The Psychology of Belief

I was reading Do You Believe in Physics? I do, and I was struck by some of the posts, particularly mnpng’s mention of creationists and unseen dimensions. So I thought I’d post up something I er, prepared earlier. I hope you like it. There’s nowt so queer as folk!

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BELIEF

When I analysed my basic concepts, I found things that weren’t real, that don’t exist, that we never actually see. But we assume they’re real, we take them for granted, and we believe in them. Because we have holes in our understanding, holes that we’ve all grown up with. We’ve lived with them for so long that we don’t know they’re there. We cover them up with ignorance of our ignorance, with blindness of our blind spot, and we shield ourselves with a peer pressure that persuades us there are no alternatives to consider. We do it because we are social animals, we follow the herd, we’re prey to groupthink. That’s the way we are. So much so, that we even place our faith in negative carpets.

What’s a negative carpet? Well, let’s say that the wife is so impressed with the new lounge carpet, that she now wants a new carpet for the baby’s bedroom. The room is square, and we need sixteen square metres. What’s the square root of sixteen? There are two solutions, four and minus four. So wise guy that I am, I opt for the latter solution, and get down on my hands and knees to cut a big fat square out of our brand new living room carpet. I roll it up, put it over my shoulder, and take it to the carpet shop, walking backwards for dramatic effect. I hand it over to the proprietor and pay him a minus ten pound note, which I stick in my pocket, then go back home to crack open a bottle of wine and greet my guests. We’re standing in the living room talking about my negative carpet and discussing its negative mass when the wife walks in. She stands there open-mouthed for a heartbeat or two as I begin to explain the merely technical details of relocation to the baby’s bedroom. Then all hell breaks loose.

The thing about all this, is that a solution is sometimes crazy, but it’s not always plain. People just don’t spot it. So we talk about it quite seriously without examining whether it’s a real solution. We end up taking it for granted and using it to search for further solutions. Then when we struggle, we forget to track back to the beginning and look at the things we took for granted. We don’t realise we’re riding a negative carpet to never-never land, and that’s why we’re getting nowhere. What it all boils down to, is that a negative carpet doesn’t exist. It isn’t real. It’s just a figment of our imagination, an abstraction, a belief. And beliefs can cause all sorts of problems. Some people believe in Santa Claus, and some people believe in fairies, despite that fact that there is absolutely no material evidence to support the existence of these things. We smile at the gullibility that foolish people show, but we forget that we too believe in things for which there is no material evidence. Things like time travel, unseen dimensions, and parallel worlds.

We’ve all got our beliefs. That’s the way we are. I’ve got them, and so do you. It was Feynman who said “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool”. This is more true than you realise. It’s true because when you’ve fooled yourself, you don’t know it. You convince yourself that you haven’t fooled yourself, and you develop a conviction, a faith, a belief about it. You’ll be quite irrational in defence of this belief. You won’t test your belief in an empirical scientific fashion. Instead, when challenged, you’ll become defensive or incredulous. If you don’t behave this way, that’s fine, you’re not a believer. You merely have an opinion, and an open mind. But let me demonstrate something: You don’t have an open mind. You’re fooling yourself. At which point I imagine you’re bristling already. See how it works? If you really believe something and I challenge it, it’s all too easy to construe the challenge as an insult, and then become hostile and unreasonable. That’s human nature. Everybody likes to think they have an open mind, and very few understand that about some things at least, they don’t. The truth is this: you’re not quite as open minded or as rational as you think. This is hard to accept, but that’s the way it is. It’s like that because if you believe something, you don’t need to think about it. Because you already know the answer. Hence you’re less receptive than you should be. And so you don’t look at the out-of-the-box solutions that solve the problems that have troubled you all your life.

Stop a minute and think about it. Why do you think we have suicide bombers? What on Earth possesses them to think that there’s seventy-two virgins waiting for them in paradise? What possesses them is something called The Psychology of Belief. And they don’t think, that’s just it. This thing is far more powerful and far more prevalent than you know. There’s a whole spectrum of belief out there. Think about Young Earth Creationists and their Intelligent Design friends. You can talk to these people until you’re blue in the face, but they’re totally immune to logic because they believe that they’re right. You can say anything and everything, but they duck and dive and dismiss every last scrap of evidence you throw at them. Everything you say goes whoosh, in one ear and out the other. They just aren’t listening. They just aren’t thinking. The weird thing is that they don’t know they’re immune to logic. These guys aren’t lying to you. They don’t have a rational open mind, but they don’t know it. They think they’re being perfectly rational, and you’re just some crazy fool who just doesn’t know.

It doesn’t stop at religion. There’s ideology, Kafkaesque bureaucracy, and dynastic communism, all the sorts of things that can end up with starvation, murder, and Nazi death camps. There’s racism, tribalism, and insane conspiracy theories, all leading to enmity and hate and violence. There’s heroin, crack, and alcohol addiction where people die before their time. Moving down the scale there’s anorexia and obesity, and the dieting that makes you fat as your body sets store for a rainy day. Then there’s gentler symptoms like fashion, where folk let themselves be brainwashed into thinking purple is the new black. Or swaggering around with some eco-cotton bag containing the keys for the 4x4 and the plane tickets. It affects everybody to some degree, even people who consider themselves to be utterly rational and totally open minded. Everybody’s got some kind of belief about something. When you find it and hit it, whoosh, everything you say goes in one ear and out the other. They just don’t listen. They just don’t think. It’s like the shutters are down and there’s nobody home.

Would you like to put yourself to the test? This will show you what I mean. This will demonstrate that you’re not immune to The Psychology of Belief. Nobody is, not even me. Take a look at the picture below:

OK, here’s the deal: squares A and B are the same colour. They’re the same shade of grey. Oh no they’re not, I hear you say. Oh yes they are I insist. Oh no they’re not, you answer back. We could do this all day, but I’m afraid I’m right and you’re wrong. They really are the same colour. Squares A and B are the same shade of grey. The apparent difference in colour is the illusion. Let me prove it. It’s very simple: just look at it from a narrow angle. Another method is look through a small hole to remove the context that fooled you into fooling yourself. You can even download the image and check it out with photoshop. Satisfy yourself. Be empirical, test yourself, find a way to stop fooling yourself. Then you realise that A and B really are the same colour.

Don’t be surprised, I told you The Psychology of Belief is powerful. More powerful than you ever dreamed. What’s surprising is just how common it is, even amongst scientists. If you don’t believe me, you should look up paradigm on Wikipedia, and read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Conviction is a hard nut to crack, and it applies to scientists too. It’s the way we are, the way we think. Why do you think Bruno got burned at the stake? Why do you think it took Einstein seventeen years to get a Nobel Prize for the wrong thing? And why do you think there’s that saying: catch ‘em young? It’s because there are people out there who are quite fully aware that if you instil children with a belief they’ll carry on believing it come heaven or high water. These children remain so utterly convinced, that they grow up to become adults who will fight and die for it. But we’re not going to fight and die for something like The Capacity To Do Work are we? Because we are rational, we have an open mind, and we listen and we think.

Yes, The Capacity To Do Work. Einstein said you don’t really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. Can you explain energy to your grandmother? You might believe you can, but the chances are you’re fooling yourself, and your explanation is no explanation at all. Your grandmother will peer at you over her bifocals, suck on her false teeth, say Thank you Dear, and then she’ll carry on with her knitting. She’s too polite to say it, because butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth. But what she really meant is: Capacity To Do Work my arse.

Come on now, The Capacity To Do Work is no explanation at all. You swallowed that when you were young and gullible, and you haven’t looked at it since. Energy is a simple basic concept that you really ought to understand, but you don’t. And you don’t know that you don’t. Because Donald Rumsfeld was right. And what you also don’t know, is that The Capacity To Do Work is merely a label that covers up a hole in your understanding. A hole that you’ve grown up with, that’s been there so long it’s like a blind spot, all grown over with such thick skin that you don’t even know it’s there any more.

I’ll show you the holes in your understanding. I’ll peel back those labels and fill the holes with concepts that are crystal clear. Then you can stop fooling yourself. But remember this, it’s important: the basic concepts I will give you are better than the concepts you hold now. But don’t ever think they’re perfect. Don’t fool yourself that you’ve stopped fooling yourself. Keep that open mind open.

A grandmother is an extremely good criterion. I have a lot of experience with blabbering away trying to get the circle of the simple point I thought I was making to close, akwardly aware that I get distracted further and further away from anything that would make sense to her.

About the psychology of belief - I tend to agree with the psychoanalytical idea that truth is based on something very different from truth, namely, reality. This reality is pre-conceptual, and functions in our psyche as a fantasy. Not in the sense of an idealistic projection, but the inverse - a psychological background-radiation, bordering on the physiological, from we project the ideal of sense, and consequently, true and false.

In this sense, sense is built from nonsense. This is why poetry is more capable of psychological truth - it either does or does not resonate with this psychological background-radiation.

Relating our precious conceptions of the world to grandma is more often than not impossible, because grandma’s physiological/pre-conscious setup is of another nature - her background-radiation is different. Only these conceptions that we can bring across are those which have in the course of her life proven to be accurate in grandma’s life. These will ring true, as truth tends to do, before it is seen as such - they resonate with what has been established. Established here not in the physical sense - this will become increasingy irrelevant to Grandma as she ages - but in the sense of a pre-ontological fantasy, on which her first conception, that of her individuality, is built. It is the rock of the psyche of which only the top rises above the surface of consciousness.

That’s how an opening argument for brainwashing usually starts.

:laughing:

It’s “deconditioning”, Pandora, trying to teach people to hold a current-best-fit-theory instead of a conviction. People harbour convictions but fool themselves that they don’t. They find all sorts of evasions to avoid asking themselves where the supporting evidence is, and persuade themselves that any evidence that challenges the conviction is not evidence.

And amazingly Jakob, this applies to most people, not just creationists and other obvious cases. They convince themselves that they know or understand something, but cannot “explain it to their grandmother”. They can’t put it into simple terms, and tend to say it’s too complicated for you to understand. If you push them to try, they refer to other things that are not explained, or “It just is”, or they end up being self-referential. For example, if the grandmother says What is energy? the grandson replies The capacity to do work. Then when she says But what is work? he says The transfer of energy. Then he smiles, utterly convinced that he understands it.

Print one out and try it out on a few people Jamie. Some will swear blind that they’re a different shade of grey and get all hostile and even outraged when you say they’re the same. Don’t tilt the page too soon, test their reaction.

Jamie;

Those squares are indeed the same.
Use any graphics program with a color picker and you’ll find that they are both hex color value #7B797B.

Remember, just because sometimes people make mistakes doesn’t mean that people are mistaken every time they all agree on something. Fasight is posting this brainwashing stuff for a reason: every scientific journal and institution he has ever approached has rejected him. He wants to sell you his book anyway,

Apart from the Institute of Physics. I had an article in last month’s PhysicsWorld. They gave the book a mention, as you do.

I’m not brainwashing here. I’m the one getting people to think. And you’re making it transparently clear that you don’t like it one bit.

I handed the book to a friend of mine that used to be in particle physics and now works in neurological physics.

There were elements he had disagreements with, but the overall concept was acceptable and quite sensible to him.
I think your idea of Farsight has turned into a personal ambition of just slandering him wherever you can find a chance.

As of late even, I have pointed out in other’s threads areas where remarkably, mathematicians are actually naturally arriving at the same tangents of considerations in their own ways and forms as Farsight’s considerations.
Though none of these agree exclusively with each other, they are all looking at the same situation and addressing it by the same principle approach of solving the issue.

Bullshit.

Thanks James. Thanks Stumps.

Nothing is ever perfect, Stumps. I kick myself at a missing word or two when I talked about the tidal force, and about calling gravity a negative tension gradient instead of a pressure gradient. And doubtless there will be other things too. But meanwhile people have told me about things like Minkowski’s wrench and Maxwell’s screw and Kelvins knots, plus papers and experiments, and things like the Einstein-de Haas effect. Things we don’t usually hear about. They strengthen the simple picture, and make me appreciate the differences between what people said and what others say they said. Maxwell’s On Physical Lines of Force is well worth reading.

And it isn’t always that new. Another example is Topological quantum field theory which is more than twenty years old. It’s related to knot theory, and you’ll see names like Witten and Atiyah on there. But most people have never heard of it. Because I suppose physics is something of a competitive business, and when funding and reputation is at stake, I’m afraid people aren’t always quite so noble as we’d like.

No its a RELIGION in which if you dare to argue, no matter how rationally against any proposed axiomatical passage from their bible, you are likely to get banned.

I’m sorry, but these days, I see typical physicists (or more often merely their disciples) behaving EXACTLY like fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims (including the terrorism propensity). They merely use a different set of scriptures to quote from, still having no idea of what they speak and often even how to truly apply their gospels to real situations.

Actually thinking is STILL not their forte. They merely changed to worshiping equations and Science magazines.

There are definitely some parallels with religion. People tend to believe in things for which there is no evidence, and can get extremely hostile when challenged. But please don’t think that all physicists are like that. There’s a lot of good physicists out there who struggle to get their papers past peer review, and if they do, they then struggle to get any publicity. Meanwhile we hear statements like “string theory is the only game in town” when it simply isn’t.

You published a puff piece in their humor section and your book is mentioned because it is in your very short author profile. Yet here you are, peddling your book and trying to use this non-academic fluff as some kind of validation for your pseudo-science. People here should know the dishonesty of your tactics.

What do you think is dishonest about his book or what he is doing?

Merely letting people know that you have a book on the subject is hardly dishonest. If he didn’t let anyone know he had such a book, many would call that being dishonest. He does NOT merely say, “I know the answer but you have to go buy my book to get it”. That wouldn’t be dishonest either, but definitely crass.

He tries to explain with reasoning. He sticks to the subject of a thread. That is NOT dishonesty no matter how you cut it. I don’t agree with a few of his premises (just as he doesn’t for some of my reasonings), but given those premises, he seems to have very few errors of reasoning. Every book has minor mistakes in it these days. That is hardly “dishonesty” either.

So exactly where is this dishonesty?

Now if you want to see real dishonesty, just watch as I debate the twin paradox with someone such as yourself or a drone physicist (“Fysicist”). My opponent will either resort to one or more of the many dishonest and disingenuous tactics or will accept that there is something seriously wrong with SR, and they never do the latter any more than a Christian would claim that Jesus was in error. To them it is the same thing.

What is dishonest is his claim to be published in a physics journal as if his publication has anything to do with his theory. As far as I can tell, Mr. Duffiled has two publications: a self-published book and a fluff piece in a trade magazine for physicists (not an academic journal). It is dishonest to claim or imply, as he did above, that a scientific journal accepted his scientific work.

But Mr. Duffield clearly is doing this. He does not give anything but the vaguest descriptions of things and he always posts an Amazon.uk link to his self-published book.

As far as I can tell, he has fabricated all of what he refers to as the evidence for his theory. Anyone with any training in physics can tell this pretty quickly.

I see that you, too, are a crank; those who think that there is a twin paradox are cranks.

The inflammatory rhetoric will stop here. PhysBang, you’re persistent attacking of people’s character even through my constant warnings against such has placed me in last straw position. Normally, I would handle this in a PM, but since you insist on making public incursions, I too will place this for all to see.

This is the last time I am going to put up with this. If it happens one more time, your participation in ILP will be relegated to the ‘Rant House’ forum and the offending post will be deleted. If you need a refresher of ILP’s house rules, I would advise you brush up again.

This rather takes us back to what I was saying in the OP. Conviction isn’t something limited to religion. Instead it’s a “people” thing that we also see in ideology, politics, and even science. Some people hold a conviction that’s so unshakeable that they dismiss all the evidence that challenges it, and react with hostility or even outrage. Then they start saying anything and everything they can to try to discredit the evidence along with the person offering it. Yes, some do examine the evidence and modify their view and express gratitude, but if there’s some kind of vested interest at stake such as reputation or a textbook or funding, the hostility can be fierce. There’s a saying science advances one death at a time, and it’s not for nothing.

Fair enough.

There is definitely a kernel of truth in the original post: some people offer arguments that simply cannot be overcome by rational means because their position does not rely on rational thinking.