Saturday, April 19, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Expelled: The Movie
Ben Stein believes intelligent design and creationist science is being "Expelled" from mainstream science. Perhaps he should read Expelled Exposed.
Monday, April 14, 2008
I knew you were going to say that...
...I just scanned your brain.
A study recently published in Nature Neuroscience and reported at Wired.com states that researches could predict simple decisions made by people seven seconds before they were consciously aware of their own decision.
The participants in the study had to make a decision whether to press a button with their left or right hand.
"In the seven seconds before Haynes' test subjects chose to push a button, activity shifted in their frontopolar cortex, a brain region associated with high-level planning. Soon afterwards, activity moved to the parietal cortex, a region of sensory integration. Haynes' team monitored these shifting neural patterns using a functional MRI machine.
Taken together, the patterns consistently predicted whether test subjects eventually pushed a button with their left or right hand -- a choice that, to them, felt like the outcome of conscious deliberation. For those accustomed to thinking of themselves as having free will, the implications are far more unsettling than learning about the physiological basis of other brain functions"
The implications being that free will might be an illusion.
I'd personally see it more of a computer analogy. A simple computer diagram would be input(plus instructions)->processing->output. I would argue that after input and instructions, we don't consciously come to a decision until the output stage, with our subconscious taking care of the processing part and our conscious mind converting the electrical impulses back to understandable thoughts.
I'm thinking of data+instructions: Right or Left plus data from the task.
Processing: Data and instructions are now electrical impulses in the brain, being processed.
Output: Electrical impulses carrying the "result" back are brought translated back into conscious thought.
I would guess the researchers in this case are like a computer being able to read binary before it's converted into output.
A study recently published in Nature Neuroscience and reported at Wired.com states that researches could predict simple decisions made by people seven seconds before they were consciously aware of their own decision.
The participants in the study had to make a decision whether to press a button with their left or right hand.
"In the seven seconds before Haynes' test subjects chose to push a button, activity shifted in their frontopolar cortex, a brain region associated with high-level planning. Soon afterwards, activity moved to the parietal cortex, a region of sensory integration. Haynes' team monitored these shifting neural patterns using a functional MRI machine.
Taken together, the patterns consistently predicted whether test subjects eventually pushed a button with their left or right hand -- a choice that, to them, felt like the outcome of conscious deliberation. For those accustomed to thinking of themselves as having free will, the implications are far more unsettling than learning about the physiological basis of other brain functions"
The implications being that free will might be an illusion.
I'd personally see it more of a computer analogy. A simple computer diagram would be input(plus instructions)->processing->output. I would argue that after input and instructions, we don't consciously come to a decision until the output stage, with our subconscious taking care of the processing part and our conscious mind converting the electrical impulses back to understandable thoughts.
I'm thinking of data+instructions: Right or Left plus data from the task.
Processing: Data and instructions are now electrical impulses in the brain, being processed.
Output: Electrical impulses carrying the "result" back are brought translated back into conscious thought.
I would guess the researchers in this case are like a computer being able to read binary before it's converted into output.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Your personality test results are in:
"You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic."
If you rated this out of 5, where 0 is very poor and 5 is excellent, what would you give it?
The above was written to demonstrate what's known as the Forer, or Barnum, effect. It is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.
(full article at Wikipedia)
This is one of the things that "psychics" and cold-readers take advantage of when providing someone with a reading. Along with fishing for information, reading a person's dress and vocabulary, along with just plain guessing.
The JREF has a great article about the experiences and accuracy of someone pretending to be a legitimate "psychic reader", it's really fascinating stuff, especially how accurate people thought she was.
If you rated this out of 5, where 0 is very poor and 5 is excellent, what would you give it?
The above was written to demonstrate what's known as the Forer, or Barnum, effect. It is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.
(full article at Wikipedia)
This is one of the things that "psychics" and cold-readers take advantage of when providing someone with a reading. Along with fishing for information, reading a person's dress and vocabulary, along with just plain guessing.
The JREF has a great article about the experiences and accuracy of someone pretending to be a legitimate "psychic reader", it's really fascinating stuff, especially how accurate people thought she was.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
I just agreed with everyone else!
I wanted to bring up this interesting press release from the University of Michigan (reported on BrainMysteries) - you are probably aware on how your opinion can be affected by other people's opinions in your group, but apparently a single person's opinion repeated often enough has nearly as much influence as one expressed by many different people.
So next time you're thinking about going with the flow, make sure you're aware of how many times your group's squeaky wheel has spoken!
So next time you're thinking about going with the flow, make sure you're aware of how many times your group's squeaky wheel has spoken!
You have to be in it to win it!
Here's a nice entry on the psychology of another belief: Winning the Lottery.
The Psychology of the Lottery page gives a breakdown of the various lottery games and the odds of winning - but not only that, but real-life examples of those odds - Winning Pick 10 for example has the same odds as you being struck and killed by lightning this year!
So why do we play? Well, obviously it's fun - but also learn more about the lesser know reasons of Availability Heuristics (how often you hear about winners), the Gamblers Fallacy (the belief a number or numbers is "due" to come out), and again your confirmation bias.
The Psychology of the Lottery page gives a breakdown of the various lottery games and the odds of winning - but not only that, but real-life examples of those odds - Winning Pick 10 for example has the same odds as you being struck and killed by lightning this year!
So why do we play? Well, obviously it's fun - but also learn more about the lesser know reasons of Availability Heuristics (how often you hear about winners), the Gamblers Fallacy (the belief a number or numbers is "due" to come out), and again your confirmation bias.
UFO?
Stumbled upon this "UFO" - a nice example of order rising from chaos and the expectation of the beholder that the appearance of order indicates intent!
As it says on the page (and I do give them some credit for this) it is a nice example of a Lenticular cloud.
As it says on the page (and I do give them some credit for this) it is a nice example of a Lenticular cloud.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Pareidolia (AKA Jesus Toast)
In the media today, and also magnificently commented on at Bad Astronomy, is what appeared to some people to be a reflection of a naked woman in Dick Cheney's sunglasses in a photograph on the White House website.
Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy gives a nice close-up and a hilarious commentary to boot. As a psychology graduate it also makes me wonder what kind of Rorschach score you'd get from seeing boobs in Dick Cheney's knuckles?
So yes, Pareidolia is seeing something significant in a vague or random sound or sight - like seeing the sillouette of Jesus in burnt toast, or the Virgin Mary in water stains or wood-knots. Read more at Wikipedia.
There is still disagreement of whether we are specifically hardwired for face recognition, but there is little doubt we are born already able to discern faces very easily, and become so expert through experience, we readily see them everywhere!
This in addition to confirmation bias (basically we see what we want to see) which leads us to believe the image to be a religious figure (confirming our faith, belief) over a clown, a monkey, or Elvis.
In additional to the feelings of being chosen and/or special for being the one to which the religious figure "appeared".
Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy gives a nice close-up and a hilarious commentary to boot. As a psychology graduate it also makes me wonder what kind of Rorschach score you'd get from seeing boobs in Dick Cheney's knuckles?
So yes, Pareidolia is seeing something significant in a vague or random sound or sight - like seeing the sillouette of Jesus in burnt toast, or the Virgin Mary in water stains or wood-knots. Read more at Wikipedia.
There is still disagreement of whether we are specifically hardwired for face recognition, but there is little doubt we are born already able to discern faces very easily, and become so expert through experience, we readily see them everywhere!
This in addition to confirmation bias (basically we see what we want to see) which leads us to believe the image to be a religious figure (confirming our faith, belief) over a clown, a monkey, or Elvis.
In additional to the feelings of being chosen and/or special for being the one to which the religious figure "appeared".
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Nice example of avoiding cognitive dissonance
A faithful life is a dance in the struggle between belief and doubt
"We Christians might feel that way at times, too. Lord, just give me proof, we might ask. A faithful life is a dance in the struggle between belief and doubt. It is OK to doubt, if you remain in the struggle. And what does Jesus do with such doubt? He does the same for us as he does for the courageous Thomas. To be faithful, you don't need to have all the right answers. It is far more important to keep alive the questions in you."
Another way to say this might be: You will come across things in life which will cause you to question your belief. It will make you feel uncomfortable because you might not be able to answer these doubts. Don't worry, feeling uncomfortable and not answering the doubts is an acceptable alternative to coming up with answers or changing your belief.
"We Christians might feel that way at times, too. Lord, just give me proof, we might ask. A faithful life is a dance in the struggle between belief and doubt. It is OK to doubt, if you remain in the struggle. And what does Jesus do with such doubt? He does the same for us as he does for the courageous Thomas. To be faithful, you don't need to have all the right answers. It is far more important to keep alive the questions in you."
Another way to say this might be: You will come across things in life which will cause you to question your belief. It will make you feel uncomfortable because you might not be able to answer these doubts. Don't worry, feeling uncomfortable and not answering the doubts is an acceptable alternative to coming up with answers or changing your belief.
Cognitive Dissonance
One of the more pertinent cognitive theories to belief and how a "believer" responds to a evidence against the belief:
From wikipedia: (Full entry here)
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state that describes the uncomfortable feeling between what one holds to be true and what one knows to be true. Similar to ambivalence, the term cognitive dissonance describes conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitions) that occur at the same time, or when engaged in behaviors that conflict with one's beliefs. In academic literature, the term refers to attempts to reduce the discomfort of conflicting thoughts, by performing actions that are opposite to one's beliefs.
In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs. In detailed terms, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.
An additional entry in the wiki entry makes interesting reading from a religious incident causing cognitive dissonance:
The Great Disappointment of 1844: "...believers experienced tension following the failure of Jesus' reappearance in 1844 which led to a variety of new explanations. The various solutions form a part of the teachings of the different groups that outlived the disappointment."
From wikipedia: (Full entry here)
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state that describes the uncomfortable feeling between what one holds to be true and what one knows to be true. Similar to ambivalence, the term cognitive dissonance describes conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitions) that occur at the same time, or when engaged in behaviors that conflict with one's beliefs. In academic literature, the term refers to attempts to reduce the discomfort of conflicting thoughts, by performing actions that are opposite to one's beliefs.
In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs. In detailed terms, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.
An additional entry in the wiki entry makes interesting reading from a religious incident causing cognitive dissonance:
The Great Disappointment of 1844: "...believers experienced tension following the failure of Jesus' reappearance in 1844 which led to a variety of new explanations. The various solutions form a part of the teachings of the different groups that outlived the disappointment."
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Re: Belief and Emotional Investment
WayoftheMind has a nice post regarding a discussion between Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris. Pedro Timóteo adds additional insight which I agree with, but also think it's not just emotional investment but per the post below, a solid coping mechanism and perhaps even unethical(?) to try to remove.
On a biblical group on Facebook a few months ago, I posed the question to members: "What would you do if you received incontrovertible evidence that completely convinced you that God did not exist?" - some said it would bring them into deep depression, make them want to kill themselves, or that despite the evidence and being completely convinced, they would still believe in God.
One responder said that would be when he would start killing people and stealing, which was needless to say, alarming.
On a biblical group on Facebook a few months ago, I posed the question to members: "What would you do if you received incontrovertible evidence that completely convinced you that God did not exist?" - some said it would bring them into deep depression, make them want to kill themselves, or that despite the evidence and being completely convinced, they would still believe in God.
One responder said that would be when he would start killing people and stealing, which was needless to say, alarming.
Re: Belief in God can be an invaluable supplement to medicine, some say
Here's an interested report that was bandied about in the media for a few weeks, reported here by Jim Niemi.
This article's title is really only touched upon in the body of the text, and most of it related to how prayer and religion brought help to the family while the the son was recovering from a terrible accident.
The following excerpt is of particular interest:
”The pastor (David Campbell) and his wife came and sat with the family,“ she said. ”A lot of people were praying for him. … It makes you wonder how people survive who don't go to church.“
Faith in God is a survival skill, helping people who have experienced tragedy cope with their circumstances, said David Sharrard, professor of pastoral care and counseling at Lexington Theological Seminary.
”If you believe in God and that God created us, you ... have a core belief, a lens through which you can see life,“ Sharrard said. ”Life does not consist of isolated incidents. All things interact, and core beliefs spill over into other aspects of life.“
These core beliefs aid us ”when bad things happen to good people,“ Sharrard said. ”People can believe that God is with them.“
In cases of traumatic injury, Sharrard said, the effect of core beliefs is measurable. ”People with these beliefs have shorter stays in hospitals and function better than non-religious folks“ once they are dismissed.
I would agree with Sharrard at least from a personal perspective, belief in God is definately a mental survival tool - a way to cope with something traumatic, especially if you cannot accept that some things in life are beyond your control, and there is nothing you can do to make them better.
Sharrard mentions some research into hospital stays and religious belief , but doesn't mention the other findings of the article that state that attendance at religious services predicted longer hospital stays, and that prayer had no relation to recovery.
It is also interesting that social support and dispositional optimism were also unrelated to the outcome.
This makes me wonder whether trying to keep a positive outlook (as you hear from many people going through difficult medical recoveries) is not enough, and instead the outlook must be doubt-free and that "whatever happens is meant to be" - which I imagine would be the outlook of one with a very strong religious belief.
***UPDATE: Also note this study was only administered to 152 people. I'm sure further studies would be warranted but from a study of this size it's not a definitive link - also it is a correlation between strong religious belief and length of hospital stays, and NOT a cause-and-effect relationship***
The rest of the article describes the terrible accident and aftermath, and as well as the comfort of "God", prayer also gave the family something to do, something that allowed them to say "I did all I could by doing this".
So note well, this family's religion 1) helped them through two deaths plus a terrible accident 2) made them feel like they were doing something positive in a situation where otherwise they could do nothing 3) seemingly allowed their son to live.
This strength and the circumstances is why I believe you should never try to pit science as the opposite or the antithesis to religion, just look at what you are taking away.
It's the foundation of the family's mental stability, and you'd be asking them to choose between religion and insanity.
This article's title is really only touched upon in the body of the text, and most of it related to how prayer and religion brought help to the family while the the son was recovering from a terrible accident.
The following excerpt is of particular interest:
”The pastor (David Campbell) and his wife came and sat with the family,“ she said. ”A lot of people were praying for him. … It makes you wonder how people survive who don't go to church.“
Faith in God is a survival skill, helping people who have experienced tragedy cope with their circumstances, said David Sharrard, professor of pastoral care and counseling at Lexington Theological Seminary.
”If you believe in God and that God created us, you ... have a core belief, a lens through which you can see life,“ Sharrard said. ”Life does not consist of isolated incidents. All things interact, and core beliefs spill over into other aspects of life.“
These core beliefs aid us ”when bad things happen to good people,“ Sharrard said. ”People can believe that God is with them.“
In cases of traumatic injury, Sharrard said, the effect of core beliefs is measurable. ”People with these beliefs have shorter stays in hospitals and function better than non-religious folks“ once they are dismissed.
I would agree with Sharrard at least from a personal perspective, belief in God is definately a mental survival tool - a way to cope with something traumatic, especially if you cannot accept that some things in life are beyond your control, and there is nothing you can do to make them better.
Sharrard mentions some research into hospital stays and religious belief , but doesn't mention the other findings of the article that state that attendance at religious services predicted longer hospital stays, and that prayer had no relation to recovery.
It is also interesting that social support and dispositional optimism were also unrelated to the outcome.
This makes me wonder whether trying to keep a positive outlook (as you hear from many people going through difficult medical recoveries) is not enough, and instead the outlook must be doubt-free and that "whatever happens is meant to be" - which I imagine would be the outlook of one with a very strong religious belief.
***UPDATE: Also note this study was only administered to 152 people. I'm sure further studies would be warranted but from a study of this size it's not a definitive link - also it is a correlation between strong religious belief and length of hospital stays, and NOT a cause-and-effect relationship***
The rest of the article describes the terrible accident and aftermath, and as well as the comfort of "God", prayer also gave the family something to do, something that allowed them to say "I did all I could by doing this".
So note well, this family's religion 1) helped them through two deaths plus a terrible accident 2) made them feel like they were doing something positive in a situation where otherwise they could do nothing 3) seemingly allowed their son to live.
This strength and the circumstances is why I believe you should never try to pit science as the opposite or the antithesis to religion, just look at what you are taking away.
It's the foundation of the family's mental stability, and you'd be asking them to choose between religion and insanity.
Which beliefs?
Anything - religious, supernatural, you name it. My commentary will try and make the fine distinction between approaching a belief with a cynical eye, and approaching a belief with a skeptical eye.
The distinction being that most people hear skeptic and automatically think "close-minded" when in fact a skeptic is VERY open to any belief or claim, but just asks for evidence, whereas the cynic has already made a judgment against the claim or belief already.
Take my religious belief for example. I fall into the category of agnostic theist. What the hell does that mean you might ask, well - I believe there is a God (not necessarily a Judeo-Christian God, but at least something close to it) but I will readily admit I don't know there is a God, I don't think there will be a way of knowing there is a God (unless something VERY drastic occurs), and I will readily admit God could just be a psychological defense mechanism against the things in life that are outside of my control.
The distinction being that most people hear skeptic and automatically think "close-minded" when in fact a skeptic is VERY open to any belief or claim, but just asks for evidence, whereas the cynic has already made a judgment against the claim or belief already.
Take my religious belief for example. I fall into the category of agnostic theist. What the hell does that mean you might ask, well - I believe there is a God (not necessarily a Judeo-Christian God, but at least something close to it) but I will readily admit I don't know there is a God, I don't think there will be a way of knowing there is a God (unless something VERY drastic occurs), and I will readily admit God could just be a psychological defense mechanism against the things in life that are outside of my control.
Welcome to the Belief Psychology Blog!
Hi, my name's Criz, and today I have decided to blog.
The tricky thing about blogging is it has to be something you like to blog about and ideally something with which you have at least a little expertise.
Hence, the subject of this blog. Who knows, I might even write more than one post!
I can see you waiting there with baited breath.
The tricky thing about blogging is it has to be something you like to blog about and ideally something with which you have at least a little expertise.
Hence, the subject of this blog. Who knows, I might even write more than one post!
I can see you waiting there with baited breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)