- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. In the first third of the book, he talks about how our minds determine beliefs and morality: Feelings drive our reasoning. Our moral beliefs are really just our gut instincts that have been conditioned into us.
Quote:“Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second. Moral intuitions arise automatically and almost instantaneously, long before moral reasoning has a chance to get started and those first intuitions drive our later reasoning. If you think that moral reasoning is something we do to figure out the truth, you’ll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you. But if you think about moral reasoning as a skill we humans evolved to further our social agendas–to justify our own actions and to defend the teams we belong to–then things will make a lot more sense. Keep your eye on the intuitions, and don’t take people’s moral arguments at face value. They’re mostly post hoc constructions made up on the fly. . . the mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant. . .”
Discussing morality (including religion) is a political exercise in self-justification and persuasion.
Quote:“. . . when a group of people make something sacred, the members of the [group] lose the ability to think clearly about it. Morality blinds and binds. The true believers produce pious fantasies that don’t match reality . . .We do moral reasoning not to reconstruct the actual reasons why we ourselves came to a judgment; we reason to find the best possible reasons why somebody else ought to join us in our judgment. . . . Moral talk serves a variety of strategic purposes such as managing your reputation, building alliances, and recruiting bystanders to support your side in the disputes that are so common in daily life.
Although our feelings (elephants) come first and are justified by our press-secretary riders, we are capable of being persuaded by the direction of the “friendly” elephants around us and their persuasive riders.
Quote:. . . As a discussion progresses, the reasons given by other people sometimes change our intuitions and judgments. . . friends can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves: they can challenge us, giving us reasons and arguments that sometimes trigger new intuitions, thereby making it possible for us to change our minds. . . Many people think that we follow an inner moral compass, but the history of social psychology richly demonstrates that other people exert a powerful force. . . If you really want to change someone’s mind on a moral or political matter, you’ll need to see things from that person’s angle as well as your own. And if you do truly see it the other person’s way–deeply and intuitively–you might even find your own mind opening in response. Empathy is an antidote to righteousness, although it’s very difficult to empathize across a moral divide.
Quote:. . .The rider evolved to serve the elephant, but it’s a dignified partnership, more like a lawyer serving a client than a slave serving a master. Good lawyers do what they can to help their clients, but they sometimes refuse to go along with requests. . . if there is affection, admiration, or a desire to please the other person, then the elephant leans toward that person and the rider tries to find the truth in the other person’s arguments. The elephant may not often change its direction in response to objections from its own rider, but it is easily steered by the mere presence of friendly elephants (that’s the social persuasion link in the social intuitionist model) or by good arguments given to it by the riders of those friendly elephants (that’s the reasoned persuasion link). . . when we see or hear about the things other people do, the elephant begins to lean immediately. The rider, who is always trying to anticipate the elephant’s next move, begins looking around for a way to support such a move.
Our survival depends more on social acceptance than on correct beliefs.
Quote:. . .why did we evolve an inner lawyer, rather than an inner judge or scientist? Wouldn’t it have been most adaptive for our ancestors to figure out the truth, the real truth about who did what and why, rather than using all that brainpower just to find evidence in support of what they wanted to believe? That depends on which you think was more important to our ancestors’ survival: truth or reputation. . . people will reward or punish us based on how well we justify ourselves . . . we act like intuitive politicians striving to maintain appealing moral identities in front of our multiple constituencies. . . People are trying harder to look right than to be right.
We see what we believe, and we believe what we intuitively want to believe (our feelings).
Quote:. . . when we want to believe something, we ask ourselves, “Can I believe it?” Then we search for supporting evidence, and if we find even a single piece of psuedo-evidence, we can stop thinking. We now have permission to believe. We have a justification in case anyone asks. In contrast, when we don’t want to believe something, we ask ourselves, “Must I believe it?” Then we search for contrary evidence, and if we find a single reason to doubt the claim, we can dismiss it.
Anyway, I’m only about a third of the way into the book. It’s very interesting. Fast & Testimony meeting is basically a procession of riders justifying where their elephants wanted to go.
hawkgrrrl wrote:We see what we believe, and we believe what we intuitively want to believe (our feelings).
Quote:. . . when we want to believe something, we ask ourselves, “Can I believe it?” Then we search for supporting evidence, and if we find even a single piece of psuedo-evidence, we can stop thinking. We now have permission to believe. We have a justification in case anyone asks. In contrast, when we don’t want to believe something, we ask ourselves, “Must I believe it?” Then we search for contrary evidence, and if we find a single reason to doubt the claim, we can dismiss it.
I expect that’s why a loss of faith is so painful and why a person feels so cut adrift. And also why losing trust in feelings makes regaining any faith so difficult.
If I were to read this book (which I may … it sounds interesting) it seems I would be reinforcing my own notions about faith, belief, and how people see the world (which seems a little ironic). So where does this end? Maybe we should continually force ourselves to read material that’s in direct opposition to whatever it is we happen to think we believe in that day. I agree! Two thoughts: 1) I was aware of some of this in my assumptive world reconstruction. Because I got into this mess by believing I would receive blessings as a result of worthily holding the priesthood and magnifying my calling, I found myself asking myself how my new assumptive world would stand up to certain possible catastrophic events in my life. The original assumptive world collapse was so painful that I didn’t want to ever go through that again despite what devastating loss I may have to bear. So I deliberately steered my assumptive world about God and faith in a way that would be completely independent from physical events. My Elephant was wounded and my Rider/Lawyer crafted a plausible enough logic that would protect my Elephant from ever being so disarmed, naked, raw, and vulnerable again. Will this new assumptive reality work better than the last in the face of a terrible event? I pray that I will never have to find out.
2) DW says that I will justify whatever I need to. I agree. From my perspective, DW also does more or less as she wills – she just feels constant guilt over not being better/more Christ like. So yes, if the choice is between living my life and feeling justified or living my life and feeling guilty – I will always choose to feel justified. My Rider/Lawyer is pretty good at doing his job…at least he has me convinced!!!
:crazy: This is where meditation comes in useful. One gets to observe one’s inner processes. Then there are also external dangers. We absorb hidden messages all the time through advertising, television, music, newspapers etc… As Charles Fort said:
“Almost all people are hypnotics. The proper authority saw to it that the proper belief should be induced, and the people believed properly.”
Quote:My Rider/Lawyer is pretty good at doing his job…at least he has me convinced!!!
This is another interesting function of the rider because for us to behave with credibility amongst our peers, we must be convinced of our rightness first and foremost. Like any good salesperson, you have to buy what you are selling – including yourself!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.