Slashdot Mirror
Beliefs Conform To Cultural Identities
DallasMay writes "This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work. From the article: 'In one experiment, Braman queried subjects about something unfamiliar to them: nanotechnology — new research into tiny, molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products. "These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says. The individualists tended to like nanotechnology. The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous. Both groups made their decisions based on the same information. "It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.'"
Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished. That would reveal a big chunk of the world's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions.
The articles wisely cite valid questions concerning real-life phenominae. That's healthy debate, and it's a sign that hummanity is capable of "moving on". But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than thinking.
Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.
>Both groups made their decisions based on the same information.
No they didn't.
They based their decisions on information gathered from outside the experiment - their own life experiences, and applied those experiences to their arguments.
This is surprising?
--
BMO
People thrive on information that reinforces their point of view and reject information that challenge it. How is this news?
That's basically what newspapers and TV stations thrive on.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't think any of these individuals are a clean slate so it's not a surprise that they may have strong pre-conceptions that come into play. It's not that "It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe". Rather they already have some beliefs they consider true which they apply.
It's also no surprise that people in groups do not behave rationally. Even scientists and medical researchers can be downright stupid about things. I was listening to an interesting podcast this morning: http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/everything-is-dangerous-a-controversy
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Everyone knows facts have a liberal bias anyway.
Thanks for confirming confirmation bias for me. It was pretty much what I expected anyway...
Insert self-referential sig here.
Not commenting on the debate, but I think it's interesting that in an article about cognitive biases (particularly group cognitive biases) that they don't ever bother to probe the question of how such biases affect things like "scientific consensus," they only view it from the perspective of how such biases affect the freshly germinated views of the uninitated. You would think scientists, being human beings as well, would be in some way subject the same effects, and as long as questions are being raised about the human proclivity for certain viewpoints, someone might stop to wonder "in what ratio do people who go into the environmental sciences tend to be individualist or communitarian, and how is this likely to affect their judgment of related information?"
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
It's spelled "douche bag". And the answer to your question is any student of the Classics. Learn something.
After all, I am strangely colored.
That passage is of dubious authenticity and may be mistransliterated. It also includes other historical mistakes.
Personally, I think the arguments over transliterations (Chrestianos vs Christianos) are misguided since some of the PGM use "Chrestos" in clear place of "Christos" ("Christos" is Hebrew "Messiah" translated into Greek while "Chrestos" is Greek for "The Useful One" though Hans Dieter Betz translates as "The Most Excellent" in context).
However, the historical errors by Tacitus suggest he was not working from actual records, but perhaps simply entering a sidebar as to what the Christians said about the founding of their sect. Consequently I am not prepared to use it as evidence of Jesus's existance.
My own view is that Christianity began as a synthetic religion between somewhat Hellenized Jewish sects and Hellenistic mystery cults. I think the Gospels bear the same relationship to Christianity as the Asinus Aureus (as Augustine called it) bore to the Cult of Isis. That doesn't devalue the work as a mythological basis for religion and in fact may strengthen its pedigree. Such an interpretation however flies in the face of literalism.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
From TFA, one of the group is defined by:"Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the 'individualistic' group."
Shock horror, the people who embrace new technology were more likely to embrace a new piece of technology...
This is almost a zero-information experiment. The definitions classified the results that were then analysed against the classifications. In other news, when we classified coin tosses into a "heads" group and a "tails" group, we found that the "heads" group contained 100% heads results, no matter how many times the coin was tossed ... we conclude therefore that randomness is an illusion.
The participants were not presented with "facts", they were presented with "claimed facts" which they had to both interpret and assess. (A process called "reading" and "understanding".) That the participants were able ahead-of-time to describe the foibles of their assessment strategies (that one group was able to say it was more amenable to new technology) merely shows that the participants were pretty good at reflecting on their own decision strategies.
Next...
I am aware that the majority of scholars think Jesus existed. However, this strikes me as evidence of what this thread is about rather than a matter of solid evidence. I think this is for a couple of reasons:
1) Christians of course want to think that Jesus existed.
2) Atheistic approaches tend to assume that it is simpler to assume that Jesus was a great teacher than that everything written about him was pseudopigraphic or mythological in origins.
My reason for saying there is no real reliable evidence however comes from concluding (by studying Hellenistic religions) that basic outline of the story of Christ is probably mythological instead of factual, and that it combines pre-existing threads from a number of other Hellenistic religions. Secondly, there seems to have been a very lively tradition of writing what were essentially novels about religious subjects as a means of religious teaching (Apuleius's Metamorphosis/Asinus Aureus is a good example of that). This sort of thing has been called "pseudopigrapha" when the authorship is falsely attributed.
Furthermore, when you actually look at Paul's epistles, they are all over the place in which Hellenistic religions they incorporate pieces of. His general approach seems to be to incorporate the basic religious terminology and cosmology of whoever he is writing to.
So when we strip all of these things which seem to come from other sources away (the Trinity from Plato, the Archons of the Ages from various Hellenistic Gnostic cults, the Last Supper as possibly having Dionysian origins, the death and resurrection on Easter as the pagan sacrifice of world renewal), we are really left with nothing new under the sun.
I am not dismissing the possibility of Jesus's existence entirely. However, I am saying that it is more fruitful to look at Christianity as an outgrowth of the Hellenistic world in general than the outgrowth of one man's teachings, and that I have no immediate understanding of the exact circumstance of the formation of Christianity in the first place (our records until really near the end of the Hellenistic era are remarkably sparse).
BTW, I would also go further. I think that some of this Roman literature about other Hellenistic religions was formative on Christianity as well. The development of the Blood Libel really seems to have its origins in Roman literature such as that of Lucan, Apuleis, Horace, etc. If Christianity is seen as having its origins in a syncretic, Hellenistic branch of Judaism, then I think more problems are solved than created. The only problem created is a doubt as to whether Christ actually existed.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I generally consider Heisenberg (author of "Physics and Philosophy") to be one of the finest scientists of the twentieth century. However, I am very much aware of how fast science is moving and so may be slightly unsure of my position on the matter at the moment.....
Seriously, Heisenberg's discussion of the process of formation scientific theory is the clearest work I have ever seen on the subject. The man was a real genius in this regard and certainly comparable to both Einstein and Feynman.
One of the clearest examples he makes in the book is the comparison between Heraclitus's selection of fire as the prima materia and Einstein's equation of E=mc^2. Einstein, Heisenberg tells us, basically took Heraclitus's statement and quantified it, telling us how much of Heraclitus's fire was used to make up the rest of matter.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?
I'm not talking about an uncertainty being made resolute on one side of the fence or the other.
I'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review, realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.
Now, if you have experienced that, ask yourself the following. . .
Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?
Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?
Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?
Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?
Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?
Just asking.
-FL
This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.
No, the article describes an experiment that shows that people don't necessarily trust scientists to get things right, and the degree of the trust varies by culture. This is hardly surprising. Scientists are people, and one's opinions about people tends to be a result of your interactions with people around you, most of whom are generally from your own culture. Most of what culture is is the result of such interactions. How could your culture not affect what you expect to see from a group of people?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Watch a Christian complete phase out and stop processing info when you point out the the many similarities between Jesus and many other similar shepherd gods in other cultures of that same region of the Eastern Med.
I'm not religious, but I "phase out" at that, too. The problem is that these "similarities" are an invention of a whacked-out conspiracy nut who basically just pulled them out of his ass. Non-religious people who buy into it are simply swallowing another form of dogma.
Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza.
If you think that a recording of police broadcasts can "scientifically prove" anything, then you don't really understand what that phrase means.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that your two examples have in common is that they're based on ignorance. Anyone capable of doing basic research and applying simple logic should reject both claims.
Who in their right mind would read a Latin bible? If you wanted to get down to the root language, The Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew, and the new testament was written in Greek. Which went on to be translated into the various languages and versions you see today. KJV is just one of many English translations available today, having both Formal and Dynamic equivalence.
The authenticity is also not at question of the various copies of the original scrolls, and by various I mean over 5600 original copies have been found, at 99.5% accuracy between them. There was also less than 100 years of time between the original and the earliest copy we have, however. For reference, Homer (The Iliad), only had 643 original copies, and at 95% accuracy! The time span between writing date and the earliest copy we have is 500 years. The works of Plato, a measly 7 copies found, at a non-measured accuracy. The time span between the copy and the original was over 1200 years. Many were willingly martyred within the first few hundred years, especially in the case of the eye witnesses at the time.
The theory of Jesus never existing is not a view widely held by historians either. r1 - r2
"Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus"
ABSTRACT:
People tend not to listen to your message if they view it as threatening to their livelihood, their community, or their ego.
--
Toro
Seeing as when they compiled the bible, they packed together all of authoritative, trustworthy written documents that gave an account of Jesus' life or spoke of the man, I'd say it's probably going to be pretty hard to find a "authoritative" source which is not present in the Bible. Of course, there are other written documents which mention then man. If you are looking for physical evidence, what kind of evidence are you looking for? He was a guy that lived 2000 years ago. He didn't build or have built monuments in his name, and he spoke out against such things (not that it's stopped "Christians" from doing it since then, but that's another argument). Literature is pretty much the only proof we have that any people in history really existed (we have bones in tombs, but how do we know they are who the literature says they are, and even if we did know, how would that verify other aspects of the literature). If you want to throw out the Bible as proof, what's to stop you from throwing out other literature?
Translated: "In a laboratory setting, we demonstrated we couldn't magically persuade people of whatever we wanted about hot-button issues by selectively presenting facts."
Good.
More than that, Slashdot needs agree and disagree buttons. The rest can just be modded.
The problem with that particular subject matter - Global Warming - is that people have already been convinced through a smear campaign that the facts were politically motivated. Result is blinkered, heavy filtering of all input relating to global warming simply because they think it's all lies. Not because of any standing beliefs or "cultural identities".
And part of that smear campaign has now convinced them that science in general is a political entity and should be treated as if it's just one little pesky politician that needs banished for good.
By your argument, raising your children within a culture of any sort could be an "abuse of human nature and damages your free will to an extent that is [irreparable]". Religion is just a peculiar sort of culture which is entwined with, but not at all synonymous with, spirituality. As such, it generally does have a stronger impact than, say, what type of music you listen to, but it is still ultimately a culture issue. We all are influenced by our origins, and make choices as a result. Life in the long run is largely about progressing from that origin to a better place, often requiring that we recognize that our free will is not as "damaged" as we think, no matter what we have gone through. Granted, there are exceedingly many examples where religion is used as a cudgel to beat down free will, and it leads people to make horrible choices, and woe to those who wield such weapons. I do not mean in any way to excuse such actual abuse. But you overstate the case that "making" someone into a Christian or Muslim or Jew is in and of itself abusive.
I for one view myself as a Christian (culturally) who pursues Jesus as a spiritual choice. I know plenty of people who share one of the two labels above but not both. I don't advocate abolishing all Christian or religious cultures, but I am totally on board with loosening the coupling between religious cultures and spiritual choices because in the end it will only be good for people.
The whole point of this article is that people believe information that confirms their biases and the react accordingly.
And you guys respond immediately with "See! This information confirms my biases against religion..."
First, Philo is an interesting source and I consider to be one important to the study of this topic. I would argue however that the trinity does derive (as was believed in the Renaissance) from Plato's works, in particular "Republic" and "Letters." However, the roots of the concept go even further back. In Republic you have Plato essentially arguing that a tripartite structure unites the human condition and society, and in Letters, this is applied to the structure of Godhead (though Plato only mentions two of the three components himself: Jupiter (The Shining Father) and the active principle, the son of Jupiter (Note that Jupiter, though the Latin name I have usually seen in translations was a word borrowed into Latin from Greek and seems etymologically related to Zeus but with -piter on the end signifying "father"). This Father/Son structure is particularly interesting here and worth coming back to.
Of course, the third element was filled in by Plato's followers by adopting the World Soul discussed in Timaeus. So we have The Shining Father (or The Father Zeus, or some other interpretation), The Active Principle/Logos/Son, and The World Soul. That is not far at all from Father/Son/Holy Spirit.
However, as Georges Dumezil has shown, this structure was not entirely invented by Plato. Instead Dumezil places the structure into a larger context comparable to the Vedic formula of Mitra/Indra/Ashvins (and in some rituals these are further divided as Mitra/Varuna, Indra/Vayu, and the Ashvins or Horse-Twins). This would also make the structure comparable with the Three Great Gods of Uppsala mentioned by Adam of Bremen (Odin, Thorr, and Freyr), of the three gods mentioned for their treasures in the Battle of Magh Tuiredh (Lugh, Nuada, and In Dagda). Other comparable structures include the Old Capitoline Triad (Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus), and the three offspring of Rig in Norse myth (Jarl/Earl, Karl/Freeman, and Thrall/Slave).
To these I would add the Three Gunas of the Bagavad Gita (Sattvas/Truth, Rajas/Kingship, and Tamas/Inertia), the three top varnas in Hindu society (Brahman/Priest, Kshatrya/warrior, Vasaya/Farmer-merchant), and the three top classes in post-Solon Athens (Elites, Horsemen, and men-of-yoke).
This suggests a very old pattern, the ancestor to which (I think which was a spacial/cosmic model roughly comparable to heaven/earth/hell) was dispersed as the Indo-European peoples expanded out from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. However to get into that is at least a 30-page paper!
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I don't think it's reasonable to characterize the Bible as a suspicious. The Bible in it's present compiled form has been subject to rigorous literary criticism for sixteen hundred years(and the majority of the Bible has been subject to this treatment for significantly longer than that, with the law of Moses being some three thousand and five hundred years old). I've not heard challenge to it's credibility that would warrant the description you have provided here. I can't prove that those who wrote it were telling the truth, but there is good reason to believe it was written when it claims to have been written.
Likewise, there is good reason to believe these have been used as holy texts for that whole time, and that the books which are presented in the new testament give an accurate account of the early christian movement and philosophy associated with it. Even if the books themselves were not written by the saints, they were definitely written by people associated with the movement, when it was first taking shape. Books which meet that description are generally considered to be a reliable source of historical information (most of the literature doccumenting antiquity is significantly less reliable than that).
Apart from the claims of supernatural occurrences, do you have any reason to believe it is incredible? Whether or not someone will accept it as true has a lot to do with their life experiences when they learn of it, so someone else who has personally experienced some of the things the Bible speaks of will be convinced, while if you have not, you probably won't find it believable.
The Bible is not like the book or Mormon, which makes claims to have been written thousands of years ago and have been recently translated, but offering no proof of the matter. All indications are that it has been continually in use since it's creation, and describes historical events which are supported by archeological investigations and other historical texts.
Other gospels, as far as I am aware, do not focus on giving an account of the life of Jesus, but rater give accounts of "secret" wisdom given to some of his disciples, myths and parables used to describe christian teaching, and parables and phrases given by Jesus. I just purchased a book containing all the other early works recovered to date, so I'll know better what they say after I've read them.
As far as the gospels go, most believe that Matthew and Luke were written from Mark (and some believe from the "Q-document", a hypothetical collection if phrases and parables spoken by Jesus). If you read John, you'll notice that it is completely different from the other three, both in form, and in terms of which events are described (though it does not contradict them). John reads like a personal account from a close friend, while the other three read like biography.
I was researching the Gnostic gospels because of your comment, and I came across a claim that John was included because it was widely accepted among Gnostics, and extremely important to them, but not considered heretical by the orthodox church. I think it is fitting that the gospel that speaks the most about love would be used in such a way, though it is just a hypothesis.