Blogger Ian Pollock makes some excellent points here about identifying oneself with ideology of any kind. Someone who identifies himself as a liberal, for example, will take any criticism of any liberal policy personally and so will strike up defenses, always a barrier to rational debate.

I can relate to Pollock's comments about identifying with atheism though many of us on BookTalk have taken pains to define "atheism" as simply a lack of a belief in a deity. It says nothing about who we are as people.


Why you should hold your beliefs at arm’s length

by Ian Pollock

“If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.”
(Paul Graham)

Let’s start with politics.

I know somebody who knows somebody who is a monarchist. No really, that’s what he is. He even introduces himself that way, I’m told: “Hi, I’m Carl (or whatever his name is) the Monarchist.”

Now although I’m certain that Carl is a barrel of laughs on social occasions, I think he’s making a big mistake — not about the Commonwealth monarchy (I’m favorably disposed to it myself for largely aesthetic reasons*), but about what kinds of things belong in a description of “Carl” as a person. Less importantly for most people, but perhaps more importantly for the typical reader of this blog, he is setting himself up for some serious extra cognitive blind spots on a wide range of topics.

There are quite a few problems with Carl’s situation:

To begin with, by thinking of this opinion as a characteristic of his person, he is ensuring that criticisms of that opinion will feel like malicious personal attacks on him. I have experienced this from the inside (in my youth as an armchair Trotskyite), and seen similar tendencies in many true believers I’m acquainted with. Eventually, criticism of the idea comes to have a nasty emotional impact similar to criticism of, say, personal appearance.

Relatedly, by committing to this view in public, Carl is ensuring that changing his mind will be maximally difficult and embarrassing. We change our minds less often than we think, and part of the reason is that, socially speaking, it takes a lot out of us to admit to being wrong.

(As an aside, this has huge implications for effective communication between people who disagree. For example, try to treat both your own beliefs and those of others as external to the person altogether. A simple change of phrasing from “I think you’re incorrect” to “I think this idea is incorrect” may make the difference between defensiveness and honest appraisal. On a personal level, I find it useful to think of beliefs as maps that I take out of an imaginary glove compartment.)

The third reason that Carl is wrong to call himself a monarchist (and why I think people oughtn’t to call themselves liberals, conservatives, libertarians, environmentalists or whatever) is that human brains are very leaky contraptions, and one corollary of this is that initially descriptive ideas tend to drift in the direction of prescriptivity (hence, inter alia, the naturalistic fallacy). Let’s say you notice, as a fact about yourself, that you favor low taxes and a generally small government on ethical and practical grounds. You look in a dictionary and, lo and behold, that is a big part of the definition of “conservative.” Out come the phonemes: “I am a conservative.” Aren’t words great?

What you will probably not notice, however, is that increasingly when you don’t know what you think about some issue yet (say, your country’s stance on foreign affairs), you will take your cue from other self-identified conservatives, as opposed to thinking it through yourself and then describing your conclusion in political terminology. The normative self-definition has staged its coup d’etat. Whatever “conservatives” think, that is going to be your opinion. Of course, when I put it that way, it looks ridiculous. But from the inside, this process feels perfectly rational — like wisely throwing your lot in with a really smart group of people.

The hasty allegiances formed by the drift to normativity have a further drawback, in that they tend to make progress towards specific goals difficult. The political landscape is a skew coordinate system. In other words, you can never move along a single axis without simultaneously moving along others. Want to support the only party that is currently serious about climate change? Well, be my guest, as long as you don’t mind their economic protectionism. Want to combat protectionism by supporting the opposing party? By all means, as long as you’re all right with “family values.” And what, pray tell, does sexual bigotry have to do with free trade economics? Why exactly is that a package deal? Search me. Apparently it’s somehow distantly related to where two varieties of wig-wearing aristocrats sat during the French Revolution.**

To be clear, I am not advocating disengagement from politics. Rather, I suggest we should take a piecemeal approach to political issues, avoiding an excessive focus on their historical relations with each other.

So much for politics. To be fair, at least when you define yourself in political terms, you are making a sort of ethical statement about yourself, which makes some sense in terms of personal identity.

What is even worse is self-definition in terms of empirical matters, or more broadly, propositions about the world that are either true or false (this includes some philosophical questions, though of course the boundary is pretty porous).

Let’s say I have some proper belief about a particular fact question, like “nuclear fusion will be a commercially viable energy source in 30 years or less.” Say I give this proposition subjective odds of 3:1 in favor (75% probability).

There are a lot of things I might want to do with this belief, like invest in technologies for separating deuterium from seawater, or refrain from getting a career in the coal industry. One thing I should NOT want to do is wake up early in the morning on a Sunday and solemnly proclaim the glorious imminence of fusion power. Another thing that I should NOT want to do is wear a t-shirt with a stylized red F on it, and go around calling myself a “fusionist” or some such thing.

Oh yeah. Feel those anvils.

The problem with calling yourself an “atheist” is not that the proposition itself is wrong. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a proposition more overdetermined by philosophical and scientific lines of evidence than this one: that all the creator beings humans have ever dreamt up are laughably improbable (if they even rise to the level of being coherent).

Rather, the problems with such a self-definition are as follows:

(1) You will probably develop “person with a hammer” syndrome, wherein every problem you see looks like a nail, or in this case a jihadi. Realistically, although religious belief is a big problem, it is not anything remotely like the biggest problem. If you flipped a switch and everybody on earth became an atheist, we would still retain most of our problems.

(Arguably, a mass deconversion could actually be a bad or at least neutral thing, if there were no concomitant understanding of rationality in general, or of how ethics, meaning, emotion and subjectivity are supposed to fit into a determined and purely physical universe. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing — just ask the atheists who are now nihilists as well, or the people who think Young’s double-slit experiment proves that We Are All One Consciousness, Man.)

Also, (2) Why do we care? What interesting thing does this tell us about you, other than your stance on one rather silly proposition? What DO you actually believe in, apart from not being a theist?

It would be different if you had said “I’m a rationalist” or “I’m a mysterian” or whatever. These refer to interesting tendencies in philosophical thought — tendencies whose consequences are far-reaching indeed. As an aside, note that although being a rationalist should (I claim) result in very low subjective probabilities for creator beings, the term refers to the process by which such claims are to be considered — it doesn’t hard-code specific claims into its definition. Thank goodness.

(3) In general, it’s bad practice to allow propositions — even very certain ones — into your self-definition. Reasons for this were discussed above: among other things, it makes changing your mind nearly impossible, as well as socially costly. Yes yes, I know you won’t need to change your mind on this question. But are you really so good at judging which propositions are near-certain, and which aren’t? If you say “odds of 99:1 against” on 100 separate occasions, you won’t be wrong more than once or twice... right?

(4) It’s (probably) nothing to be proud of. If you grew up in a truly religious household or community, with unapologetic brainwashing and social seclusion along religious lines, then yes, you should be proud to have found your way through all those obstacles to the truth. If, however (like me) your parents gave you a measure of intellectual freedom, and your society does too, then you should be no more proud of your atheism than a middle-class westerner should be proud of a high-school diploma. Above all, in general, beliefs are for predicting future experiences, not for feeling proud.

Just as a probability distribution is not an accomplishment, a policy preference is not a part of who you are.

—-

*And anticipate being so disposed for as long as the heir apparent keeps his mouth shut upon succession.

**Sometimes a good test of whether your beliefs are too affected by historical contingency is to imagine explaining them to a martian.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ ... fs-at.html

I like Ian Pollock's blogs as well. If there were such a thing as "the most open minded disposition possible", it would be the utter lack of belief in anything, a tabula rasa brain.

Of all my beliefs that I identify myself by, I would have to say the only one that I hold passionately is my adherence to process. The particular beliefs are not my own, even though I believe some things to be true. Novel thoughts are merely recombinations that another person has likely had before me. The process would be a combination of humility and critical analysis. The data that is processed, the "beliefs", depend on the integrity of the process. This is why I'm so very interested in philosophy, because it deals with the process of knowing.

I agree there's a lot of good sense in that blog piece. Especially lately, it seems, there is more latent pressure to be really sure about which propositions define you, with identity politics having become so powerful. It's hard to be open-minded when your mental doors open or shut automatically at the mention of this or that proposition.

Pollock also reminded me of a radio segment I heard today on contagion-thinking. The speaker was saying that it seems to be central to human cognition that we can't easily separate things that share attributes, seeing related things as essentially the same in important ways. And the relatedness is mostly in our minds in the first place. The example used was turning sewage into drinking water, how a majority of people are against consuming such water just because of where the finished product started. This is even with the assurance that the water is at least as pure as what now comes out of their taps. With politics, we can see this contagion-thinking going on when an argument isn't evaluated on its own merits but is endorsed or rejected because of the "kind" of argument it is, the "family" that it comes from, i.e., liberal or conservative, environmentalist or free-market, etc. Consistency of political sympathies becomes way over-valued in this way, and somebody who doesn't spout a consistent line is unusual enough to be labeled "maverick."

This over-determination of ideological labels is at the core of mythic identity. Most people define their identity in tribal terms, not by logic, so they accept the ideas that their tribe accepts, with trust in authority. Tribal ideas are essentially mythic, because their function is to define group cohesion, such that anyone who expresses doubt defines themselves as outside the tribe. A myth is any idea shared by a group that is not rational. Doubts about believed myths are regarded as heresy and blasphemy. It is not about logic it is about belonging.

So, when some one says 'I am a monarchist', they express loyalty to God, King and Country, confidence in the heritage of Empire, and conservative priority of established tradition over radical change. By declaring their membership of a hierarchical tribe, they become a member of a super-organism, and trade off rationality for participation in a community of power.

Atheism is somewhat different, in that the cohesion of atheists is defined by their common interest in skepticism and logic. It is rather hard to make consistent skepticism into a myth, but some people succeed. Mythic atheism is seen in derision of spirituality, among people who find a tribal identity in their common rejection of religion. This sort of anti-myth still can function psychologically like a myth, with adherents bristling with rejection when their assumptions are challenged.

Part of the issue here is that tribal cohesion requires myth, so anyone who holds their beliefs at arm's length, refusing to define their identity by any mythic label, is declaring they do not wish to be a part of a tribe. This can be a recipe for loneliness and isolation. So there is a trade off between reason and belonging. The more you rely on reason the less you belong to a group.

If this were possible to achieve, this person would be highly unsuccesssful in life. Even if a tabula rasa brain existed, which I do not believe, it would only exist before any knowledge or experience had been gained. Being too open minded makes it very difficult to make any decisions in life and refusing to be a part of any grouping or identified with any group will also be a huge hinderance in contributing to the lives of others because being a part of the group builds trust and with trust can come change.

The success of any group depends on people sticking together for common goals. If the only important thing in life was having open, honest discussions, weighing all options, hearing all viewpoints, and never really getting anything done, this non-identifying, open-minded vision might be fine. In real life, a disaster. Sometimes, closing your mind to arguments, options, opinions, and dissent is the best way to really accomplish something great.

Catching Monkeys

By Rutagengwa Claude Shema

Regional Coordinator

Great Lakes Peace Initiative (GLPI)




CATCHING MONKEYS

In some regions of India, more and more jungle has be cleared
to make room for new villages because of the growing population.
Most animals that used to live in those forests have withdrawn or
disappeared, except the monkeys. They enter those villages and
instead of picking fruit from trees, they look for leftovers. They
are smart and observe when people are away from home, then enter
the kitchen and help themselves. If the door is locked, they break
open a window and ransack the kitchen to look for food.

Because the people in those areas believe in reincarnation,
they do not want to hurt or kill any animal, because they believe
that a monkey might be a deceased relative. But they do not like
monkeys to burglarize their homes either. So someone came up with
a brilliant, humane way to catch those monkeys. They make metal
vases with a wide body and a narrow opening at the top, screw them
onto a window sill, and drop a banana inside. A monkey can smell
and see the banana, puts his hand into the vase and grabs the
banana, trying to pull it out. But the clenched fist with the
fruit is too wide to come out through the narrow neck of the vase.
And those monkeys are stubborn, they never let go of a fruit once
they have found it. So they are stuck there for hours, with their
hand inside the vase. Twice a day, an animal control officer
patrols the village, and when he sees a monkey, covers it with a
burlap bag. Now the monkey lets go, is fed a banana, and all the
monkeys caught that day are brought by truck deep into a forest
from where they don't return to the village.

Next time we are about to make a monkey out of ourselves by
refusing to let go of a grudge, fear, worry or anger, we will
remember that story, let go and forgive, and feel free and happy.
....................................................o0o............................................................

I don't think any such thing as a tabula rasa brain is possible. There's a nested assumption of absolute blankness.



Closing your mind to certain arguments is necessary, as well as being a necessary byproduct of a good epistemological process. Certain hypotheses can be ruled out as false. Certain arguments can be dismissed almost immediately if certain conditions aren't met.

I think we have a strong impulse to belong. We have evolved that way and over history such cohesion has been crucial to the success and power of individual tribes. Myth and religion have served as a commonality that helps communities to bond for many thousands of years. But our social structures have changed dramatically over the past few hundred years. We don't live in small tribes or communities any more, but mega-states with millions and millions of people. I wonder if this urge to belong is becoming a relic that no longer serves a useful purpose. The price of membership to belong to many political or religious groups usually hinges on a mutual dedication to tenets formed around irrational beliefs or at least unfounded beliefs. If anything, these kinds of arbitrary groups, perpetually evolving, don't lead to anything positive. Sometimes they do. Religion seems much less relevant in urban environments, but it is still important in small rural communities.

It's also interesting to observe how fluid such social bonds can be. The U.S., for example, contains bitter political factions based on various political ideologies, one group always trying to get the edge over another. However, if the U.S. were to enter a major war with another major mega-state, we would see the people come together in a nationalistic fervor that can easily mean the difference between victory or defeat. It was interesting how much of a fuss the media made of Oprah's decision to endorse Obama over Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. She chose race over gender in drawing her allegiance. These tribal urges are probably central to many of our actions, whether we are aware of it or not.

“If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.”
(Paul Graham)

Just a few thoughts on this statement from the blog (I have phrased them as questions because I really don't know the answers):

If a child is taken at birth and isolated from all 'things' that could creep into his/her identity then kept this way until maturity and assessed at that point, is it likely that this person would be a healthy person psychologically and socially? Would it be found that the child was born with a predisposition to believing in something(s) or affiliating with something, which has gone unfulfilled, and now the person is damaged by that lack of fulfillment? Does the need to think clearly about things trump the need for belief and belonging in developing a healthy, balanced person and populace?

The children who have grown up surrounded by adults involved in the FLDS which has been all over the news lately may be a good example as to what a child will intrinsically believe. The example would be that those children who do escape that religion, that tribe, believe in self preservation. Those children have been withdrawn from society, immersed in that religion, but some can still objectively examine what they have been raised to believe regarding that religion. The predisposed belief for isolated children and adults may be self preservation and survival.

I don't know if Pollock is making the argument that we should strive for a tabula rasa kind of mind. We all have biases and prejudices that are carried into our identities. I think what he's saying primarily is that we should be aware of our underlying biases and prejudices so that we can better hold our beliefs at arm's length.

This is by-the-way, I know, but Oprah is popular on this side of the ocean too, but her backing of Obama was not presented as race in preference to gender by our media. She was credited with making a rational decision as to the 'person' she preferred to endorse.

I don't know that tribal urges are a factor. The media and hype and the use of 'personalities' are powerful tools in manipulating vast numbers of mankind. I, personally, become guarded when jargon begins to be used, in religion or politics. My hackles rise immediately a catch-phrase emerges and I become suspicious, when I hear the constant repetition of a phrase. 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', was case in point. When I listen to the news, I listen out for repetition of words and phrases, and then I ask myself, what are they trying to make me think? Am I grown cynical in my old age?

But they may not be quite so deluded as what I'm taking it you're suggesting. It seems logical to me that if, say, you are a member of a certain political party (doesn't matter which) in a 2-party system you bristle when it is attacked in any substantial way because even if you know, or suspect, the criticism (or action or non-action) has some validity it will serve only to weaken the party thus allowing the far worse one to gain more control than it otherwise would have realized.In this case then an ideological label can be argued to have a rational basis, can't it? I would argue it to be a mistaken view, but rational - sure!
Wow this is good. I mean that.

Now that you say it, I don't recall the media framing Oprah's endorsement of Obama quite that way: as a choice of race over gender. That's probably my own peculiar slant. Hmm. As you say, either choice is a rational decision. A lot of us voted for Obama simply because we thought he was the best person for the job. Why is Oprah's endorsement any different? Thanks for pointing that out, Penelope.

Yes, WMD became quite a buzz phrase there in Bush's term. As it turns out, there weren't any. D'oh!

We've previously talked about the conservatives' use of "taking America back" (presumably from the clutches of liberals) and American "excellence" (that's not quite the term). They're trying to make us think that the other side is not for American excellence. You have to be cynical these days.

There is a lot we like about America, so it isn't meant as a criticism exactly, but OH and I were just talking this morning about the TV Series, 'The Killing' which was originally a Scandanavian series which we watched over here with sub'titles. Now we have the US version which has been remade and we were wondering why the Americans always seem to want to remake things 'for the American audience' - even when they are in English. Like the American version of 'The Office' which was very good, but why remake it? Also, one of my favourite comedy shows 'The IT Crowd' - remade using different characters. I didn't like 'Shameless' British version, and actually it seems a bit more acceptable in the US version, although I still wonder why..... It puzzles me a bit.

Ooops....Off topic aren't I.