It's not up to 500 yet, but this is an interesting blog that asks questions you may not have thought of before:
http://500questions.wordpress.com/
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Irrationality is one of the mind's natural defense mechanisms
Why are we so eager to defend our own existing beliefs?
The answer may lie in how our brains function. The human brain is a fascinatingly complex information storage system. It's not like a computer, encoding information precisely as bits that can then be retrieved exactly as they were stored. Rather, it forms fuzzy "networks" of neurons that contain not only pieces of information, but also the emotional context associated with that information.
For example, if I say to you the word "bear," or show you a picture of a bear:
...neurons containing information about bears are going to fire. But they also contain links to other information that will begin firing as well: forest, hunting, Yellowstone, picnic, grizzly, panda, dangerous. I'm not sure what your feelings on bears are, but when you think about bears, you retrieve an entire network of information and emotions. And the more time you spend thinking about bears, the more you read about bears, the more you learn about bears, the stronger this network will become.
Now if I say to you "Obama" or "Mitt Romney," a very different set of information and emotions comes up, depending on your feelings toward these two figures. You also likely visualize the colors blue and red, respectively.
These information networks are not abstract or ethereal. They make up a physical part of your brain. They exist physically, just as surely as your arm or your leg.
As you gain new information, your mind will store it and link it to existing networks. The most efficient storage mechanism is to seek out or interpret information in such a way that it will conform with preexisting structures and can simply reinforce them. It's easier to add to existing information than to tear down all of the existing networks (which would require dramatic physical changes within your brain) and try to replace them in light of new information. This is called confirmation bias, and it's very powerful.
Similarly, when we encounter information that is detrimental to our existing belief systems, the mind's natural response is to pit its existing neural structures against that information to discredit it. The more scary or dangerous a piece of information seems, and the stronger the underlying mental networks that disagree with it, the more mental effort one will exert to stop it from changing their mind. This phenomenon is known as disconfirmation bias.
When our mind holds conflicting information, it means that networks have sections of overlapping nodes but may have attached different significance to them. The brain will seek to interpret the information in a non-threatening way that resolves the conflict to a consistent state while preserving as much information and existing structure as possible. This condition can cause stress and anxiety until it is resolved and is known as cognitive dissonance. It can lead to justification of information that we believe in strongly but which conflict with each other.
Think of it as analogous to your immune system. Your mind is using psychological mechanisms to protect your existing beliefs, which actually form a physical part of your body, stored and networked within your brain.
When we hear an idea that conflicts with our beliefs, our brain's natural response is to try to discredit that idea, regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong. Understanding this may be helpful in overcoming it and being able to have rational discussions and even change one's own mind due to a compelling argument.
The answer may lie in how our brains function. The human brain is a fascinatingly complex information storage system. It's not like a computer, encoding information precisely as bits that can then be retrieved exactly as they were stored. Rather, it forms fuzzy "networks" of neurons that contain not only pieces of information, but also the emotional context associated with that information.
For example, if I say to you the word "bear," or show you a picture of a bear:
...neurons containing information about bears are going to fire. But they also contain links to other information that will begin firing as well: forest, hunting, Yellowstone, picnic, grizzly, panda, dangerous. I'm not sure what your feelings on bears are, but when you think about bears, you retrieve an entire network of information and emotions. And the more time you spend thinking about bears, the more you read about bears, the more you learn about bears, the stronger this network will become.
Now if I say to you "Obama" or "Mitt Romney," a very different set of information and emotions comes up, depending on your feelings toward these two figures. You also likely visualize the colors blue and red, respectively.
These information networks are not abstract or ethereal. They make up a physical part of your brain. They exist physically, just as surely as your arm or your leg.
As you gain new information, your mind will store it and link it to existing networks. The most efficient storage mechanism is to seek out or interpret information in such a way that it will conform with preexisting structures and can simply reinforce them. It's easier to add to existing information than to tear down all of the existing networks (which would require dramatic physical changes within your brain) and try to replace them in light of new information. This is called confirmation bias, and it's very powerful.
Similarly, when we encounter information that is detrimental to our existing belief systems, the mind's natural response is to pit its existing neural structures against that information to discredit it. The more scary or dangerous a piece of information seems, and the stronger the underlying mental networks that disagree with it, the more mental effort one will exert to stop it from changing their mind. This phenomenon is known as disconfirmation bias.
When our mind holds conflicting information, it means that networks have sections of overlapping nodes but may have attached different significance to them. The brain will seek to interpret the information in a non-threatening way that resolves the conflict to a consistent state while preserving as much information and existing structure as possible. This condition can cause stress and anxiety until it is resolved and is known as cognitive dissonance. It can lead to justification of information that we believe in strongly but which conflict with each other.
Think of it as analogous to your immune system. Your mind is using psychological mechanisms to protect your existing beliefs, which actually form a physical part of your body, stored and networked within your brain.
When we hear an idea that conflicts with our beliefs, our brain's natural response is to try to discredit that idea, regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong. Understanding this may be helpful in overcoming it and being able to have rational discussions and even change one's own mind due to a compelling argument.
Intelligent people are often the most wrong
I like to cite Wikipedia when making claims, because I feel it's a fairly neutral, factual source that most people can agree on; it's certainly less partisan than either the Church's own website or a critic's, and it overwhelmingly cites sources for the information it contains. Take a look at the pages about Mormonism and you will find that they are presented in a very fair way, with Mormons allowed their own perspective as well, even when the evidence seems to refute it. Some will argue that "anyone can write whatever they want on Wikipedia," but because of the way it's set up, nonsense or incorrect edits are usually promptly removed. In fact, studies show that Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is very impressive when you consider that it's written and edited entirely by volunteers and contains orders of magnitude more information (a click on random just now got me this.)
So to me, Conservapedia is a very interesting phenomenon. Created by a lawyer and homeschooling advocate named Andrew Schlafly who felt that Wikipedia had a consistent liberal bias, Conservapedia "is a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia" (source: the Conservapedia page on itself.) It also lacks some of the strict citation and notability guidelines found in Wikipedia. If you've never heard of it, take a look at the front page for a second. Go on, I'll wait.
Current front-page topics include "Why does biblical creation matter?" "How stale and boring is evolutionary indoctrination and evobabble?" "Internet atheism failed in 2012" and "Evidences for a young earth and universe." Oh, and also, "Creation Ministries International is on the rise, evolutionism and atheism is NOT!" (That one is so true that they had to YELL it at you!) The authors of Conservapedia dispute many accepted scientific theories by arguing for a "conservative" view of natural phenomena which are completely non-partisan (but some of which, like climate change, might have ramifications which are seen as more in line with one party's value system.) Some favorite quotes: "The scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and universe..." and "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution" and "The theory of relativity has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments." Also, count the number of references to "Creation Ministries International" you find - on the home page right now, there are four. This seems odd considering Conservapedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a creationist magazine.
It's as if there are two sets of facts: the set agreed upon by Wikipedia and scientists (and other "liberals") and the "conservative" version of the facts. But while people can have different opinions about philosophy or the significance of events, we live in a shared reality, so science isn't up for ideological debate. Science remains our best explanation of nature until new evidence is found that improves it.
I'd love to see Conservapedia compared to Britannica, but anyone who made such a comparison would undoubtedly be found guilty of a strong liberal bias.
I'm not a physicist or a climatologist, so I'll leave those topics to their respective experts. But, for fun, let's take a look at the Conservapedia page on evolution:
"Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." Whether this is true or not (no supporting evidence is cited), it's irrelevant to whether or not evolution is a good explanation of the world around us. It merely serves to "poison the well" against proponents of evolution, causing the mostly religious audience of Conservapedia to feel threatened by the theory from the start.
An external source is then cited: "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution." "Over 700" might sound like a lot until you realize how small a fragment of scientists that actually represents: about 0.054% of life and geological scientists in the U.S. Additionally, not all of these "scientists" are doctoral-level researchers, and may are in fields that are not directly related to evolution; three quarters are not biologists. This citation attempts to mislead viewers that there is scientific uncertainty on the topic, when in fact scientists have reached an overwhelming consensus on evolution.
"The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory." This statement is misleading as well. Transitioning from "simple life forms to more complex life forms" would take billions of years, so obviously it isn't something that could reasonably be observed in a laboratory setting. Nevertheless, we have observed evidence of exactly this happening in the fossil record, and evidence of mutation causing significant changes to species resulting in speciation (members of the same species become so different from one another that they can no longer reproduce, forming a new species) has been observed in the lab and in the world around us within the past several hundred years. Examples include the greenish warbler and the Ensatina genus of salamanders.
The article also links to "15 questions that evolutionists can't answer." This list doesn't contain a single question that can't be answered. If you're interested in the answers, send me a message.
This is all just from reading the introduction. The article is, at present, over 20,000 words in length, and debating the whole thing isn't the point of this post.
And so, if you can see just how far off Conservapedia is when it comes to understanding and accepting facts, you might be tempted to label Schlafly and others that have contributed to his project as stupid. I can understand that. But, the astonishing fact is that he's not stupid. At least not in the usual sense of the word. He has a B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton, and a J.D. from Harvard. He's actually a very intelligent and motivated person, which gives him the ability to make very legitimate-sounding (but misleading) arguments about topics on which he is very clearly wrong.
Why do very intelligent people have a visceral reaction to evolution, and try to argue that the evidence doesn't support it, when it very clearly does? The answer is that it conflicts with their identity - evolution may have religious ramifications that some are unwilling to accept. So, these very intelligent people are engaging their intelligence, but not to find truth - they're using it to defend their identity and existing beliefs.
So, ironically, the smarter you are, the better able you are to defend your beliefs (even when they're wrong), and the less likely you are to respond to reasonable arguments against them.
As an added bonus, check out Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project," in which they rewrite the Bible removing parts they deem to have "liberal bias."
So to me, Conservapedia is a very interesting phenomenon. Created by a lawyer and homeschooling advocate named Andrew Schlafly who felt that Wikipedia had a consistent liberal bias, Conservapedia "is a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia" (source: the Conservapedia page on itself.) It also lacks some of the strict citation and notability guidelines found in Wikipedia. If you've never heard of it, take a look at the front page for a second. Go on, I'll wait.
Current front-page topics include "Why does biblical creation matter?" "How stale and boring is evolutionary indoctrination and evobabble?" "Internet atheism failed in 2012" and "Evidences for a young earth and universe." Oh, and also, "Creation Ministries International is on the rise, evolutionism and atheism is NOT!" (That one is so true that they had to YELL it at you!) The authors of Conservapedia dispute many accepted scientific theories by arguing for a "conservative" view of natural phenomena which are completely non-partisan (but some of which, like climate change, might have ramifications which are seen as more in line with one party's value system.) Some favorite quotes: "The scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and universe..." and "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution" and "The theory of relativity has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments." Also, count the number of references to "Creation Ministries International" you find - on the home page right now, there are four. This seems odd considering Conservapedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a creationist magazine.
It's as if there are two sets of facts: the set agreed upon by Wikipedia and scientists (and other "liberals") and the "conservative" version of the facts. But while people can have different opinions about philosophy or the significance of events, we live in a shared reality, so science isn't up for ideological debate. Science remains our best explanation of nature until new evidence is found that improves it.
I'd love to see Conservapedia compared to Britannica, but anyone who made such a comparison would undoubtedly be found guilty of a strong liberal bias.
I'm not a physicist or a climatologist, so I'll leave those topics to their respective experts. But, for fun, let's take a look at the Conservapedia page on evolution:
"Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." Whether this is true or not (no supporting evidence is cited), it's irrelevant to whether or not evolution is a good explanation of the world around us. It merely serves to "poison the well" against proponents of evolution, causing the mostly religious audience of Conservapedia to feel threatened by the theory from the start.
An external source is then cited: "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution." "Over 700" might sound like a lot until you realize how small a fragment of scientists that actually represents: about 0.054% of life and geological scientists in the U.S. Additionally, not all of these "scientists" are doctoral-level researchers, and may are in fields that are not directly related to evolution; three quarters are not biologists. This citation attempts to mislead viewers that there is scientific uncertainty on the topic, when in fact scientists have reached an overwhelming consensus on evolution.
"The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory." This statement is misleading as well. Transitioning from "simple life forms to more complex life forms" would take billions of years, so obviously it isn't something that could reasonably be observed in a laboratory setting. Nevertheless, we have observed evidence of exactly this happening in the fossil record, and evidence of mutation causing significant changes to species resulting in speciation (members of the same species become so different from one another that they can no longer reproduce, forming a new species) has been observed in the lab and in the world around us within the past several hundred years. Examples include the greenish warbler and the Ensatina genus of salamanders.
The article also links to "15 questions that evolutionists can't answer." This list doesn't contain a single question that can't be answered. If you're interested in the answers, send me a message.
This is all just from reading the introduction. The article is, at present, over 20,000 words in length, and debating the whole thing isn't the point of this post.
And so, if you can see just how far off Conservapedia is when it comes to understanding and accepting facts, you might be tempted to label Schlafly and others that have contributed to his project as stupid. I can understand that. But, the astonishing fact is that he's not stupid. At least not in the usual sense of the word. He has a B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton, and a J.D. from Harvard. He's actually a very intelligent and motivated person, which gives him the ability to make very legitimate-sounding (but misleading) arguments about topics on which he is very clearly wrong.
Why do very intelligent people have a visceral reaction to evolution, and try to argue that the evidence doesn't support it, when it very clearly does? The answer is that it conflicts with their identity - evolution may have religious ramifications that some are unwilling to accept. So, these very intelligent people are engaging their intelligence, but not to find truth - they're using it to defend their identity and existing beliefs.
So, ironically, the smarter you are, the better able you are to defend your beliefs (even when they're wrong), and the less likely you are to respond to reasonable arguments against them.
As an added bonus, check out Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project," in which they rewrite the Bible removing parts they deem to have "liberal bias."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)