The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer

The premise of the book is that our brains are hard wired to believe something first and then filter reality to fit that belief. Colbert talks with the author, and explains how and why this works and why science is a good panacea to it.

I'm afraid I must fall back on the classic OTC line "Thoughts?" but I write this at 2 in the morning and cannot see straight.

Thoughts?

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

People will believe what they want. Always been that way.

Well that's well known.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Not to my sleepy brain it isn't.

I thought this would be more profound, as it is an actual brain defense mechanism, lizard-brain stuff, rather than something that arrived within the last 10,000 years.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Are you suggesting that lizards hold beliefs and reason about the world?

edited 8th Aug '11 12:00:25 AM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

I believe this is largely true*

but not completely true. I'm sure all of us can think of an occasion where we changed our opinion on something, based upon outside influence*

^{you know, that pesky "reality" everyone's talking about these days}

. I think it also depends on how much you want to be open to change - if you set your willpower to holding on to a certain idea until they pry it from your cold, dead fingers mind, it will be virtually impossible to change your opinion on that matter.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

I know its possible to change an opinion, but that Doublethink happens as well, IE you know you're wrong but you're right anyway.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

From the Michael Shermer website: "We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations. Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow."

It's because our brains are "hardwired" for a variety of things, which sometimes get in each others' way. It's probably more accurate to say that we have been selected by evolution to form theories about phenomena in the world, and to develop more and more sophisticated ways to develop and test our theories. Ultimately this led (among other things) to science (also law, art, philosophy, etc.). But at the same time we are also selected to form tight social bonds with other people who share belief systems with us. We grow to rely on our support network, and anything which seems to threaten our group membership (such as rival belief systems) is resisted. There are also other reasons we resist new ideas: reforming your entire belief system most likely carries a heavy cost in terms of cognitive resources.

When I say we have been selected for both of these things, I mean that among our ancient ancestors, those who tested their beliefs and kept them grounded in reality tended to survive and procreate at a greater rate than those who did not, but also those ancestors who resisted new ideas and maintained a consistent mental framework also tended to survive and leave offspring (and apparently these two strains interbred) so the end result is that we descendents feel an impulse to do both of these things. We try to acquire new beliefs, and we resist giving up old beliefs. Think of these two impulses as opposing forces within your brain. You need both of them to survive, and which dominates will swing back and forth like a pendulum. Also, for some of us the one dominates, for some of us the other. That's what makes life interesting.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I thought Confirmation Bias was a widely known thing already, but it's still cool that someone went and provided even more reasoning behind it rather than just observing that it exists.

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

No, but lizard people do.

And they're judging you right now.

Seriously though, I'm not surprised neurons are better at self-reinforcement than rewriting. I mean, it's kind of their thing.

edited 8th Aug '11 9:02:22 PM by Pykrete

I would assume that strengthening (or weakening) existing neural connections is much cheaper and easier than establishing entirely new (and eliminating old) networks of connections.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I agree with pretty much everything De Marquis said here. Brains will do almost anything to remain part of a social group, because back in the old, old days of hunter-gathering, being exiled from the tribe basically meant you were dead. Note that if you can find a new social group that fits your new views, it often gets much easier to change to said new views (leaving one tribe and joining another is acceptable to our survival instincts).

That brings up it's own costs, as you have to start over developing interpersonal relationships in the new group. Usually it's more cost-effective in terms of time and effort to stay with your current social groups if at all possible.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."