There are no atheists in foxholes. Everyone is a racist, and if you claim otherwise, you're a liar. If you support <instert ideology here>, you're either stupid or crazy..
Why is it that, when confronted with different points of view, some people tend to dismiss these new ideas so harshly that they're unable to believe someone like them could have come to a different conclusion on a specific issue?
Religion is a good example. In a highly secularised country, such as Sweden, I've been told religious people are seen as uneducated fellows, whereas an atheist in many religious countries can be seen as someone with some sort of cognitive dissonance. I vividly remember of a co-worker of mine who once told me that, although I didn't know I believed in God, I did believe, but I just happen to have a different God (I hope she was not talking about Tiesto ). Why I couldn't be godless is beyond me.
Naturally, this is not restricted to religion. Racism, money, and most ideologies seem to influence people to such an extent that, if you don't agree with them, there must be something wrong with you... which is kinda odd, because you could just have been exposed to different sets of arguments (making none of the people involved less intelligent than anyone else). Why can't that sort of explanation work?
Just as an illustration of what kind of person I'm talking about, here's a quote from Akridot:
quote:
Originally posted by Akridrot
This is an interesting aspect to the thread, maybe we should start addressing this, because I'd like to understand it too. My mother is the same way. She has extremely strong convictions about money and various social issues: everything ever is about money; everyone in the world wants to win the lottery -- and you are a gigantic, lying idiot if you don't (but in her mind, you secretly do); she thinks that Muslims are bad people and that any sane, normal person would back her up she thinks that all women, no exceptions, want to be equal with men (the only ones who aren't are just weak to her) and that who successful women who occasionally embrace a very submissive side behind closed doors do not exist, or that they don't have an iota of intelligence. The main theme behind all her convictions is that she believes with complete certainty that everyone else backs her up and that anyone who doesn't is crazy, stupid, or lying.
Most people aren't big on critical thinking. I hate to say something so general, but that's just a statement I'm making to illustrate what I am trying to get across. I think that ideas such "Being rich is the most important thing," spread so easily because they're good at spreading... not because they're good ideas. Like a gene can be good at spreading, even if it's not good for the species. Here's an explanation selfish gene theory. (It might be wrong in some contexts [ NY Times article: A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech ], but the concept is still useful)
Again, ideas don't really spread because they're good, but because they're good at spreading. The people who buy into the the material wealth the most (and therefore, spread the idea the best) tend to make statements like: "You're lying if you don't agree with me," "Everyone wants to be rich, who doesn't?" They just put those statements out there, and they all agree with each other and they all try to make it look like you already agree with their opinion even if you don't. That tactic doesn't work on everyone, but I don't doubt that it's worked on lots of people throughout history. It's a powerful concept.
If most people share a viewpoint and ostracize, mock, or lash out towards anyone who simply disagrees with them, then I'm willing to bet that you will begin to share it too if you don't think critically about things. Either that, or you just don't want to take the risk of people behaving negatively towards you, so you conform to what society does. You will just go with the flow, even if in the long run, accepting the popular opinion simply because it's popular doesn't benefit you that much. Just following the crowd opinion simply because it's the crowds opinion, most certainly benefits others more than it benefits you. How many people are willing to seriously ask themselves why so many feel so strongly about a topic? I think those of us who don't wholeheartedly agree with the financial wealth have the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it, and never accept ideas that are popular unless we make sure that... we actually accept those ideas. Unlike most people who will just see everyone all riled up or excited about one thing and will get riled up and excited themselves.
It's like society is one big mob. You know how that goes.
I'm sure this is not new to any of you, though.
Posted by RickyM on Oct-24-2008 17:29:
I'll post something here once I have finished getting my burger and chips
Posted by nefardec on Oct-24-2008 17:44:
I think taking a definitive stance on anything "There is god" "There is not god" is problematic and illusory
Posted by Meat187 on Oct-24-2008 17:47:
Geee, why write so much text, when the truth can be formulated in such a simply way: I'm right, everybody else isn't.
Posted by winston on Oct-24-2008 17:52:
Re: Nefardec's contribution (video)
I agree. God should be regarded as an entity, a force, a science beyond our realm of understanding.
it's hard for us to believe in something that can't be proven by science, just as much as it is hard for us to believe in something that has no physical shape or form & that most of the time, exists in the minds of those who seek higher levels of consciousness.
Similarly one could regard �consciousness� as referring to a component or aspect of reality that manifests itself in conscious states and creatures but is more than merely the abstract nominalization of the adjective �conscious� we apply to them. Though such strongly realist views are not very common at present, they should be included within the logical space of options.
Posted by PETRAN on Oct-24-2008 18:02:
quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
Geee, why write so much text, when the truth can be formulated in such a simply way: I'm right, everybody else isn't.
CoR Version
So, yeah, what can you say, it seems that everything orbits around the self.
But you are right, why people become so harsh to ideas which seem to be different than theirs? I believe the answer is simple. Because there is no self which is independent of ideas. The self itself is (partly) a collection of ideas ("bundle theory of the self?")at least the social or the interpersonal aspect of the self. So, when you challenge one's ideas, and these are probably "emotionally-charged" ideas which mean a lot to the person,its like you challenge the other person's self. This parallel's Blackmore's view of the self as a huge "memeplex", that is, a network of memes-of ideas that survive and pass from person to person (minds not bodies). So, in the same way that a genome canno't be independent of its' genes, so there can be no self (memeplex) without its' memes.
Posted by Lira on Oct-24-2008 18:04:
quote:
Originally posted by PETRAN
But you are right, why people become so harsh to ideas which seem to be different than theirs? I believe the answer is simple. Because there is no self which is independent of ideas. The self itself is (partly) a collection of ideas ("bundle theory of the self?")at least the social or the interpersonal aspect of the self. So, when you challenge one's ideas, and these are probably "emotionally-charged" ideas which mean a lot to the person,its like you challenge the other person's self. This parallel's Blackmore's view of the self as a huge "memeplex", that is, a network of memes-of ideas that survive and pass from person to person (minds not bodies). So, in the same way that a genome canno't be independent of its' genes, so there can be no self (memeplex) without its' memes.
Got any reading material to recommend on this topic? (the memetic structure of the self, or something of that sort)
I know you're a grad student of psychology, you're bound to know more about this than a smart-ass student of linguistics like me Posted by nefardec on Oct-24-2008 18:13:
also i think when you challenge ideas that are contrary to your deepest beliefs, what PETRAN says is "challenging the other person's self", you are in fact reinforcing your own self. (this is more important to the issue IMO)
I think the self is a product of environment and relationship. In this case, one reinforces ones own illusion complex by contrasting and understanding it in relation to another's.
Posted by Lira on Oct-24-2008 18:20:
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
also i think when you challenge ideas that are contrary to your deepest beliefs, what PETRAN says is "challenging the other person's self", you are in fact reinforcing your own self. (this is more important to the issue IMO)
I think the self is a product of environment and relationship. In this case, one reinforces ones own illusion complex by contrasting and understanding it in relation to another's.
Interesting... why can some people be more tolerant in this sense, though? Would you say this is related to how secure one is about oneself?
Posted by nefardec on Oct-24-2008 18:34:
maybe
i don't think it's quite that simple
Posted by RickyM on Oct-24-2008 18:44:
Your point about religious folk is true...a lot of them can't actually grasp the fact that you don't believe their god exists. They therefore accuse you of 'denying' or 'rejecting' their god, and you do that because you want to live in sin. Personally I think this may be due to a slight insecurity about their beliefs, they don't like the fact that someone can reject their belief system for being a load of nonsense. For example christians can often be very cutting towards atheists, yet don't hold the same animosity towards folks of other faiths, basically because they 'believe in some higher power'. They have something in common with people of other faiths.
I am generalising about christians here, but I think there may be some truth in it...
Posted by Akridrot on Oct-24-2008 20:30:
Here is an expansion on what I wrote in the OP. Thanks for making this thread. You really shouldn't have, but I guess it might get more participants if it's a fresh thread.
Here are 8 points I use to evaluate the people we're focusing on. I think these are a good way for anyone on either side to better understand why each side is like that.
Exposure to an idea or viewpoint for so long that the alternative never even crossed their minds or that they couldn't even come up with an alternative if you asked them.
How much the individual truly values conformity over individuality, even if they explicitly, and vehemently state the opposite in every conversation about the topic that they have.
Their ability to 'entertain a thought without accepting it.'
Their willingness to think about, investigate, and discuss issues that are: uncomfortable (for any reason, even it makes them uncomfortable with themselves), confusing and difficult to understand for them, embarrassing, disturbing, emotional, unknown, or dangerous.
Ability to calmly and rationally communicate or socialize with people who openly disagree with and/or actively oppose the issues that they openly agree with and/or actively support, even if the degree of disagreement and/or opposition is relatively harmless or minor.
How easy it is to get a rise out of their emotions with words alone.
Do they trust others too much? Do they honestly believe that a smiling face from someone in the same community, the same ethnicity, the same background, the same age bracket, the same level of education, the same gender, or who has any other combination of superficial similarities -- would never lie to them, so they have no reason to even think about whether or not something is right or wrong, since it obviously must be right by default? Do they believe that they should agree with someone just because that someone looks, talks, or acts like them?
Do they ever sit back and just think about things to better understand themselves, others, and life in general? Do they ever think about complicated things in their spare time, like what's out there, or what does it all really mean? Or do they get bored easily and are unable to entertain themselves without something to interact with?
All of these things are good ways to evaluate how ignorant, stubborn and unwilling to change a person is. Ignorance isn't a bad thing, mind you. We're all ignorant about many things, even the most intelligent and educated amongst us. It's not a bad word. Being able to admit you're ignorant on something is a good thing. Not being able to is what's bad. The stubborn and unwilling to change parts are bad. Stubborn people are difficult to even begin reasoning with because if you're not talking about what they want to hear, they're not going to listen to you. People who are unwilling to change are even worse, because you know they understand what you're saying, and you have the feeling that they should at the very least start seeing things differently, but they outright refuse to. Point blank. They also won't justify themselves than you because they feel they don't have to.
How many of us are willing to change our ideas on things if we are presented with a logical, well-written or well spoken argument against it that is so exhaustively composed that we're unable to disprove even a single point within it no matter how much we concentrate on it? That's basically the definition of someone being right, and you being wrong. You can't prove them wrong because -- it's literally impossible to do so logically.
How many of us are willing to continue holding on to our ideas simply because we've always held those beliefs (or because we're too proud to be proven wrong, or are scared of being embarrassed and exposed) even if we acknowledge that the opposition is, in fact, right?
It makes sense. You believed something your entire life. For as long as you could possibly remember, you and everyone around you (the people you love, the people you had children with, the people who care about you, unlike... this stranger trying to change your mind) held this belief. You encounter an extremely powerful argument against it and it shatters what you've known and loved for your entire life. Many people would rather just not let that happen -- even if we know we're wrong, we have so many people on our side, that it doesn't matter. Why would we give it up now? What's the benefit? Satisfying some intellectual's ego because he got us to finally admit that we were wrong? We'd rather be wrong and happy than right and depressed!
How many of us out there won't ever acknowledge that the opposition could be right, whether publicly or privately in our homes, or even more privately in our minds only? Even worse, how many people are out there who actually can't ever acknowledge or actively deny acknowledging the merit of their opposition's arguments and truly believe that the people against them are wrong because they're literally unable to even entertain a contrary viewpoint after all this time or simply because they don't, and never will have mental ability to do so even if they wanted to?
This is a tough subject. It's complex, but I am trying my best to understand these people, even if they don't care to ever understand me. Why do I feel the need to write all of this up, why do I feel the need to understand them, and why do I even care so goddamn much, you might ask? Simple: because these people, in my mind, can also be called most people, and I think it's good to understand those who surround me in my day to day life.
Posted by winston on Oct-24-2008 20:33:
There is god in romance
&
Dreams can come true
Posted by nefardec on Oct-24-2008 20:44:
quote:
Originally posted by Akridrot
Their ability to 'entertain a thought without accepting it. ' OR DENYING IT
fixed
Posted by winston on Oct-24-2008 20:49:
I woke up this morning and I felt enlightened; changed.
I feel like a kid again, and I want to stay the same...
Posted by SYSTEM-J on Oct-24-2008 22:31:
Re: The self as foundation of all truth
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Why is it that, when confronted with different points of view, some people tend to dismiss these new ideas so harshly that they're unable to believe someone like them could have come to a different conclusion on a specific issue?
All conscious organisms need to have faith in their own perception if they are to survive. If you cannot trust your own understanding of reality, how can you have any confidence of perpetuating it? On the purest level, an animal needs to trust its senses if it is to survive- to hunt, to avoid being hunted and so on.
Most intelligent people entertain ideas that deny the reliability of reality- the "brain in a vat" thought experiment, post-modernism, the artificiality of the sense as a coherent entity- but at the end of the day we don't really believe these ideas, else we would have no confidence in any of our actions. We are prepared to give ground only on inconsequential issues of perception- the more fundamental and important the belief, the more we cling to it.
Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Oct-24-2008 22:34:
The idea that started this thread -- "everyone would choose a wad of money over a better society, no matter what he says he would do" -- is hardly a very fundamental belief.
Posted by SYSTEM-J on Oct-24-2008 22:36:
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The idea that started this thread -- "everyone would choose a wad of money over a better society, no matter what he says he would do" -- is hardly a very fundamental belief.
I suppose that depends on how money-driven the person in question is. I don't see why greed is any less a powerful force in people's behaviour than God.
Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Oct-24-2008 22:37:
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I suppose that depends on how money-driven the person in question is. I don't see why greed is any less a powerful force in people's behaviour than God.
True. Plenty of people drop God and then replace him with money, and others worship both at once.
Posted by Akridrot on Oct-24-2008 22:53:
Re: Re: The self as foundation of all truth
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
All conscious organisms need to have faith in their own perception if they are to survive. If you cannot trust your own understanding of reality, how can you have any confidence of perpetuating it? On the purest level, an animal needs to trust its senses if it is to survive- to hunt, to avoid being hunted and so on.
I think that constantly challenging and expanding your perception only strengthens it. Instead of having only one way to understand reality, you can have many. Being able to look at the world through eyes other than your own is an extremely valuable tool. No condescension intended, but I feel sorry for those who can't.
quote:
Most intelligent people entertain ideas that deny the reliability of reality- the "brain in a vat" thought experiment, post-modernism, the artificiality of the sense as a coherent entity- but at the end of the day we don't really believe these ideas, else we would have no confidence in any of our actions.
Even so, why do you think many intelligent people do that in the first place? Why do you think many unintelligent people never do that?
quote:
We are prepared to give ground only on inconsequential issues of perception- the more fundamental and important the belief, the more we cling to it.
This isn't true. You might be speaking for yourself, but you are not speaking for me. I would like to give you some powerful examples but I changed my beliefs completely on some very personal things that were most certainly fundamental and important. I am not the same person I was years ago. This is true for many people: If you put the me of today in a separate body and put that body side by side with the me of 5 years ago, you would not find any similarities in their beliefs.
To be able to easily abandon our most fundamental and important beliefs and to be able to adapt to new ones sounds like a good thing to me. Isn't our species known for its ability to adapt to new environments and new ways of living? Why not to new beliefs and ways of thinking too? Posted by SYSTEM-J on Oct-24-2008 23:25:
Re: Re: Re: The self as foundation of all truth
quote:
Originally posted by Akridrot
I think that constantly challenging and expanding your perception only strengthens it. Instead of having one point of view, you can have many. Instead of having only one way to understand reality, you can have many. Being able to look at the world through eyes other than your own is extremely valuable.
I think that's a human notion, not an animal one. There's a lot of conflict between what we as humans know and what as animals we still want to believe. That shows through in the big issues of mankind. One of the most commonly mentioned and most fundamentally impossible ambitions of mankind is "world peace"- the desire for unity of perspective. Conflict of belief is a big problem. I think that there's an animal desire is for certainty- what you see is real, what you think is correct, what you know is reliable. Because as humans we know it's not going to happen, we know that being able to consider other viewpoints is an invaluable trait, so we embrace it.
quote:
Even so, why do you think many intelligent people do that in the first place? Why do you think many unintelligent people never do that?
Various reasons. "Intelligence" is a can of worms waiting to be opened, so forgive me a few assumptions. They're far from simple ideas, which mean less intelligent people are not going to want/be able to think about them as much or are not going to encounter them. Also I think "intelligent" people tend to think about things more and think more closely and throughly when they do, which includes themselves. As such they tend to be more self-aware and so think about things like the workings of their mind and perception, which is an alley of thought which leads to epistomological and ontological concepts.
quote:
This isn't true. You might be speaking for yourself, but you are not speaking for me. I would like to give you some powerful examples but I changed my beliefs completely on some very personal things that were most certainly fundamental and important. I am not the same person I was years ago. If you put the me of today in a separate body and put that body side by side with the me of 5 years ago, you would not find any similarities in their beliefs.
Without knowing you, your beliefs, how they changed, why they changed and all the other specifics I can't say anything about this without making huge assumptions. How do you know that the deepest you've ever believed in something is the deepest anyone can believe anything? You might think your belief is powerful but it might pale in comparison to someone else's belief and you can never cut their head open and feel truly powerful belief. I don't have the answer to that. I suppose that's what this thread comes down to as much as anything- you cannot look beyond your own perception no matter how much you pretend you do. I cannot imagine having six limbs. It's impossible. You can't either. The physical experience of it. And yet countless millions of insects couldn't comprehend anything else even if they had the faculties to do so.
As Conrad put it:
"...It is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence- that which makes its truth, its meaning- its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream, alone."
Posted by nefardec on Oct-25-2008 00:01:
also we have to define 'intelligence'
i personally define it as something quite literal - the aptitude for deep understanding of an issue.
Posted by Akridrot on Oct-25-2008 00:06:
Re: Re: Re: Re: The self as foundation of all truth
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Without knowing you, your beliefs, how they changed, why they changed and all the other specifics I can't say anything about this without making huge assumptions. How do you know that the deepest you've ever believed in something is the deepest anyone can believe anything? You might think your belief is powerful but it might pale in comparison to someone else's belief and you can never cut their head open and feel truly powerful belief. I don't have the answer to that. I suppose that's what this thread comes down to as much as anything- you cannot look beyond your own perception no matter how much you pretend you do. I cannot imagine having six limbs. It's impossible. You can't either. The physical experience of it. And yet countless millions of insects couldn't comprehend anything else even if they had the faculties to do so.
As Conrad put it:
"...It is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence- that which makes its truth, its meaning- its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream, alone."
I know we're supposed to debate and all (or are we?), but I really enjoyed reading that part of your post.
One thing to add:
It might be possible to experience having six limbs (or a million): with the aid of an intense psychedelic/hallucinogen/dissociative. I'm thinking a k-hole dose of ketamine, 4th plateau DXM, heroic dose of shrooms, thumbprint of acid, a lungful of salvia held in for a minute, some ayahuasca, a bunch of DMT (king of holy shit did that really happen!?!?!? tripping), etc. Pick any one of those (you wouldn't ever be able to them all at once, haha). Add nitrous oxide if you dare.
If not, then I'm sure it doesn't matter, because I'm quite sure that I experienced being ripped apart, losing all sense of myself and meeting alien deities in the vast nothingness of space once. Not vaguely either, it was detailed beyond belief.
You sound like a cool guy, and I respect your opinions. I heartily recommend that you have at least one intense psychedelic experience in your life if you haven't (if you have, then I am sure you understand where I'm coming from here). I think you'd benefit from it -- I most certainly have. Won't knock you if that's not your thing. I don't force people to do what they don't want to do.
Posted by noikeee on Oct-25-2008 00:52:
If there is one thing I learned from cheesy song titles produced by DJ Quicksilver, is that I should open my mind.
Posted by nefardec on Oct-25-2008 01:11:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self as foundation of all truth
quote:
Originally posted by Akridrot
If not, then I'm sure it doesn't matter, because I'm quite sure that I experienced being ripped apart, losing all sense of myself and meeting alien deities in the vast nothingness of space once. Not vaguely either, it was detailed beyond belief.
haha
i have definitely seen the edge of the universe
its something i will never forget
Pages (2): [1] 2»
). Why I couldn't be godless is beyond me.
(the memetic structure of the self, or something of that sort)
