"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger, in a passage that might have been referring to climate change denial—the persistent rejection, on the part of so many Americans today, of what we know about global warming and its human causes. But it was too early for that—this was the 1950s—and Festinger was actually describing a famous case study in psychology.
Check it out in:
The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science
Interesting
Interesting
What I found interresting is that ... if one is willing to wade through the entire article is that ...
Which is to say, it is very difficult for anyone to look past their own inital biases.
While more then half of the examples use the political right it is true, because of the influence of Social Conservatives, that Republicans will be more strongly religious. This, Repubicans are more likely to start with strong convictions. (Leading back to the openning statement.)
InterestingWhat I found interresting is that ... if one is willing to wade through the entire article is that ...
Which is to say, it is very difficult for anyone to look past their own inital biases.
While more then half of the examples use the political right it is true, because of the influence of Social Conservatives, that Republicans will be more strongly religious. This, Repubicans are more likely to start with strong convictions. (Leading back to the openning statement.)
Perhaps, but I've met enough "enlightened" people that cannot look past their own personal biases, whether they be Christian, atheist, Democrat, Republican, or what have you.
For example: a friend of mine who is vegetarian decided to join a Facebook page for vegetarians. She was almost immediately set upon by a vegan who posted a picture of a cow fetus and browbeat her to do more.
That and a few other incidents led me to put up the following status update on my page:
You win. You're right. Your worldview based on your beliefs as a Christian/Pagan/Atheist/Environmentalist/Democrat/Republican/Vegetarian/Veg an/Venusian/Gun owner/Gun control advocate/Man/Woman/Transgendered/Gay/Straight/Whatever are completely right and absolutely superior to mine. How could I possibly have doubted you? I bow to your superior knowledge and authority. Now leave me the hell alone.
|
You win. You're right. Your worldview based on your beliefs as a Christian/Pagan/Atheist/Environmentalist/Democrat/Republican/Vegetarian/Veg an/Venusian/Gun owner/Gun control advocate/Man/Woman/Transgendered/Gay/Straight/Whatever are completely right and absolutely superior to mine. How could I possibly have doubted you? I bow to your superior knowledge and authority. Now leave me the hell alone.
Dude! Can I borrow this? Or maybe we can get t-shirts made....?
Dude! Can I borrow this? Or maybe we can get t-shirts made....?You win. You're right. Your worldview based on your beliefs as a Christian/Pagan/Atheist/Environmentalist/Democrat/Republican/Vegetarian/Veg an/Venusian/Gun owner/Gun control advocate/Man/Woman/Transgendered/Gay/Straight/Whatever are completely right and absolutely superior to mine. How could I possibly have doubted you? I bow to your superior knowledge and authority. Now leave me the hell alone.
+1
EDIT: If this is a typical litany of sarcasm we can expect from you on a regular basis for status updates, why are you NOT my FB friend? Love it!
Dude! Can I borrow this? Or maybe we can get t-shirts made....?You win. You're right. Your worldview based on your beliefs as a Christian/Pagan/Atheist/Environmentalist/Democrat/Republican/Vegetarian/Veg an/Venusian/Gun owner/Gun control advocate/Man/Woman/Transgendered/Gay/Straight/Whatever are completely right and absolutely superior to mine. How could I possibly have doubted you? I bow to your superior knowledge and authority. Now leave me the hell alone.+1
EDIT: If this is a typical litany of sarcasm we can expect from you on a regular basis for status updates, why are you NOT my FB friend? Love it!
Please borrow away, though I'm partial to the t-shirt idea as well.
As to why we're not FB friends...I dunno. I wouldn't describe my sarcasm as a litany, but it certainly is a regular staple. I require a diet that's high in irony.
As to why we're not FB friends...I dunno. I wouldn't describe my sarcasm as a litany, but it certainly is a regular staple. I require a diet that's high in irony.
That's about 95% of my status updates. I feel no need to talk about poop schedules or urology visits or any other forms of preening.
"The password you have entered is incorrect." "It is not! I've never used 'incorrect' as my password. Now stop f#&king with me and let me login!"
"Hey, are you going to be free tomorrow?" "No. I'm very expensive."
If I were to see one show on Broadway, it would be this [with Samuel L. Jackson]. I can picture it now with him as Martin Luther King, Jr., "I had a dream motherf*cker!"
Sarah Palin is going to trade mark her name? Seriously, why would Mark want it? He has a reputation he needs to uphold.
Take the name of your first pet and the name of the street you grew up on. Then take your age and add it to your favorite movie star's age and subtract that number by 12. Then hide a loaf of bread that resembles your dignity under your pillow and cry yourself to sleep because you just figured out your "I like to play dumb games" name and age.
"What's with all these disappearing posts? I can see that you replied, but I can't read them!" "I think Facebook had a hiring spree from the programmers laid off from Myspace. Draw your own conclusion."
You win. You're right. Your worldview based on your beliefs as a Christian/Pagan/Atheist/Environmentalist/Democrat/Republican/Vegetarian/Veg an/Venusian/Gun owner/Gun control advocate/Man/Woman/Transgendered/Gay/Straight/Whatever are completely right and absolutely superior to mine. How could I possibly have doubted you? I bow to your superior knowledge and authority. Now leave me the hell alone.
It's extremely difficult to reason someone out of a decision or opinion that they didn't reason themselves into.
You win. You're right. Your worldview based on your beliefs as a Christian/Pagan/Atheist/Environmentalist/Democrat/Republican/Vegetarian/Veg an/Venusian/Gun owner/Gun control advocate/Man/Woman/Transgendered/Gay/Straight/Whatever are completely right and absolutely superior to mine. How could I possibly have doubted you? I bow to your superior knowledge and authority. Now leave me the hell alone.It's extremely difficult to reason someone out of a decision or opinion that they didn't reason themselves into.
Now you're being unreasonable.
It's extremely difficult to reason someone out of a decision or opinion that they didn't reason themselves into.Now you're being unreasonable.
When was I ever reasonable? {goes back to poking anthill}
When was I ever reasonable? {goes back to poking anthill}It's extremely difficult to reason someone out of a decision or opinion that they didn't reason themselves into.Now you're being unreasonable.
hands over a magnifying glass
When was I ever reasonable? {goes back to poking anthill}It's extremely difficult to reason someone out of a decision or opinion that they didn't reason themselves into.Now you're being unreasonable.
Be careful if it is fire ants.
It's extremely difficult to reason someone out of a decision or opinion that they didn't reason themselves into.
It's also extremely difficult to proselytize someone out of a decision or opinion that they reasoned themselves into. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop them from trying.
Great article.
It's extremely difficult to reason someone out of a decision or opinion that they didn't reason themselves into.It's also extremely difficult to proselytize someone out of a decision or opinion that reasoned themselves into. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop them from trying.
I don't know. I think if they honestly arrived at a position through reason, then they would also be receptive to a well-reasoned counter-position... certainly more likely than moving away from an emotional entrenchment.
But yeah, I think too many would-be proselytizers don't realize when they and/or their position isn't persuasive enough... and they they keep right on badgering their would-be convertee anyway. For example...
Vaccine denial has all the hallmarks of a belief system that's not amenable to refutation. Over the past decade, the assertion that childhood vaccines are driving autism rates has been undermined by multiple epidemiological studies—
-conducted by vaccine manufacturers or those with financial interests in the industry...
as well as the simple fact that autism rates continue to rise, even though the alleged offending agent in vaccines (a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal) has long since been removed.
Let me preface this by saying I am not a scientist, nor do I speak with any real authority on the subject.
It's always struck me as odd that studies keep looking for a cause of autism, as if there were one thing that could be changed or eliminated to solve the problem. If it were only one thing, I'd think that either autism rates would have risen and then leveled off when that particular element/condition was introduced. It just seems more likely that a combination of elements or conditions is the cause.
I don't know. I think if they honestly arrived at a position through reason, then they would also be receptive to a well-reasoned counter-position... certainly more likely than moving away from an emotional entrenchment.
The problem is that the majority of people, if not all people, are more easily swayed by their emotions than by logic. It's human nature. For example, I've met several atheists who are supposedly rational people yet get no end of delight in belittling those that hold religious beliefs and will go out of their way to state that religion has caused nothing but grief for the human race, despite any evidence to the contrary. The irony being that their behavior is disruptive, annoying, and often cruel.
Are these people representative of the majority of atheists. I doubt it. They just happen to be louder and more attention-getting than most. It's an unfortunate thing that most groups are identified by their most radical fringe elements, whose characteristics are usually applied to the whole as a common stereotype.
I don't know. I think if they honestly arrived at a position through reason, then they would also be receptive to a well-reasoned counter-position... certainly more likely than moving away from an emotional entrenchment.The problem is that the majority of people, if not all people, are more easily swayed by their emotions than by logic. It's human nature. For example, I've met several atheists who are supposedly rational people yet get no end of delight in belittling those that hold religious beliefs and will go out of their way to state that religion has caused nothing but grief for the human race, despite any evidence to the contrary. The irony being that their behavior is disruptive, annoying, and often cruel.
Are these people representative of the majority of atheists. I doubt it. They just happen to be louder and more attention-getting than most. It's an unfortunate thing that most groups are identified by their most radical fringe elements, whose characteristics are usually applied to the whole as a common stereotype.
Not taht we can even worshiup most religoins without other people thinking of it. If you had a water cult that viewed water as holy and carried places how many places would they be excluded from because of no food or drinks. Of all the possible things most people will think they are wrong.
But yeah, I think too many would-be proselytizers don't realize when they and/or their position isn't persuasive enough... and they they keep right on badgering their would-be convertee anyway. For example...
Duh, winning!
I don't know. I think if they honestly arrived at a position through reason, then they would also be receptive to a well-reasoned counter-position... certainly more likely than moving away from an emotional entrenchment.The problem is that the majority of people, if not all people, are more easily swayed by their emotions than by logic. It's human nature. For example, I've met several atheists who are supposedly rational people yet get no end of delight in belittling those that hold religious beliefs and will go out of their way to state that religion has caused nothing but grief for the human race, despite any evidence to the contrary. The irony being that their behavior is disruptive, annoying, and often cruel.
Are these people representative of the majority of atheists. I doubt it. They just happen to be louder and more attention-getting than most. It's an unfortunate thing that most groups are identified by their most radical fringe elements, whose characteristics are usually applied to the whole as a common stereotype.
I've never met a perfect person yet: atheist, theist, or agnostic. Part of wisdom is learning to separate reason and emotion. We're all a work in progress.
I am a bit concerned by your example of the unreasonable "atheist." Surely, you also know of just as many theists who will readily demonstrate the exact same behavior? If you draw a Venn diagram of any group and the "A**hole" contingent, you will always see some overlap.
I am a bit concerned by your example of the unreasonable "atheist." Surely, you also know of just as many theists who will readily demonstrate the exact same behavior? If you draw a Venn diagram of any group and the "A**hole" contingent, you will always see some overlap.
Oh, absolutely. I chose the atheist example because most tend to pride themselves on their rational take on life. Yet they can be just as petty, vindictive, clinging to their personal beliefs and...well, dickish as anyone else. It's all too easy to find people of a religious bent that display those negative qualities regularly.
Oh, absolutely. I chose the atheist example because most tend to pride themselves on their rational take on life. Yet they can be just as petty, vindictive, clinging to their personal beliefs and...well, dickish as anyone else. It's all too easy to find people of a religious bent that display those negative qualities regularly.
We like to call it 'unbelief'. </pedantry> ;-)
Oh, absolutely. I chose the atheist example because most tend to pride themselves on their rational take on life. Yet they can be just as petty, vindictive, clinging to their personal beliefs and...well, dickish as anyone else. It's all too easy to find people of a religious bent that display those negative qualities regularly.We like to call it 'unbelief'. </pedantry> ;-)
Heh.
I was thinking of the cult of science. Not actual science, but the unfounded belief that with scientific progression comes a parallel progress in ethics. The idea that science will eventually solve all humanity's problems, despite the fact that with every scientific advancement comes a share of misery.
I was thinking of the cult of science. Not actual science, but the unfounded belief that with scientific progression comes a parallel progress in ethics. The idea that science will eventually solve all humanity's problems, despite the fact that with every scientific advancement comes a share of misery.
"We knew the world would not be the same. Few people laughed, few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that, one way or another."
- J. Robert Oppenheimer (1960)
It is the job of science to increase the human understanding of the world. It is the job of technology to provide more and better tools for us. Anything else is not in the job description.
Lots of people do not understand this.
Science and technology are not about ethics. Ethics is not about how the world works and what tools we have avilable. Ethics is not something science can provide. With every new tool, the ethics situation becomes MORE, not less, complicated.
Religion, humanism, and other belief systems/philosophies, are the entities that deal with ethics. They are piss poor at giving a useful understanding of the world, and they do not as a rule provide us with any tools, but they are the ones that can answer the question "Why?"
When you try to ask a scientist "why?", you will get useless answers. When you try asking a believer about the world, the answers will be equally pointless.
Why is it so hard to understand this, for so many people?
It is the job of science to increase the human understanding of the world. It is the job of technology to provide more and better tools for us. Anything else is not in the job description.
Lots of people do not understand this.
Science and technology are not about ethics. Ethics is not about how the world works and what tools we have avilable. Ethics is not something science can provide. With every new tool, the ethics situation becomes MORE, not less, complicated.
Religion, humanism, and other belief systems/philosophies, are the entities that deal with ethics. They are piss poor at giving a useful understanding of the world, and they do not as a rule provide us with any tools, but they are the ones that can answer the question "Why?"
When you try to ask a scientist "why?", you will get useless answers. When you try asking a believer about the world, the answers will be equally pointless.
Why is it so hard to understand this, for so many people?
I wouldn't be so quick to lump in philosophy with religion. Philosophy isn't a belief system, it's a means to understand things through reason. If not for philosophy, there would be no science.
Aside from that, I think you make a good point.