Prejudice and gullibility...

[Boerseun]

I received the following in my email this morning. I've received it a long time ago and forgot about it, and thought first to put it in the "Quality Jokes" thread. I was about to, when it struck me that this is really not funny. So, the following:

 

A student at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at the Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair, April 26. He was attempting to show how conditioned we have become to alarmists practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment.

 

In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical "dihydrogen monoxide."

 

And for plenty of good reasons, since:

 

1. It can cause excessive sweating and vomiting

2. It is a major component in acid rain

3. It can cause severe burns in its gaseous state

4. Accidental inhalation can kill you

5. It contributes to erosion

6. It decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes

7. It has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients

 

He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of the chemical.

Forty-three (43) said yes,

Six (6) were undecided,

and only one (1) knew that the chemical was water.

 

The title of his prize winning project was, "How Gullible Are We?"

 

Check with snopes ... Yes, the above hoax was truly done with the above results.

Now whether this is an urban legend or not, I do not know. But I can very well believe it.

 

Why is it that we are so gullible? People fell for the above because it's main premise revolves around a technical term for water. Not enough people know this (86% in the above example), but they are willing to fall for it hook, line and sinker because of the authority implied by using these technical terms.

 

This pertains to lots of things. It pertains to the pervasive authority wielded by the Church, false arguments raised by politicians, false arguments raised by scientists with an agenda (like the scientists employed by the tobacco industry), arguments raised both in favour and against Global Warming, arguments raised about basically anything which might be of public concern. Politicians get elected to high office for riding on the backs of arguments that neither they nor the electorate bother to understand.

 

There is only one way out of this, and this is through each and every individual taking it upon him- or herself to educate themselves about the matter at hand.

 

But I think in today's world of information overload, this is too much to ask. You can't research a matter in-depth, which might take some time, if you're being bombarded with tens of issues every day. You'll just take the shortcut and take the most authoritive individual's word for it - ("Authoritive", of course, being your opinion of it - the person most in line with your world-view would be your authority on controversial matters, and whatever he/she says, will be your mantra. Because you simply don't have enough time to slog though the hard research yourself.

 

Which makes a strong case that those in favour of ID will just get more hardened in their stance, and the same going for those against. I'm not picking sides in this thread in the ID, atheism, God, whatever debates, all I'm saying is because of the above, the general population have let their chosen authorities pick their opinions for them, and very little will change it.

 

We should be skeptical about each and every position and put our shoulders to the wheel and understand what we're talking about, before we allow public money to bolster any particular cause. We (us Hypographites) might do so already - my problem lies with that guy flipping hamburgers at MacDonalds who can talk for hours about how Global Warming is bullshit because that one guy on telly said so the other night. He will also live in fear of dihydrogen monoxide.

 

I don't see how to fix this.

[Cedars]

I received the following in my email this morning. I've received it a long time ago and forgot about it, and thought first to put it in the "Quality Jokes" thread. I was about to, when it struck me that this is really not funny. So, the following:

 

Now whether this is an urban legend or not, I do not know. But I can very well believe it.

Its true:

snopes.com: Dihydrogen Monoxide

Why is it that we are so gullible? People fell for the above because it's main premise revolves around a technical term for water.

 

This pertains to lots of things. It pertains to the pervasive authority wielded by the Church, false arguments raised by politicians, false arguments raised by scientists with an agenda (like the scientists employed by the tobacco industry), arguments raised both in favour and against Global Warming, arguments raised about basically anything which might be of public concern. Politicians get elected to high office for riding on the backs of arguments that neither they nor the electorate bother to understand.

Gullible? We also rely on the 'experts' to be correct when they make a statement. We also skip over the warning labels and focus on the good stuff. We dont register the "as far as I can tell" and we tend to skip over the ending line "more study is needed".

 

("Authoritive", of course, being your opinion of it - the person most in line with your world-view would be your authority on controversial matters, and whatever he/she says, will be your mantra. Because you simply don't have enough time to slog though the hard research yourself.

Yeah, we have internal bias, whether instilled via nature or nuture or both.

We should be skeptical about each and every position and put our shoulders to the wheel and understand what we're talking about, before we allow public money to bolster any particular cause.

 

I don't see how to fix this.

 

And we should be OK with, maybe even encourage the gray position of "I dont know" or "the study was inconclusive".

[HydrogenBond]

The emotions we feel, will have an impact on the way we think. For example, if one is in a good mood they will be more optimistic, than if one is in a bad mood. When one is happy the morning birds are joyful music. The same audio bird data, when one is grouchy, can become an annoying noise. Reality has not change only the emotion which will effect the interpretation. Risk based science makes use of a fear induction, which creates the emotions behind fight or flight.

 

A fear induction will cause one type of person to think in terms of fighting the fear, while other types of personalities will run from it. For example, global warming is not emotionless, but rather it generates a strong fear inducement. Because of the fear, some will try to find ways to fight the fear, such as showing data that neutralizes the source of the fear. Others fighting the fear may go into denial of the facts. While those who react via flight from fear, will run alone, or run within the safety of the herd, never looking back to see what they fear. They may never see the source of their fear may be coming from only the shadow of a mouse.

 

The di-hydrogen oxide example is only a little mouse, for all rational purposes. But the organization of the presented data, is designed to cast a fearful shadow, by focusing on worse case scenarios, without any sense of objective proportion. All that is presented is true, but it is not all the truth, just the fearful truth. Many people are ready for fight or flight due to the induced fear. Not enough people are cool headed enough to explore the induced fear, to differentiate the shadow from the mouse.

 

Science should not be in the emotional shadowing business, by stacking the truthful data for an emotional effect; swine flu. This is emotional science, using truth to cast emotional shadows, around a little mouse. The fear induction is designed to make you irrationally extrapolate down linear directions. We either need to fight and kill the mouse or run as far and fast as we can away from it.

 

There are other emotions we can induce using emotional science. Desire is a good one, since the goal of the data pitch will be to organize some of the truth data into a pretty girl, instead of a shadow. This will hopefully lead the mind into a compulsive attraction toward the pretty girl. Real science will not use the emotional appeal. This is more likely to happen with empirical science, since the uncertainty becomes a matrix for the irrationality of emotional science. It is all a function of what emotion we wish to use. We simply organize partial truth in a way to attach an the emotion into the uncertainty; irrational matrix for irrational.

[Pyrotex]

Prejudice and gullibility derive their final forms (and power) out of childhood environments and experiences.

 

As children, we "inherit" so much of our beliefs and attitudes from our family, our church, our friends, our community, our schools. These beliefs just PLOP into our laps and we absorb them, almost as it were, by osmosis. If our childhood environment is homogenous, then all the other kids (and their families, etc) have inherited and absorbed the same beliefs (more or less).

 

At some point, those beliefs become challenged. Typically by outside sources from external environments, cultures, places, communities. We go to college and discover that NOT everyone believes the same religion, have the same social attitudes, accept the same assumptions about society, science and authority figures.

 

At that point, one of two things happen. The individual chooses to isolate and protect the inherited mindset -- or chooses to gather and analyze all the new "stuff" out there, and see how it all fits together. Trouble is, if one takes the latter course, and a "picture" slowly builds up of how the world works, and that picture is NOT the same as the one inherited, then you have another choice.

 

You can't go back and unlearn all the new "stuff". But you can try to share your insights with the home community and engage in debate -- or you can partition your mind. You "believe" in the Tooth Fairy when you're around your parents, and you "believe" in Buck Rogers when you are around your college classmates.

 

But the more one becomes isolated from new "stuff", new insights, new data, new theories, new observations, the more prejudiced and gullible one tends to become. You are increasingly dependent upon "authorities", who themselves may be relying entirely upon "authorities", who themselves may be ... One has to fight harder and harder to "protect" the mindset one inherited while in the second grade. You invest your "word", your integrity, your reputation, upon defending the old mindset. You find yourself blocking off avenues of information that might challenge that mindset. You have to invent "reasons" for this. And you sink into conspiratorial thinking:

 

I can't trust anything from NBC, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC, the Republicans/Democrats, college history textbooks, scientists, etc, because they're all ( f=choose1: ) < LIBERALS | CONSERVATIVES | FASCISTS | SOCIALISTS | NOT "REAL" CHRISTIANS | HUMANISTS | TERRORISTS | ATHEISTS | POWER HUNGRY SOBs | IDIOTS >.

 

You become cut off from the outside world by high mental walls of conviction and dogma. You have "The Truth" and that is all that matters. You'll believe ANYTHING that defends that Truth. Anything. You are gullible. You'll judge everything by the generations-old, unquestioned standards that you absorbed as a child, even though society has changed out from under you. You are prejudiced.

[coberst]

CT is the answer!!

[Boerseun]

CT is the answer!!

Huh?

[Pyrotex]

Boerseun,

he means "critical thinking". :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

 

Coberst,

please go play in some other thread where I'm not posting.

 

[coberst]

Huh?

 

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

 

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

 

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

 

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

 

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

 

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

 

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

 

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

 

To put the matter into a nut shell:

1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.

2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.

3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.

4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.

5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.

6. Can our democracy survive that long?

7. I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.

8. I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.

[Boerseun]

Okay... I've got it as KD, or "Kritiese Denke".

 

But yes, that's basically what it boils down to. But how to get that burger-flipper at Mickey D's to start employing his pip for the job it was intended to do, namely Critical Thinking?

 

The Mickey D burger flippers are, after all, globally the biggest deciders through the ballot on what public monies should be spent on.

 

I see dark days ahead...

[Kriminal99]

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

 

I wouldn't have fell for it. It's sheep mentality. You could have a theory professor teach a demonstrably invalid proof and the class would fall for it in the same manner, save that one kid who is always skeptical of things.

[Pyrotex]

that's right, Krim. When 99 intelligent, educated people all agree, then they're just deluded sheep, and that 100th person must therefore be right.

[Kriminal99]

Educated and intelligent in the naive sense you are referring to just doesn't cut it. Besides, if I wasn't free to completely disagree with a group of people, then neither were the original group of people and therefore there so called consensus is fake. It really just boils down to a few people not being able to discredit something and then using social manipulation to get everyone else on board.

 

It exists on a spectrum, of course even I sometimes give the benefit of the doubt about things. Like when it's not something I have any reason to believe that person would get wrong. I just have a lot of unique knowledge that makes me a better judge... concepts extracted from life experiences and reading philosophical arguments. Only certain kinds of people are proficient enough with information that they can directly apply such concepts from other disciplines in a completely precise and accurate manner.

 

People like you are just ridiculous. You look at someone like me and think what's wrong with that guy? Why does he do the things he does?

 

Nevermind that I completely understand your behavior while you don't understand mine. It never once dawns on you that YOUR THE PERSON WHO JUST DOESN'T GET IT.

[pamela]

Educated and intelligent in the naive sense you are referring to just doesn't cut it. Besides, if I wasn't free to completely disagree with a group of people, then neither were the original group of people and therefore there so called consensus is fake. It really just boils down to a few people not being able to discredit something and then using social manipulation to get everyone else on board

as always krim, that is your opinion and conjecture.

 

"Why must you be such an angry young man, your future is quite bright to me" compliments of some 80's band;)

 

It exists on a spectrum, of course even I sometimes give the benefit of the doubt about things. Like when it's not something I have any reason to believe that person would get wrong. I just have a lot of unique knowledge that makes me a better judge... concepts extracted from life experiences and reading philosophical arguments. Only certain kinds of people are proficient enough with information that they can directly apply such concepts from other disciplines in a completely precise and accurate manner

hmmm judge eh? that might be part of the problem here krim. I am sure you have aquired vast amounts of knowledge, but without the wisdom on how to use it, you fail miserably at captivating your audience

People like you are just ridiculous. You look at someone like me and think what's wrong with that guy? Why does he do the things he does?

hey hey hey, now thats my pal Pyro and he is the keeper of the flame- so BE NICE!! I think we all know why you do and say as you will, i just hope that you have the desire to take a deep look inside yourself objectively, and understand the comments made to you

Nevermind that I completely understand your behavior while you don't understand mine. It never once dawns on you that YOUR THE PERSON WHO JUST DOESN'T GET IT

hmmm we all misunderstand at times, but no reason to shout. Remember ego often gets in the way and may skew our opinions of each other- lets start over, shall we? and make a concentrated effort to be pleasant while we bandy words:)

[Boerseun]

People like you are just ridiculous. You look at someone like me and think what's wrong with that guy? Why does he do the things he does?

 

Nevermind that I completely understand your behavior while you don't understand mine. It never once dawns on you that YOUR THE PERSON WHO JUST DOESN'T GET IT.

Never mind the context in which this was posted, but this perfectly illustrates my point.

 

"It never once dawns on you that YOU'RE THE PERSON WHO JUST DOESN'T GET IT..."

 

And we are all, to a larger or lesser degree, guilty of this.

 

And that's one thing that you'll never see.

 

Ponderous...

 

...and the only way out is for each and every one of us to understand that there are no set truths, there are no definite truths, there are no absolute truths. There is only the process by which answers approximating the truth can be gleaned from nature. And it's imperative that we all understand that process. The process is sacred - nothing else is. Not even your own opinion.

 

And that process is the Scientific Method.

 

And if you "believe" in any particular truth, like "The Earth is Warming Because of Human Interference" or "Global Warming is Bullshit", and somebody comes with evidence that survived the Scientific Method that is 180 degrees opposed to your personal viewpoint, then you should have the cohones to accept that for what it is. Your opinion got trumped by The Method. You should gracefully accept that your initial conviction was erroneous.

 

Everybody has an opinion about everything. It must be so. That's what humans are about. But I think we as a civilization place too much emphasis on teaching only the results of the Scientific Method to the general population, without first explaining the Method to the population. Say there are a lot of kids in high school who dropped all science-related subjects and are studying business science or economics or whatnot. They will never appreciate the results of the Method, because they don't understand the Method. I firmly believe that if the Scientific Method is rigorously taught to each and every individual (whether he/she is interested in Science or not), then the world would be a much better place. Bigotry and prejudice will fall by the wayside, because it is not supported by the Method.

 

If you want to be literal about it, then CT is Religion, and the Method its Scripture. And don't fly off the handle about that particular metaphor, now.

 

But thanks, Krim, nonetheless - you made a very important point, there.