Even assuming that he really now does think that evolution is true (and wasn't just being polite to you), I don't think that's such a clear-cut "woo tendency."

I dare say that there is not a single person on the planet who has actually personally done all the investigation needed to reach a conclusion on evolution without relying on the statements of others. I suppose that depends on what you think is the bare minimum of evidence that would convince you, but I think the general principle applies.

The evidence for evolution comes from paleontologists, geologists, molecular biologists, biochemists, nuclear physicists, and a bunch of other disciplines I'm probably forgetting. Everybody is relying on things others have said or written. And someone like me who belongs to none of those disciplines is relying on all of them.

Yes, yes, I know: "but it's peer reviewed!" True, but peer review is just a process (and an imperfect one at that) for gaining confidence that people aren't saying obviously wrong things. It's a difference of degree and not of kind, in my opinion.

And finally, let's keep some perspective here. A lot of us get worked up about evolution because it's one of the front lines in science versus (non-science, woo, religion, whatever). But it's really not that important to most people. If your cab driver was a school board member deciding which textbook to use, or otherwise had some important decision to make based on whether or not evolution was true, I agree that it would be irresponsible to just rely on one person's account. But for an everyday, hey-I'm-curious-about-something-in-your-field conversation, I don't see the big deal.

We all take "heuristic shortcuts" for these less-than-critical factual matters. If I see a light in the sky and wonder whether it's a star or a planet or whatever, and Phil Plait is standing next to me and says, "oh, that's Venus," well, you know what? I'm going to take his word for it. If I had a large bet riding on the question, then I might consult some other sources to double-check. Or if Phil says, "that's a Betelgeusian spaceship," well, then I'm going to invoke the old "extraordinary claims" mantra and want a little more evidence.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I was not sure where to put this thread, so mods, feel free to move it if you feel it would be more appropriate elsewhere.

Recently I had such a perfect, shining examples of how beliefs are formed.

I usually take the subway to work, but in bad weather, running late, etc, I will take a cab. There is a cab stand near my apartment, and the same drivers work the stands. There is one driver who tends to be there before I go to work, so I get him pretty often. We chit chat, and he knows a bit about me, but obviously no more than can be gleamed from a few minutes here and there for conversation. He is from Ethiopia, and we spend most of our time asking questions about each others homelands, backgrounds, etc. He knows that I work in health care, and that I am a college graduate in anthropology and that I have been studying up for when I started classes back up this Fall for a masters in biology in anthropology.

So the other day, when I got in his cab, he said to me,

"Young lady, I know you to be very nice and smart. I have heard of this 'evolution' thing. Can you tell me, is it true, and did we really come from apes?"

I explained to him that evolution is true, though I explained to him that we did not come from apes, we merely had a common ancestor. I gave him a very, very brief explanation on the mechanics of evolution.

When it was time for me to depart, he grinned and said, "Very interesting! Thank you young lady! To think that we are cousins with apes!"


This really got me thinking. It's not like I had any scientific papers, or plaster replicas of fossils with me when I explained it to him. It's not like this guy read any books that clearly and exhaustively list the actual evidence of evolution and delves into the mechanics of it. All he did was listen to me give an extremely brief (5 minutes or less) explanation. And he believed me, without question, because he thinks (and really, he has no basis for thinking this, because he knows so little about me) that I am a smart, nice lady, and because he knows me to be more educated than himself.

If I had been a creationist, and I had told him that evolution was not true, he would have believed me just as easily.

It is interesting, because even though this guy now will think that evolution is true, he came to that conclusion using "woo" tendencies rather than scientific inquiry. Someone he trusts said it's true, so he believes them, for no reason other than they said it.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say he reached that conclusion by using "woo tendencies". What exactly is a "woo tendency"? I'm assuming that by that you mean "tendencies to reach certainty about things based on how "logical" the explanation sounds and/or how intelligent the person who makes the statement, looks"

I would say that that, alone, is a principle that if further developed in itself, may make the person more prone to believe in woo.

It's true that technically, accepting something to be true without making the proper verification, isn't the most scientifically accurate but we can't go around falsifying any claim. We only falsify the ones that don't sound likely to be true. Or then, we do it in cases where we have a responsibility with the audience that we're going to present the information to (for instance, a reporter must check his sources before presenting a news report as if it were a fact)

In the case of the cab driver, he's trying to decide between two hypothesis: 1) That we're not cousins of apes and 2) That we are cousins of apes. He wanted to hear your justification as to why you claim that we are. You could have simply said "Because I say so" but you didn't. You provided your argumentation and now it's up to him to extend his research whether it's because he wants to prove you wrong or confirm that you said the truth. That's the way this works, in my opinion.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Even assuming that he really now does think that evolution is true (and wasn't just being polite to you), I don't think that's such a clear-cut "woo tendency."

I dare say that there is not a single person on the planet who has actually personally done all the investigation needed to reach a conclusion on evolution without relying on the statements of others. I suppose that depends on what you think is the bare minimum of evidence that would convince you, but I think the general principle applies.

The evidence for evolution comes from paleontologists, geologists, molecular biologists, biochemists, nuclear physicists, and a bunch of other disciplines I'm probably forgetting. Everybody is relying on things others have said or written. And someone like me who belongs to none of those disciplines is relying on all of them.

Yes, but those people give very very in depth reasons for how they have come to those conclusions. We're not believing them on faith alone. I mean, unless you mean that we have faith that all the scientists in the world aren't in on some big conspiracy to fake the fossil record and other such pieces of evidence which they have presented to the world as why evolution is correct. I gave this man a few minute explanation. I didn't have the time to back up my assertions with evidence or reasoning or examples.




And finally, let's keep some perspective here. A lot of us get worked up about evolution because it's one of the front lines in science versus (non-science, woo, religion, whatever). But it's really not that important to most people. If your cab driver was a school board member deciding which textbook to use, or otherwise had some important decision to make based on whether or not evolution was true, I agree that it would be irresponsible to just rely on one person's account. But for an everyday, hey-I'm-curious-about-something-in-your-field conversation, I don't see the big deal.

Oh, I completely agree. It's not a big deal. Please don't think I'm calling my delightful cab driver irresponsibile. I just found it to be an interesting anecdote. And also, as a skeptic, if someone's talking about a complicated subject, I wouldn't just assume what they said would be true without evidence to back it up, even if it's something I'm not particularly interested in. I may listen to them and find them interesting, but I wouldn't then accept the information they gave me as facts without looking more into it myself. Now, if it's a subject I don't really care about, chances are I'll never bother to look it up and verify it one way or the other.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I'm not sure it's accurate to say he reached that conclusion by using "woo tendencies". What exactly is a "woo tendency"? I'm assuming that by that you mean "tendencies to reach certainty about things based on how "logical" the explanation sounds and/or how intelligent the person who makes the statement, looks"



That's true, not sure if "woo" was exactly the right word to use. I just meant to convey that he came to a decision not based on any actual evidence but rather based on someone's word alone because it is a person you respect.

[Dunstan]

And also, as a skeptic, if someone's talking about a complicated subject, I wouldn't just assume what they said would be true without evidence to back it up, even if it's something I'm not particularly interested in. I may listen to them and find them interesting, but I wouldn't then accept the information they gave me as facts without looking more into it myself.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "assume what they said to be true."

If I don't have any prior knowledge on a subject, and someone who ostensibly has knowledge of it (and no apparent motive to lie) gives me an answer, I really don't have a problem with adopting that as my belief. It's a provisional belief -- aren't they all? -- and not one that I would attach a high degree of confidence to, but it's a belief nonetheless.

In Bayesian terms, you could say that I've revised my prior to reflect the new information, though it may still be a pretty diffuse probability function.

Does that mean I'm "assuming" what they said to be true? I think I'm just evaluating a piece of information and assigning it a non-zero value.

Certainly I don't subscribe to the notion that one remains completely agnostic about a subject until a particular amount of evidence has come in, and then a switch flips and presto, I now have a belief! If I'm halfway through a novel, I'm can't yet say with certainty that I do or don't like it, but I certainly have a belief about what my final opinion will be.

Now, if it's a subject I don't really care about, chances are I'll never bother to look it up and verify it one way or the other.

Well, what does it mean to verify something? Even after looking something up, aren't your beliefs still subject to revision? Certainly the confidence that I would have in a belief is higher when it's "Person X plus a seemingly authoritative book Y" as opposed to just "Person X," but it's a difference in degree, not in kind.

By the way, I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or just using different terminology.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "assume what they said to be true."

If I don't have any prior knowledge on a subject, and someone who ostensibly has knowledge of it (and no apparent motive to lie) gives me an answer, I really don't have a problem with adopting that as my belief. It's a provisional belief -- aren't they all? -- and not one that I would attach a high degree of confidence to, but it's a belief nonetheless.



What I mean is more or less what you put. I may adopt it as a provisional belief, but I would not have a high degree of confidence in it (or, in other words, assume that it must certainly be true), I wouldn't repeat it as if it were fact to a third party without verifying it.

Granted, it's true that I could be overestimating the confidence that my cab driver has in his belief now. Maybe he himself only considers it a provisional belief and does not have a high degree of confidence, despite his initial reaction.

But his reaction still made me think in the larger sense of how people can believe things because of trust in the person or organization giving them the information, rather than on information.

Obviously in this case, it doesn't make much of a difference. But when it comes to serious matters - school board members and creationism...parents and vaccine scares...then there are much wider implications. Yet how many opinions are formed this way?

[ma1ic3]

Isn't it always nice when you make a really simple post and you have to reply with "what I mean" over and over again. Ah, such good times on the Internet.

[noreligion]

Isn't it always nice when you make a really simple post and you have to reply with "what I mean" over and over again. Ah, such good times on the Internet.

What do you mean :D

[Beth]

Recently I had such a perfect, shining examples of how beliefs are formed.

This really got me thinking. It's not like I had any scientific papers, or plaster replicas of fossils with me when I explained it to him. It's not like this guy read any books that clearly and exhaustively list the actual evidence of evolution and delves into the mechanics of it. All he did was listen to me give an extremely brief (5 minutes or less) explanation. And he believed me, without question, because he thinks (and really, he has no basis for thinking this, because he knows so little about me) that I am a smart, nice lady, and because he knows me to be more educated than himself. Yes. I would imagine that he trusts you to tell him what you, yourself, believe and why. And you did. So his trust was well-placed in you.

If I had been a creationist, and I had told him that evolution was not true, he would have believed me just as easily. Maybe. And maybe he would have non-noncommittally responded. I suspect that he was evaluating your explanation for logical consistency, etc. Whatever his native religion might be, I'm sure it involved a creation story of some kind. Might be he has a creationist client and he wanted to hear the other side.

It is interesting, because even though this guy now will think that evolution is true, he came to that conclusion using "woo" tendencies rather than scientific inquiry. Someone he trusts said it's true, so he believes them, for no reason other than they said it.
Yes. That is why all of us believe nearly everything we believe about the world around us that we haven't directly experienced for ourselves.

I agree with Mirrorglass and Dunstan. It's why I find it irritating when skepticism is equated with atheism and religious believers with delusional idiots. It isn't appropriate and it isn't effective at convincing others they are right.

Yes, but those people give very very in depth reasons for how they have come to those conclusions. We're not believing them on faith alone. I mean, unless you mean that we have faith that all the scientists in the world aren't in on some big conspiracy to fake the fossil record and other such pieces of evidence which they have presented to the world as why evolution is correct. I gave this man a few minute explanation. I didn't have the time to back up my assertions with evidence or reasoning or examples. And he probably doesn't feel it's worth his time to review the evidence in that kind of depth for himself. He asked someone that he thought would be knowledgeable about the subject and whom he felt he could trust to be honest with him and got a succinct explanation he could understand.

Congratulations for being the person he wanted to hear from about it. Thanks for giving him exactly what he needed. You sound like the kind of proponent of science we need more of. :clap:

But his reaction still made me think in the larger sense of how people can believe things because of trust in the person or organization giving them the information, rather than on information. Yes, that what we do. It's how we progress. It's why credibility is important.

Obviously in this case, it doesn't make much of a difference. But when it comes to serious matters - school board members and creationism...parents and vaccine scares...then there are much wider implications. Yet how many opinions are formed this way?

Nearly all of them. Including nearly all of yours and mine. The difference is, for the stuff we consider important, we study and do research.

No....I wrote that and then decided I shouldn't post that. Then I decided I would, to explain why it's wrong. Committed creationists and anti-vaccine folks have also done research. They have simply decided to trust different folks on those issues. They hold different values and they trust people who hold the same values they do more than they trust credible sources that don't.

[RSLancastr]

Cat, I once heard from someone who said something like "I didn't believe anything your site says about Sylvia Browne until I saw a photograph of you - you have such kind eyes!"

There may well be others who did believe the site until they saw a photograph of

[Tanstaafl]

Hey, I believed everything you wrote until I saw you had a beard.

I NEVER believe anyone with a beard!

[RSLancastr]

THen what are you doing here?

[MontagK505]

What I mean is more or less what you put. I may adopt it as a provisional belief, but I would not have a high degree of confidence in it (or, in other words, assume that it must certainly be true), I wouldn't repeat it as if it were fact to a third party without verifying it.

Granted, it's true that I could be overestimating the confidence that my cab driver has in his belief now. Maybe he himself only considers it a provisional belief and does not have a high degree of confidence, despite his initial reaction.

But his reaction still made me think in the larger sense of how people can believe things because of trust in the person or organization giving them the information, rather than on information.

Obviously in this case, it doesn't make much of a difference. But when it comes to serious matters - school board members and creationism...parents and vaccine scares...then there are much wider implications. Yet how many opinions are formed this way?

Personally I do not believe the supernatural exists. This means I can accept the idea of evolution without necessarily accepting any specific details.

[Aepervius]

Many ofn the general population don't have the 1) capacity 2) and/or will 3) and/or time to evaluate claims, and thus fall on the "believe if the person look trustable" scheme. It is neither surprising, nor easily changeable.

[Explorer]

Next time you get into his cab, finish the job and ask him what are, or were, his religious beliefs, and whether his newfound knowledge that we are cousins of apes has diminished his faith. This surely is the crunch question, as there are many who apparently can accomodate both.

[devnull]

uhuh

[Cainkane1]

I was not sure where to put this thread, so mods, feel free to move it if you feel it would be more appropriate elsewhere.

Recently I had such a perfect, shining examples of how beliefs are formed.

I usually take the subway to work, but in bad weather, running late, etc, I will take a cab. There is a cab stand near my apartment, and the same drivers work the stands. There is one driver who tends to be there before I go to work, so I get him pretty often. We chit chat, and he knows a bit about me, but obviously no more than can be gleamed from a few minutes here and there for conversation. He is from Ethiopia, and we spend most of our time asking questions about each others homelands, backgrounds, etc. He knows that I work in health care, and that I am a college graduate in anthropology and that I have been studying up for when I started classes back up this Fall for a masters in biology in anthropology.

So the other day, when I got in his cab, he said to me,

"Young lady, I know you to be very nice and smart. I have heard of this 'evolution' thing. Can you tell me, is it true, and did we really come from apes?"

I explained to him that evolution is true, though I explained to him that we did not come from apes, we merely had a common ancestor. I gave him a very, very brief explanation on the mechanics of evolution.

When it was time for me to depart, he grinned and said, "Very interesting! Thank you young lady! To think that we are cousins with apes!"


This really got me thinking. It's not like I had any scientific papers, or plaster replicas of fossils with me when I explained it to him. It's not like this guy read any books that clearly and exhaustively list the actual evidence of evolution and delves into the mechanics of it. All he did was listen to me give an extremely brief (5 minutes or less) explanation. And he believed me, without question, because he thinks (and really, he has no basis for thinking this, because he knows so little about me) that I am a smart, nice lady, and because he knows me to be more educated than himself.

If I had been a creationist, and I had told him that evolution was not true, he would have believed me just as easily.

It is interesting, because even though this guy now will think that evolution is true, he came to that conclusion using "woo" tendencies rather than scientific inquiry. Someone he trusts said it's true, so he believes them, for no reason other than they said it.
He sounds like a pleasant enough guy. Easy to talk to and friendly. I'm sure you'll have other conversations with him and if I were you I'd take into account that he has a religion and he isn't likely to change. Be glad you were able to educate him as much as you did.

If I had the same conversation I would be able to explain the theory to him but I personally have no scientific training to back up what I say. I envy you.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Then again, it all depends on the context

For example, if I approach you and say:

"You're a nice young lady. Do you think this tie looks good on me?"

What would you say? :D

[Ichneumonwasp]

SC,

Working in the medical field you will come into contact with this more than once. One of the semi-irritating things in medicine is that most folks decide what treatments (or tests) they want based on what Uncle Earl said or what medicine Aunt Connie is taking "for the same thing".

You have, indeed, located the source of most beliefs -- hearing something that seems to make sense from someone you trust. We evolved to be like that.:)


I know that you already know all this, but I guess it bears repeating: the thing about critical thinking is to be aware of the fact that our brains work that way. We all seek out patterns that fit, and we all have a tendency to ignore those bits of information that don't fit into the scheme we adopt. The reason why boards like this one are so important is so that we can berate each others ideas and show each other the bits of data that we left out of our original formulations. The best explanations account for the most data and are not directly contradicted by other data, as you well know. The explanation that best fits all the available data and works is the one we should go for, pending some new set of information. But most folks are not interested in looking into both sides of an issue. It takes too much work. I know that I am only interested in doing this for a small subset of the issues out there.

[sphenisc]

When it was time for me to depart, he grinned and said, "Very interesting! Thank you young lady! To think that we are cousins with apes!"


Was it before or after you tipped him?

[LashL]

Several off-topic posts have been moved to AAH as they resulted in a derail. Some of them were not objectionable per se, but unfortunately got caught up in the derail. Please feel free to start a new thread in the appropriate sub-forum for discussion of - well, I'm not quite sure how to characterize it - which is why it went to AAH instead of to a split thread.

[devnull]

Several off-topic posts have been moved to AAH as they resulted in a derail. Some of them were not objectionable per se, but unfortunately got caught up in the derail. Please feel free to start a new thread in the appropriate sub-forum for discussion of - well, I'm not quite sure how to characterize it - which is why it went to AAH instead of to a split thread.

Thank you.

[Naddig74]

Many ofn the general population don't have the 1) capacity 2) and/or will 3) and/or time to evaluate claims, and thus fall on the "believe if the person look trustable" scheme. It is neither surprising, nor easily changeable.

This.

Schro, I think you might be over estimating the average persons understanding of scientific methods and their capacity for carrying them out. I posted something similar to this in the science/religion thread.

I'm pretty clever, but I'm really bad at maths. Thus, an awful lot of physics, astrophysics and so on is far beyond my ability to understand, so when I listen to people with degrees and PhDs and so on about the subjects, I tend to take their word for it. I could ask them to show me proofs, but I'd be just as much in the dark if they did. The most checking I would bother doing is to verify their qualifications and that they got them from a reputable establishment; hence I trust Stephen Hawking on black holes far more than I trust Gillian McKeith on nutrition.

This is how most people decide about most things. Don't worry about not explaining the whole thing to laymen..worry about getting the essential truth (in this case that evolution is real and creationism is cobblers) across louder and more often than the other side of the argument.