How rational thought is often trumped by the necessity of belief

#1
This is an informative interview on how and why people fool themselves into believing anything and everything when rational thought is not used.

"Journalist David McRaney joins us again to put to rest more of the entrenched fallacies that we feel compelled to believe. In his new book, You Are Now Less Dumb: How to Conquer Mob Mentality, How to Buy Happiness, and All the Other Ways to Outsmart Yourself, McRaney explains the patterns of thinking that determine what we believe, and how rational thought is often trumped by the necessity of belief." http://programs.wypr.org/podcast/you-are-now-less-dumb-wed-december-11-1-2-pm
 
#3
I am surprised that someone as verbal and intellectual as you has nothing more than this not so witty rejoinder for a comeback.
I'm sure you will be a bit more thoughtful in your next reply.
 
#4
Not quite sure how it's not thoughtful. Pseudo-skeptics are driven by the belief that their thoughts on these matters are evidence based and rational. Because there doesn't seem to be a difference between serious proponents and serious skeptics on intellectuality, it is equal to assume that both can fall prey to belief-based motivated reasoning.

Materialism and the like also has its emotionally gratifying reasons to belief. A life lived where you don't have to bear the consequences of your actions? That sounds amazing to me! I don't have to think about what my purpose in life is, or why I'm here? So amazingly simple and easy! I get to avoid asking all the hard, confusing questions and can make thousands of a priori assumptions about evidence that contradicts my views? All right! I get to live a life without doubting my belief system? Oh, the security blanket I shall gain!

I have stated this before, and I will probably state it again ( since it seems comprehesion skills on this subforum are somewhat lacking ): to disbelieve in survival and psi is much more emotionally and intellectually gratifying than to believe such things exist. Has it crossed your mind that if an afterlife should exist, it wouldn't be rosebuds and lollipops? That we must repeat this endless cycle of pain and stuggle for all eternity? That complacent boredom may kick in after about your 100^100th year of existence and you can do nothing to get out of the endless cycle of existence? How do any of these things sound emotionally gratifying to you? Doesnt it sound much more simple and nice to just not exist? No pain, no memories.

So you accusing of people accepting evidence for an afterlife and psi as motivated reasoning has come back to bite you in the ass. Its your worldview that's the easy way out, that requires us to answer less questions, and seems so much more pleasant than having to deal with the dread of doubt.

I, however, can understand that pseudoskeptics feel the need to be intellectually superior to people though. I'd imagine a life of trying to get people to listen to your ideas, only to be laughed and scoffed at because of the sheer silliness of them is lost upon the psuedoskeptic. I'd imagine at that point, the only logical psychological barrier would be to assume that everyone else is just simply putting up psychological walls, and letting their feelings overtake their intellect. The sad part is, this isn't just a psuedoskeptic tactic. Look at pastors of megachurhces who condemn homosexuals to hell, only to engage in secret homosexual acts? They're so passionate in pointing out things that they perceive as wrong in other people, that they fail to notice those same qualities in themselves. And when they're called out, they still maintain the belief that they are in fact not gay, but were seduced by the temptations of the devil!

I'd imagine this is what it feels like to be a psuedoskeptic today; so accusatory of cognitive biases to realize the massive amounts of mental roadblocks to evidence that they themselves contain.

Was that enough of a comeback for you? Or did I present a position that will be automatically filtered out by the cognitive biases you claim psuedoskeptics don't have?
 
#5
Not quite sure how it's not thoughtful. Pseudo-skeptics are driven by the belief that their thoughts on these matters are evidence based and rational. Because there doesn't seem to be a difference between serious proponents and serious skeptics on intellectuality, it is equal to assume that both can fall prey to belief-based motivated reasoning.

Materialism and the like also has its emotionally gratifying reasons to belief. A life lived where you don't have to bear the consequences of your actions? That sounds amazing to me! I don't have to think about what my purpose in life is, or why I'm here? So amazingly simple and easy! I get to avoid asking all the hard, confusing questions and can make thousands of a priori assumptions about evidence that contradicts my views? All right! I get to live a life without doubting my belief system? Oh, the security blanket I shall gain!

I have stated this before, and I will probably state it again ( since it seems comprehesion skills on this subforum are somewhat lacking ): to disbelieve in survival and psi is much more emotionally and intellectually gratifying than to believe such things exist. Has it crossed your mind that if an afterlife should exist, it wouldn't be rosebuds and lollipops? That we must repeat this endless cycle of pain and stuggle for all eternity? That complacent boredom may kick in after about your 100^100th year of existence and you can do nothing to get out of the endless cycle of existence? How do any of these things sound emotionally gratifying to you? Doesnt it sound much more simple and nice to just not exist? No pain, no memories.

So you accusing of people accepting evidence for an afterlife and psi as motivated reasoning has come back to bite you in the ass. Its your worldview that's the easy way out, that requires us to answer less questions, and seems so much more pleasant than having to deal with the dread of doubt.

I, however, can understand that pseudoskeptics feel the need to be intellectually superior to people though. I'd imagine a life of trying to get people to listen to your ideas, only to be laughed and scoffed at because of the sheer silliness of them is lost upon the psuedoskeptic. I'd imagine at that point, the only logical psychological barrier would be to assume that everyone else is just simply putting up psychological walls, and letting their feelings overtake their intellect. The sad part is, this isn't just a psuedoskeptic tactic. Look at pastors of megachurhces who condemn homosexuals to hell, only to engage in secret homosexual acts? They're so passionate in pointing out things that they perceive as wrong in other people, that they fail to notice those same qualities in themselves. And when they're called out, they still maintain the belief that they are in fact not gay, but were seduced by the temptations of the devil!

I'd imagine this is what it feels like to be a psuedoskeptic today; so accusatory of cognitive biases to realize the massive amounts of mental roadblocks to evidence that they themselves contain.

Was that enough of a comeback for you? Or did I present a position that will be automatically filtered out by the cognitive biases you claim psuedoskeptics don't have?
Now this is what I expect from you.
 
#8
Not quite sure how it's not thoughtful. Pseudo-skeptics are driven by the belief that their thoughts on these matters are evidence based and rational. Because there doesn't seem to be a difference between serious proponents and serious skeptics on intellectuality, it is equal to assume that both can fall prey to belief-based motivated reasoning.
True, but this interview isn't really about pseudoskepticism. It's covers the topic of belief in preference to rational thought with examples. The point of this posting is to point out people should recognize and come to terms with their fallacious thinking.

Materialism and the like also has its emotionally gratifying reasons to belief. A life lived where you don't have to bear the consequences of your actions? That sounds amazing to me! I don't have to think about what my purpose in life is, or why I'm here? So amazingly simple and easy! I get to avoid asking all the hard, confusing questions and can make thousands of a priori assumptions about evidence that contradicts my views? All right! I get to live a life without doubting my belief system? Oh, the security blanket I shall gain!

I have stated this before, and I will probably state it again ( since it seems comprehesion skills on this subforum are somewhat lacking ): to [my edit] disbelieve in survival and psi is much more emotionally and intellectually gratifying than to believe such things [my edit] do not exist. Has it crossed your mind that if an afterlife should exist, it wouldn't be rosebuds and lollipops? That we must repeat this endless cycle of pain and stuggle for all eternity? That complacent boredom may kick in after about your 100^100th year of existence and you can do nothing to get out of the endless cycle of existence? How do any of these things sound emotionally gratifying to you? Doesnt it sound much more simple and nice to just not exist? No pain, no memories.
This interview isn't about materialism, the purpose of life either.

So you accusing of people accepting evidence for an afterlife and psi as motivated reasoning has come back to bite you in the ass. Its your worldview that's the easy way out, that requires us to answer less questions, and seems so much more pleasant than having to deal with the dread of doubt.
This interview also is not about the after life.


I, however, can understand that pseudoskeptics feel the need to be intellectually superior to people though. I'd imagine a life of trying to get people to listen to your ideas, only to be laughed and scoffed at because of the sheer silliness of them is lost upon the psuedoskeptic.
I did not just now pluck these ideas out of me arse. These are the findings of psychologists throughout the world.
I often see here people explaining over and over the causes for their beliefs, yet I see little introspective explanation from those same people why they choose belief no matter how erroneous it might be.

I'd imagine at that point, the only logical psychological barrier would be to assume that everyone else is just simply putting up psychological walls, and letting their feelings overtake their intellect. The sad part is, this isn't just a psuedoskeptic tactic.
You seem to have a fixation for pseudoskeptics.

Look at pastors of megachurhces who condemn homosexuals to hell, only to engage in secret homosexual acts? They're so passionate in pointing out things that they perceive as wrong in other people, that they fail to notice those same qualities in themselves. And when they're called out, they still maintain the belief that they are in fact not gay, but were seduced by the temptations of the devil!
Pastors are a good example of how belief trumps rational thought.

I'd imagine this is what it feels like to be a psuedoskeptic today; so accusatory of cognitive biases to realize the massive amounts of mental roadblocks to evidence that they themselves contain.
Was that enough of a comeback for you? Or did I present a position that will be automatically filtered out by the cognitive biases you claim psuedoskeptics don't have?
There's this fixation again. Consider some introspection why this is so. None of your thinly veiled jabs went unnoticed. May I suggest you put as much some rational thought into your next reply by pointing out how proponents are just as bad at being rational as us ol' pseudoskeptics. ;)
 
Last edited:
#10
Did you not notice the title of this subforum? This sub forum is not titled;

Psychology news

Or is it titled;

Critical discussion about psychology news.

The title of this subforum is called a critical discussion between proponents and skeptics. Since you're posting this, I'm assuming you're presenting it as something that's meaningful to the critical discussion. I'm showing you an example and a reason of how belief in materialism trumps rational evidence.

You should be happy that I'm showing supporting evidence for your link! I've identified that materialist conclusions ( no afterlife, ability to believe that one is a meat pocket who's intellectually superior to another meat pocket even though one can barely string a sentence of substance together ) are feel good conclusions for them, so they continue to follow materialism like little secular congregations.

How are you not enthralled that we agree on something for once!? I'm glad that you're coming around to my side of critical thinking, and that you're able to see the flaws in modern psuedoskeptics.

People can change!

I can understand though. I'd imagine growing up as a child too intellectually challenged to compete academically would force some sadly weak minded individual to cling to whatever he saw as the intellectual elite ' s ideas. It's a shame, and a pity, when these sad little children go up to other children who are far more intellectually equipped and attempt to play the 'I'm better and smarter' card in an effort to salvage whatever intellectual self - esteem they may have left in the tank. While it may be therapy for our pathetic, intellectually challenged child, it's comedy and sweet ironic justice for our children who decided to put a bit of honesty and intellect into their studies. I wouldn't say that I'm particularly mad or angry about our hypothetical dumb child, it just makes me wish that there is no afterlife so that it doesn't have to stumble around the endless cycle of reincarnation like a newly born giraffe in rollerskates.

That was just a rant in psychology by the way. Don't take it personally, or relevant to your personal experience. It certainly wasn't meant to be written that way :) .
 
Last edited:
Top