The battle against irrational beliefs is futile

[andyandy]

An interesting article.....

The battle by scientists against "irrational" beliefs such as creationism is ultimately futile, a leading experimental psychologist said today.
The work of Bruce Hood, a professor at Bristol University, suggests that magical and supernatural beliefs are hardwired into our brains from birth, and that religions are therefore tapping into a powerful psychological force.

"I think it is pointless to think that we can get people to abandon their belief systems because they are operating at such a fundamental level," said Prof Hood. "No amount of rational evidence is going to be taken on board to get people to abandon those ideas."

He told the annual British Association Festival of Science in Norwich that the standard bearers for evolution, such as the biologist Richard Dawkins and the philosopher Daniel Dennet, had adopted a counterproductive and "simplistic" position.

"They have basically said there are two types of people in the world," he said - "those who believe in the supernatural and those who do not. But almost everyone entertains some form of irrational beliefs even if they are not religious.

"For example, many people would be reluctant to part with a wedding ring for an identical ring because of the personal significance it holds. Conversely, many people are disgusted by an object if it has associations with 'evil'."

In his lectures, Prof Hood produces a rather boring-looking blue cardigan with large brown buttons and invites people in the audience to put it on, for a £10 reward. As you may expect, there is invariably a sea of raised hands. He then reveals that the notorious murderer Fred West wore the cardigan. Nearly everyone puts their hand down.

Unfortunately, it is just a stunt: the cardigan is not West's. But it illustrates the way even the most rational of people are can be irrationally made to feel uncomfortable.

Another experiment involves asking subjects to cut up a photograph. When his team then measures their galvanic skin response - ie sweat production, which is what lie-detector tests monitors - there is a jump in the reading. This does not occur when a person destroys an object of less sentimental significance.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1864748,00.html

so, is irrationality hard-wired into the human psyche?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't know. I used to have irrational beliefs. They were because I didn't know any better not due to any emotional attachment.

[jmercer]

Perhaps. Fear certainly is; and a lot of irrational beliefs center around fear (or asking for protection from fearful possiblities.)

[H3LL]

I suppose irrational beliefs of some sort will always remain.

Such as the belief that The Guardian is an excellent newspaper. :D

.

[andyandy]

I suppose irrational beliefs of some sort will always remain.

Such as the belief that The Guardian is an excellent newspaper. :D

.

lol

it's more excellent than the others :)

[Dymanic]

He told the annual British Association Festival of Science in Norwich that the standard bearers for evolution, such as the biologist Richard Dawkins and the philosopher Daniel Dennet, had adopted a counterproductive and "simplistic" position.

"They have basically said there are two types of people in the world," he said - "those who believe in the supernatural and those who do not. But almost everyone entertains some form of irrational beliefs even if they are not religious.

I'd say that what is simplistic is Hood's summary of what Dawkins, Dennett (and others, such as Stephen Pinker) say about this. It's hard to imagine statements like Hood's coming from anyone who had actually read any of those authors' books.

I don't know about hot-wired, but to the question: is irrationality hard-wired into the human psyche, I'd answer "absolutely". What is an irrational belief other than a conclusion which cannot be reached by a series of logically defensible steps? And in a world where life and death often turn on those decisions made on the most reasonable conclusions that can be reached in perhaps some few hundreds of milliseconds, who's got time for logical perfection? Dennett describes a process he calls "adopting the intentional stance": if it looks like it may be capable of intent, treat it as if it is. In hostile environments such as the African savannah for which our neurology is still tuned, the price of defaulting to such an error-prone method is an "evolutionarily stable strategy" compared with the price of waiting for certainty and logical defensibility.

[Orangutan]

In "Phantoms In The Brain"

http://www.amazon.com/Phantoms-Brain-Probing-Mysteries-Human/dp/0688172172

(Excellent book for the lay person, like me).

There is a part where he talks about experiments that stimulated parts of the brain. The scientist geting the treatment said he felt "God" as one particular part of his brain was stimulated.

The author wondered what an atiest might feel if his brain were stimulated in the same way but then postulates that a hardwired predisposition to feel the presence of some deity, wheter it be gods or ancestor spirits might have an evolutionary advantage as a sort of group conformance mechanism.

Sorry bad grammer post, have to type quick, boss moving between cubicles ;)

[andyandy]

I don't know about hot-wired, but to the question: is irrationality hard-wired into the human psyche, .

oops.... that's what i meant.....

:blush:

and edited :D

[jmercer]

It's a heckuva interesting question. Would hard-wiring of religious experiences have conferred some kind of evolutionary benefit? Or was it that the mystical types simply got laid more often? :D

[Asolepius]

I heard about this from someone who attended the BA meeting. It's an interesting idea, but the evidence seems tenuous at the moment. Actually it came across to me differently. The idea (I'm told) is that a tribe led by a human `strong man' will be unstable because someone stronger will eventually appear and overthrow the leader. But if the leadership is delegated upwards to a supernatural being there is more stability as that can't be overthrown (actually because it doesn't exist, but the people don't know that). It's possible that such behaviour might have been subject to positive selection.

Sentimentality is irrational but not unreasonably so. It rarely does any harm, so won't be selected out. It almost certainly would be selected for, as it would tend to bind groups together via objects they associate with each other.

But I don't agree that the battle is unwinnable. Society has set up a great many taboos against behaviours that probably selected for the individuals practising them. We have laws and social mores which make us civilised. I don't think civilisation is a natural state, but it's clearly beneficial. Rationality is just the next step we have to take to increase the level of civilisation.

[CFLarsen]

so, is irrationality hard-wired into the human psyche?

What do you think?

[Garrette]

My limited lay-reading of the topic leads me to think that it is hard-wired, though to differing degrees in people, else there would be no differing degrees of belief.

As to Hood's hypothesis that the battle is unwinnable, his mistake is in thinking that the battle -- in a large sense -- is addressed to any individuals or groups of individuals.

We will see no skeptical 'victory' in our lifetimes. That does not mean that skepticism will not be selected for, even if it is many many millenia hence. Our job isn't to win the fight today, but to keep the fight going so that selection will eventually favor reason, not immediately do so.

[andyandy]

What do you think?

well, I'm open to persuasion...:)

My initial opinion would be that the arguments that Bruce Hood makes with regards to even "rational" people holding irrational beliefs are pretty interesting- certainly when we start to examine such things as sentimental attachment to possessions. To extend further, in the UK fear of spiders is an irrational belief- despite the fact that it may well be bourne of a rational belief hard-wired many generations ago. One could postulate that a belief in god was equally a rational belief many generations ago - as the only way primitive man could make sense of the world around him, and as others have pointed out, there may even have been some evolutionary benefit conferred to individuals with a predisposition towards such a belief - ie. common bonding across a larger social group.....

However, it's also definitely true that many irrational beliefs can be overcome through exposure to rationality - so I'm not sure that the struggle is futile in itself, merely that there always might be some irrationality left however hard you try :)

[Asolepius]

What do you think?It certainly could be, but so is rationality or we would not be able to do science at all. In fact we could not even be civilised as we could not formulate laws etc. So I think that rationality is inherently stronger and is more likely to dominate given time.

[chriswl]

How on earth could the battle against creationism be futile? Most people aren't creationists so I'm sure that's one winnable battle.

If we can keep irrationality out of areas where it actually does harm then that's quite good enough. We can all relax and be irrational over little things if we like.

If the article is saying that coming over like Mr. Spock is not helpful, well I agree. But Dennett and Dawkins don't do that.

[CriticalThanking]

I liken the "battle" against irrational thinking to the efforts of medical science. Will such efforts ever cure every imaginable disease? Highly unlikely as other organisms adapt even as we do. But science found a few pretty good weapons: vaccination and antibiotics.

Antibiotics cleaned up a host (no pun intended) of infections. Many such infections are easily treatable, despite the pain from the treatment, and recovery is likely if the initial damage was not too great. Treatment with critical thinking skills can prevent some woo outbreaks. But some types of disease/woo have learned to adapt. And some woo now even tries to use the language of science to perpetuate itself and spread.

Vaccination may have actually wiped out one particular (strain of a?) disease. But for the rest of the diseases for which we have vaccines, they simply become less of a threat, popping up in poor and/or underserved areas. They will likely never go away completely, and some bug may yet evolve similar characteristics to ones that we thought were gone. Worse, some people think we have "won" and no longer vaccinate. Innoculation with critical thinking skills can prevent woo outbreaks in some people. Yet new, even more insidious consipiracy theories can still be seen popping out of the loose change in the pockets of educated societies.

Will medicine or rational thinking ever finally "win?" I don't think so, but I am ok with that. It is enough for me to see medicine and rationality improve and even save lives. It is enough to know that there are those still researching new and better treatments and those on the front lines diagnosing and treating illness, whether medical or rational. It is enough.

CT

[Asolepius]

I can't help adding a personal predilection. I recently attended The Goodwood Revival, a major classic car event. We (I and the family - all rationalists to the core) were really pleased to see a car which had raced in the 1959 Targa Florio, and which I had tried to emulate by dressing up our own car (the same model) with racing numbers etc. Now the two cars might have been identical in most respects, but we were more impressed with the real one than the fake one. So the real one had taken on something totally intangible, called history. This is why people will spend far more on cars with history, even though they are physically identical to ones without. I think it's the same syndrome, and I am as guilty of it as anyone. Auctioneers do very well out of it.

[Almo]

"For example, many people would be reluctant to part with a wedding ring for an identical ring because of the personal significance it holds. Conversely, many people are disgusted by an object if it has associations with 'evil'."

Attaching signifigance to an object is not the same as an irrational belief in a supernatural being. I wouldn't trade my ring because I know this is THE ONE I've been wearing all these years since I married Trena.

[Elaedith]

I don't see how a sentimental attachment to an object is a 'belief', therefore I don't see it as in the same class as an irrational belief.

[andyandy]

I don't see how a sentimental attachment to an object is a 'belief', therefore I don't see it as in the same class as an irrational belief.

Say a guitar played by John Lennon, and an identical guitar played by Johnny Nobody go on general sale, many people will attach much greater sentiment to the former - they will believe that it is inherently different than the latter - even though as objects they are indistinguishable, and as inanimate objects have no "memory." This is not an especially rational belief, instead it is founded in sentimentality.....

[Garrette]

Say a guitar played by John Lennon, and an identical guitar played by Johnny Nobody go on general sale, many people will attach much greater sentiment to the former - they will believe that it is inherently different than the latter - even though as objects they are indistinguishable, and as inanimate objects have no "memory." This is not an especially rational belief, instead it is founded in sentimentality.....I don't think I agree, but admit that it may be a matter of semantics.

Were I to have both the money and the inclination to purchase John Lennon's guitar (to make it more personally real, can we say Eric Clapton's guitar, "Brownie," that actually was auctioned off for a pretty penny some years ago?), I might purchase it knowing that it differs in no substantive sense from the guitar next to it. But I'm not paying for a substantive difference. I'm paying for an association, albeit a past one.

The same is true, I think, of photos of my children. I place no value on their intrinsic worth. But they do cause emotional reaction when I look at them. I can be completely rational and still recognize an emotional reaction and also value it, separate from the valueless object that creates it.

[RenaissanceBiker]

"Reason, of course, is weak when measured against its never ending task."
Albert Einstein

[fuelair]

I don't know. I used to have irrational beliefs. They were because I didn't know any better not due to any emotional attachment.

Need to rethink that used to - at least based on some commentaries over the past few weeks. Maybe it's just been phrasing but.....

[jmercer]

Say a guitar played by John Lennon, and an identical guitar played by Johnny Nobody go on general sale, many people will attach much greater sentiment to the former - they will believe that it is inherently different than the latter - even though as objects they are indistinguishable, and as inanimate objects have no "memory." This is not an especially rational belief, instead it is founded in sentimentality.....

Not necessarily, AA.

For centuries, people have coveted art - even poor art - done by one of the "masters", and have often gone to extravagant (sp?) efforts and expense to acquire one. While a guitar played by John Lennon is hardly a unique item in the way that an art piece is, there is still the cultural hold-over of possession of a unique item connected in some way with the famous and/or talented.

So I think that what's being described is a cultural value more than anything else.

:)

[Orangutan]

Here is a thought experiment for you. Just a stupid thought game you don't have to play....

I have a machine and an offer.

You drop your wedding ring in the top slot and then open the draw.

In the draw you will find your ring, it will be the ring you dropped in the top, and an identical copy, exactly the same down to the dirt and the scratches.

I will then pay you the market price for one of those rings. You don't know which one is the original and neither do I.

I don't care because to me they are both worth as much as each other.

But would you take me up on my offer?

[jmercer]

In a heartbeat. :)

[Almo]

I don't think I would, in the same way I'd never step into a teleporter. I like knowing that this ring is the actual one I've been wearing all this time. I know there is a 50-50 chance I don't have the ring I've worn anymore. That's not a question of belief. It's statistics.

[CapelDodger]

Were I to have both the money and the inclination to purchase John Lennon's guitar (to make it more personally real, can we say Eric Clapton's guitar, "Brownie," that actually was auctioned off for a pretty penny some years ago?), I might purchase it knowing that it differs in no substantive sense from the guitar next to it. But I'm not paying for a substantive difference. I'm paying for an association, albeit a past one.
It plugs you into a greater reality than the self, but in a material rather than supernatural sense. It's irrational, but it satisfies some desire. I know life is fleeting and meaningless, but I love history and old settlements where I can plug into the greater human experience. And usually find a good pub to do it in. :)

[CapelDodger]

In a heartbeat. :)
Mercenary! :)

[Garrette]

It plugs you into a greater reality than the self, but in a material rather than supernatural sense. It's irrational, but it satisfies some desire. I know life is fleeting and meaningless, but I love history and old settlements where I can plug into the greater human experience. And usually find a good pub to do it in. :)I think we are akin in our approach. But if you hadn't said "in a material rather than supernatural sense" I would quibble greatly with your wording.

[Dark Jaguar]

My irrational beliefs? Well, I know better but I'm certainly grossed out by anything having even a passing association with human waste matter, like a toilet seat, well the lid under the seat. Even a toilet so clean I could eat off it, I would likely not. Also, I'm possessed by buggy fear. I'm terrified of crushing an exoskeleton inside my shirt or something and getting bug goo all over me. Those things are just too easy to kill!

I'll only add that I'm not sure this is irrational belief, since I don't actually believe there's any harm in being around bugs, but rather irrational emotion overriding whatever I rationally think to be true. The difference between that and those with irrational beliefs is the rational part of their mind also thinks it's true.

[CapelDodger]

I don't think I would, in the same way I'd never step into a teleporter.
The sense of identity conundrum? Me too.

I like knowing that this ring is the actual one I've been wearing all this time. I know there is a 50-50 chance I don't have the ring I've worn anymore. That's not a question of belief. It's statistics.
And all you're being offered for this potential angst is a fistful of silver (if that). Sentiment cannot be priced.

[Luke T.]

Soubrette started an outstanding topic on the question of whether we are "hardwired for belief" on here a few years ago. I wish I had thought of it before it was purged so I could have saved it. It saddens me every time I think of the loss.

Anyway.

I don't know about hot-wired, but to the question: is irrationality hard-wired into the human psyche, I'd answer "absolutely".

I disagree. And I'm a guy who is chock full of irrationality.

I think we are hardwired to seek knowledge. We have these big brains that God or evolution gave us and only a small part is necessary to survive. The rest of it needs to be occupied with something. It requires input.

So a caveman is in his cave and lightning strikes nearby. It scares the bejeesus out him, and his survival instinct kicks in to keep away from it. But at the same time, that extra part of his mind is occupied with, "Where the hell did that come from?"

His mind won't rest until he has an answer. Where the hell did that come from? What was that?

As far as I know, a dog doesn't ponder the source of lightning.

With only limited knowledge at his disposal, the man creates an answer. He must if he is going to get some satisfaction.

We observe and contemplate. And in a state of ignorance, we get wrong answers. But somebody's big brain somewhere is always pondering the questions, and so the answers evolve.

People who know that a piece of metal has no healing properties don't buy Q-Ray bracelets. Only the ignorant do.

ETA: Some people have a lesser drive for knowledge than others the same way some have a higher sex drive than others.

But it is still possible for a person with a high knowledge-seeking instinct to come up with wrong answers and pursue them with the aggressiveness that comes with the high knowledge-seeking drive. Thus the persistence of a conspiracy theory "nut". Once directed, it is damned hard to turn that beam.

[CapelDodger]

I think we are akin in our approach. But if you hadn't said "in a material rather than supernatural sense" I would quibble greatly with your wording.
I dodged that bullet then. :)

[Luke T.]

To continue from my last post:

Once the knowledge-seeking beam that lead to an erroneous conclusion kicks in, it's all pride from there.

The answer to defeating irrationality is knowledge and humility. The knowledge part is easy. Breaking down pride is the hard part. Pride comes naturally to someone who thinks they know more than the next guy. Just look around here. :D :p

[Luke T.]

Finding out we are wrong about something hurts. Hurts our pride. So we resist. We are wired for pain-avoidance.

So whoever gets there fastest with the mostest "information" wins. Tabula rasa.

God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

[Garrette]

Sorry, Luke, but it's "fustest."

Sentiment cannot be priced.I'd say it can't be easily priced.

I don't know where the line is, but I would know if the offer is high enough. I'm pretty sure that for ten million dollars, a Z3, and a lifetime supply of Mike and Ikes, I'd do the ring-in-a-drawer thing.

[TjW]

An interesting article.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1864748,00.html

so, is irrationality hard-wired into the human psyche?

Well, either it isn't, or it is.
If it isn't, then trying to stem the tide of irrationality may help.
If it is, then trying to stem the tide of irrationality is itself an irrational task, and why should anyone try to stop us from carrying out an irrational task?

[Horatius]

I think that the ability to believe in something you can't currently see/hear/whatever arose because it provided some advantage to our ancestors. Consider two cavemen who, as they leave the cave one morning, spot a tiger lurking about.

"Oh my! A tiger" they shout, and then run back into the cave. After a few minutes, one asks the other, "What was it we were so worked up over again?"

The second responds, "I believe it was a tiger." "Nonsense", says the first, "I see no such tiger", and goes back outside. Where he gets eaten by the tiger.

Being able to remenber that there's a tiger outside, and believing that memory, even if you can't see the tiger anymore, is a good thing. Unfortunately, like a lot of things, this ability gets applied when it shouldn't, leading to beliefs in gods, fairies and drawing to inside straights.

[Luke T.]

Sorry, Luke, but it's "fustest."

I actually wrote "fustest", then changed it because I wasn't sure everyone would get the precision of the reference. :D

[jmercer]

Mercenary! :)

You betcha! ;)

[thaiboxerken]

so, is irrationality hard-wired into the human psyche?

I think so, however, like the disposition to alcoholism, it can be prevented or coped with.

[Dymanic]

Soubrette started an outstanding topic on the question of whether we are "hardwired for belief" on here a few years ago. I wish I had thought of it before it was purged so I could have saved it. It saddens me every time I think of the loss.I think I remember that one.

I think we are hardwired to seek knowledge. We have these big brains that God or evolution gave us and only a small part is necessary to survive.I think it's easy to underestimate the amount of brain power our survival requires, especially if you ignore the extent to which differential success between humans depends on the individual's ability to navigate the complex and subtle aspects of human society. The gazelle must be alert and ready to respond instantly to the lion's charge, and the lion must be crafty enough to outwit the gazelle, but being a successful human ultimately boils down to the ability to outmaneuver, outbluff, manipulate, and second-guess the smartest creatures on earth: other humans (as well as to understand and cooperate with them and all that, of course).

Seeking knowledge can actually be part of that; knowledge is and always has been a valuable commodity, one which can be exchanged for food, mates, and allies -- as well as other tidbits of knowledge. One of the tricky things about knowledge, however, is that it doesn't have to be genuine in order to be traded. What you know seldom counts as much as what others think you know. Therefore, what is sought is often the perception of knowledge -- and the best way to persuade others of the genuine quality (and hence the value) of your knowledge is to firmly and sincerely believe in it yourself. Shamanism may well be the world's second oldest profession, and good ones don't even have to fake the orgasmic nature of their experiences. Is that irrational behavior? How about if it pays off in goods, girls, and glory? NOW is it irrational? Does not being a human often involve some form of rational irrationality, and would the experience really be richer without it? I mean, what are we, Vulcans?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Here is a thought experiment for you. Just a stupid thought game you don't have to play....

I have a machine and an offer.

You drop your wedding ring in the top slot and then open the draw.

In the draw you will find your ring, it will be the ring you dropped in the top, and an identical copy, exactly the same down to the dirt and the scratches.

I will then pay you the market price for one of those rings. You don't know which one is the original and neither do I.

I don't care because to me they are both worth as much as each other.

But would you take me up on my offer?

3 or 4 times a day if I can get it off my finger. The Mrs. can be sentimental sometimes, but she is very practical all the time.

[andyandy]

Here is a thought experiment for you. Just a stupid thought game you don't have to play....

I have a machine and an offer.

You drop your wedding ring in the top slot and then open the draw.

In the draw you will find your ring, it will be the ring you dropped in the top, and an identical copy, exactly the same down to the dirt and the scratches.

I will then pay you the market price for one of those rings. You don't know which one is the original and neither do I.

I don't care because to me they are both worth as much as each other.

the more i think about this question, the more interesting it gets :)

should a cloned copy of an inanimate object be thought of as different to the original as a result of not having the same "memory" as the original? The "memory" is obviously just an external, subjective projection - and itself is not rigid. In fact the added "value" seems to come solely from the belief that it is the original - regardless of whether or not it actually is.

As an example, a crafty ring gremlin could sneak into your house whilst you sleep, and substitute your wedding ring for an identical clone - and yet you would still confer onto this clone, the "memory" of the original.

So, (and this may be a stretch, but we'll try it on for size :) ) on a fundamental level the ring is bestowed with non-natural qualities - "memory" which emanate from an individual's belief about the ring's origins. This model fits slightly better when an object of memorabilia is purchased rather than directly verified by the individual.....because that inevitably requires belief in the object being what you think it is.....

A less palatable example could be found in fear of spiders in the UK - the fear is of course irrational - and whilst that irrational belief may have originated in the savanahs of africa, to believe so today despite rational evidence to the contrary is to bestow with the common UK house spider greater than-natural qualities - that it can be regarded as a threat even though it poses none.....
so does that constitute a belief in the super (greater than) natural?

nb.
I suppose this can all be expanded philosophically speaking to cloning of the animate - would a cloned version of you still be you? If they contained the same memories they would believe that they had lived the same life as you - the only difference would be that they hadn't actually lived them - would that be enough to distinguish you?

[Garrette]

You seem dangerously close to resurrecting p-zombies, andyandy.

As an aside, and only if you can do it in a short derail, what is the thing about fear of spiders in the UK? I didn't know there was an issue. Does something in the UK make it more irrational than anywhere else?

[andyandy]

You seem dangerously close to resurrecting p-zombies, andyandy.

As an aside, and only if you can do it in a short derail, what is the thing about fear of spiders in the UK? I didn't know there was an issue. Does something in the UK make it more irrational than anywhere else?

i never read the p-zombie thread - but i'll look it up..:)

i just mention the UK because we have no poisonous spiders here - so there is no rational reason to fear them.....whereas in Oz you could argue that such a fear was somewhat more rational.....

[RenaissanceBiker]

I have 3 daughters. When one of them yells, "Dad, there's a spider in here!" my reply is always, "Don't eat it."

[Dymanic]

You seem dangerously close to resurrecting p-zombies, andyandy.
Since when did we need resurrecting?

P-zombies live! Sort of!

[Garrette]

i never read the p-zombie thread - but i'll look it up..:) There were several, I think, with Interesting Ian as the proponent. You won't find me as a participant, as they were discussed at a level beyond my expertise, but I read most of them and learned a lot. Don't ask me to tell you what, though; I didn't learn it so well that I can teach it.

[davefoc]

I think it is possible that we have some built in mechanism to believe the implausible but I doubt it.

I think what we do have is confirmation bias. I think there is physical evidence of the pleasure that people get when they learn of things that fit with their preconceived notions. Shermer referred to experiments that support the notion in one of his columns.

Confirmation bias plays a huge role in what we believe and in the end how we act. In the case of religion it leads us to solidify our beliefs around ideas that we see as comforting. The beliefs are comforting for many different reasons including the belief that all the time in effort our culture has invested in a particular relgion is worthwhile and of course the idea that we will spend eternity being looked after by some all loving God.

One side note is that I think that atheists have exaggerated ideas about their ability to override influence from their own confirmation bias. I agree that atheists are more aware of the effect that confirmation bias has on their thinking than an average individual but somehow that knowledge at times instead of reducing the effect of confirmation bias actually works to increase it. Somehting like I'm so objective that I don't believe in relligion so all my other ideas must really be based on objective thought also.

Of course my process for judging this is to observe how much people disagree with me. I personally have overcome all confirmation bias so people who disagree with me obviously have views distorted by their own confirmation bias.

[Garrette]

One side note is that I think that atheists have exaggerated ideas about their ability to override influence from their own confirmation bias. I agree that atheists are more aware of the effect that confirmation bias has on their thinking than an average individual but somehow that knowledge at times instead of reducing the effect of confirmation bias actually works to increase it. Somehting like I'm so objective that I don't believe in relligion so all my other ideas must really be based on objective thought also.I think you are conflating atheists with skeptics. The two are not synonymous.

That being said, your paint has validity.

Skepticism may be hard to define, but it is definitely not a condition. Much as healthy eating habits are not a condition.

I know that the soda I just drank is not good for me, yet I drank it anyway. I rationalize knowing that I can exercise it away plus my metabolism is such that it won't affect me etc. etc. etc.

i.e., I am a healthy eater except when I don't eat healthily I am a skeptic except when I don't practice skepticism.

[davefoc]

I think you are conflating atheists with skeptics. The two are not synonymous.



I used the word atheist because it best fit the topic of the thread. I agree that the word skeptic is more consitent with my point.

The whole, skeptic/atheist thing is a little bit difficult for me. I like almost all the people that regularly participate in this forum. Several of them have at least some Christian like beliefs. I attempt not to offend thme (perhaps I offend them anyway, if so I'm sorry) by not conflating skepticism and atheism. But as a life long skeptic and atheist it is not clear to me how one can be a skeptic and not an atheist although I think it is possible to be an atheist and not a skeptic as I use the words.

[andyandy]

I think you are conflating atheists with skeptics. The two are not synonymous.

That being said, your paint has validity.
.


a lovely typo :D

[Soapy Sam]

I'm with Luke on this, except I might quibble about dogs. I've seen dogs investigate something that had got their attention. Whether that's the same "monkey curiosity" that put men on the moon I dunno, but I incline to suspect it is.

Did any one (and this is really a guy question) ever make up an explanation to impress a girl, then find himself defending it to other men with vigour?

I suspect a hell of a lot of daft stuff men do starts as an off the cuff attempt to impress a woman - and then, as Luke says, pride kicks in and they defend their nonsense to the death rather than lose face.

[Garrette]

a lovely typo :DThanks. All my best work is by accident.

[Bob Collier]

What do you think?


I don't think it's irrationality in itself that's hard wired into the brain.

I think it's metaphorical thinking.

It's the necessity of explaining the intangible in tangible terms. This is what can lead to irrational beliefs.

In ancient times, a caveman who observed the passage of the sun across the sky and its consequent reappearance above the opposite horizon would naturally conclude that the sun travels around the earth, and that conclusion would be perfectly rational in its context. From the caveman's level of knowledge, it's totally obvious that the sun goes around the earth. But it would be irrational to hold that belief today, because we know better.

However, many aspects of 'the human experience' - perhaps most - are still invisible and unmeasurable, but clearly they do exist. The metaphysical, in the literal sense of the word.

How do we explain the metaphysical? How do we explain synchronicities and coincidences, good luck and bad luck, all those myriad experiences where we really have no idea of the cause or of what exactly happened on the journey from cause to effect? How do we explain things that we can only get a sense of but don't know how to describe except in terms of other more objective experiences? The bubbly personality; the half-baked idea, the seeds of doubt ...

I think, at the end of the day, I'd be less willing to put energy into changing people's irrational beliefs than I would be to put energy into educating people about the prevalence of metaphor in human thinking, which would be my explanation of why people hold irrational beliefs.

Some random neural firings for now.

[Dymanic]

I don't think it's irrationality in itself that's hard wired into the brain.

I think it's metaphorical thinking.

It's the necessity of explaining the intangible in tangible terms.

Nicely put. As a method for maintaining a high degree of sensitivity to the nuances of the behavior of a complex piece of machinery, it is not unusual for the operator (traditionally male) to sort of "pretend" that he is dealing with a purposeful intelligence (traditionally female). He may actually talk to the machine in soothing tones, calling it by a pet name he has given it, like "betsy", or "nellie-belle"; he adopts the intentional stance. If pressed, it is unlikely that he will claim to actually believe that the machine is capable of purposeful intent, but if he did, that would certainly seem rather irrational.

Of course, the whole idea that thinking of a machine as a woman would somehow make it easier to understand than thinking of it as a machine might be regarded as somewhat irrational right out of the gate, since that's a matter of explaining the tangible in terms of the intangible. Maybe the guy doing that is just lonely.

[CapelDodger]

I'd say it can't be easily priced.

I don't know where the line is, but I would know if the offer is high enough. I'm pretty sure that for ten million dollars, a Z3, and a lifetime supply of Mike and Ikes, I'd do the ring-in-a-drawer thing.
I can get sentimental about money, the larger the sum, the greater the sentiment. It's all very subjective, though. Is there really enough money to, for instance, persuade Dark Jaguar into coprophagy? Even just a little bit?

I have a sentimentally valuable gold ring, and I would sell it for the right price. Which is never going to be offered, since objectively it's mass-produced crap with the hallmarks obliterated by repairs. It's not worth its weight in gold. Perhaps one day I'll really be desperate for food and be glad of a price in potatoes. I'm deeply attached to regular eating.

So, no, not easily priced.

[Bob Collier]

Nicely put. As a method for maintaining a high degree of sensitivity to the nuances of the behavior of a complex piece of machinery, it is not unusual for the operator (traditionally male) to sort of "pretend" that he is dealing with a purposeful intelligence (traditionally female). He may actually talk to the machine in soothing tones, calling it by a pet name he has given it, like "betsy", or "nellie-belle"; he adopts the intentional stance. If pressed, it is unlikely that he will claim to actually believe that the machine is capable of purposeful intent, but if he did, that would certainly seem rather irrational.

Of course, the whole idea that thinking of a machine as a woman would somehow make it easier to understand than thinking of it as a machine might be regarded as somewhat irrational right out of the gate, since that's a matter of explaining the tangible in terms of the intangible. Maybe the guy doing that is just lonely.


LOL

I was reading something a couple of weeks ago about persuasion techniques for salespeople in which the author wrote that the easiest way to sell technology was to do exactly that - talk to and about the machine as if it's a woman. Apparently, research has shown that customers connect more readily to this ploy and sales increase accordingly.

I really do think that we can't help ourselves. We might even have to think this way to make sense of our experiences. I know I use metaphors every day. It seems to me to be a symbolic way my unconscious brain communicates to my awareness that compresses a huge amount of detail into a single idea.

For example, I might be confronted by a messy kitchen that I need to clear up and, rather than attempting to think about all the individual components of the experience, perhaps paralysing my ability to make a decision - "Okay, I have to unload the dishwasher, I have to scrape that food off the plates into the bin, I have to rinse out the teapot", etc - I might think something like "What I need right now is a magic wand" and imagine myself waving a magic wand over the scene in the manner of Harry Potter. Which is my brain's 'code' for something like "This'll be very easy once you get started", thus triggering the necessary motivation into action regardless of the details of what I need to do.

I get the impression much of the New Age loopiness that's going around comes from a failure to recognise metaphors and perceiving them to be ideas about actual experiences or events.

[Dymanic]

I really do think that we can't help ourselves. We might even have to think this way to make sense of our experiences. I know I use metaphors every day. It seems to me to be a symbolic way my unconscious brain communicates to my awareness that compresses a huge amount of detail into a single idea.
Yes. It's never more interesting than when the technique is applied in an attempt to better grasp the subtleties of the functioning of the human brain itself. We speak of "conscious" versus "unconscious" thinking and behavior, and perhaps of cognitive "submodules" and "communication" between them, not worrying too much about the assumptions that are being implicitly subsumed in the process. It's a bit sloppy, but it's not like we have much choice; it's an emergent feature of the low-level architecture of the human brain. Human thought occurs primarily by association. The speed and flexibility with which we can respond to challenges are the result of our ability to rapidly search our stored database of experiences for analogous situations, defining "analogous" in a way that is, with any luck, neither too rigid nor too loose.

[fuelair]

Evidence: there are still people who believe shrub is an effective resident.

[andyandy]

Evidence: there are still people who believe shrub is an effective resident.

i understand all the words in that sentence.....and yet it means nothing :D