It's pretty sad how underdeveloped the BS detectors of a lot of people are. I find it hard to understand how people can fall for QAnon but then I also find it hard to understand how anybody can be swayed by campaign speeches or political advertising but obviously these things work.
The thing about bullshit detectors is, they tend to work well for most people towards things they don't feel strongly about or things they're opposed to. It's when it comes to things that validates a person's already held beliefs that the bullshit detectors tend to get inaccurate as it were. At least from what i've noticed with people anyway.
It's difficult to have a good ear for BS if you don't come from an environment where reliable institutions have the most influence. Today an educated person believes a lot of facts that are but bullshit in day-to-day experience: that the sun and earth are orbs in a vacuum held by gravity, that quantum phenomena exists, etc..
These are things that are difficult to verify but that we take by faith from reliable institutions (the more inquisitive and those with the privilege to be able to do so would have independently verified a couple of these claims and taken the rest on faith). And there are also many seemingly reliable institutions that mix up falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims among the more readily verifiable.
I've generally heard the randomly, unbacked quote: "Up to a third of the population is easily swayed by any kind of persuasion/marketing".
I don't know the exact percentage but it is certainly non-zero. Given that many elections in recent memory are won by margins of <10%, it doesn't matter if the majority has a BS detector since that majority isn't the target of "mechanized persuasion" aka A/B testing based advertising.
If there is minority of population with low BS threshold they will only matter if there are only two parties and the rest of the population is also closely split.
It's pretty sad how underdeveloped the BS detectors of a lot of people are
Sometimes they're not just underdeveloped, but completely and voluntarily turned off. Those who believe in bullshit conspiracies and as a result find themselves surrounded by other people believing the same absurdities are the hardest to convince. They might have been depressed loners before, and no matter how absurd their beliefs are, they introduced them into some form of society, and more importantly gave them a purpose in life.
Case in point, a friend of mine who believes every conspiracy his facebook friends throw at him. One day we were arguing about chemtrails, and after heavy reasoning and proof showing that it's all a lie from my part, he had nothing more to reply, so he went with "well, ok, then I want to believe in chemtrails, is that clear?".
It might be that they need a bullshit story to feel them unite, then stronger, which would be like gold for conspiracies creators. QAnon very likely feeds on that.
The foundational principle of Christianity (in America at least, in my experience) is believe something with no evidence it is true. They call it "faith". I was raised in small town Oregon and Texas going to Christian private schools and church for years, and that "faith" thing is absolutely their central belief. I remember clearly once when I was 9 finding the whole thing deeply illogical. Later in life I got a PhD in math, partly motivated by wanting to better heal my brain from how I was raised.
I'm not at all surprised Christians fall for Trump's lies and Qanon.
Every religion is based on faith, in the exact way you portrayed it. Faith by definition regards things that cannot be proven. If they could be proven, it would be knowledge, not faith.
Exactly, but I wonder how does affect the mind of a child, being raised for years into believing something that cannot be proved and getting reprimanded (often punished in the past) for questioning it.
Would an atheist be a better leader? In my opinion yes, but cannot prove it.
What I'm sure about is that being educated into not questioning beliefs imposed from above makes people more easy to herd by bad leaders.
I wish someone could do some independent unbiased research in this field, then make sure the results remain independent and unbiased even after publication.
I was in my early twenties before I stopped believing in things that, in hindsight, seem utterly unbelievable to me.
What I've struggled with for a long time is the realization that the person I was, believing all of that, wasn't some brainwashed religious nutjob. I was just as 'rational' then as I am now.
Even worse, if I'm fully honest with myself the paradigm shift wasn't primarily a result of my own rational thinking, but significantly affected by social issues that made it hard for me to keep sweeping various realizations under the rug. If not for the non-rational issues, I might've still been convinced born-again evangelical christian.
I don't think that, day to day, an atheist is a better leader than, say, a born-again evangelical christian. In my experience the quality of a leader is largely unrelated to the 'paradigm' they buy into. There are so many aspects to being a 'good' leader that are entirely unrelated to the version of reality one ascribes to.
Where I /do/ think there's a really issue, is that by and large born-again evangelical christians are less 'anarchic' than atheists in their approach to leadership, and that they tend to operate in environments that are more homogenous. So it's possible that a terrible evangelical leader gets away with it because they keep moving within a very homogenous environment.
but I'd argue that this problem is possibly just as much the case with particular SV-style leaders. Or C-level people in a broader sense. I more than once felt that the processes that led to certain people occupying high-level positions in the companies I worked it were not that different from what I experienced back when I was 'in the fold'.
Perhaps it's not the same, but I'd definitely argue that it's a blind spot for 'atheists'. The idea that somehow they are not as susceptible to the dynamics of, among others, the Evanglicals.
True. But Evangelicals have a unique position at this moment in their ideological history, where their leardship is aggressively backing someone who defies their core tenants. Such a crisis of faith happens in all religions from time to time, but in this moment for this group, it is now. As such, "find a new sect they doesn't require me to reconsile such things" is at peak likelihood for many of that faith.
Bullshit doesn't have as much to do with it as you might think. These people are often in it because its a part of who they think they are. Also socially applied beliefs are often just acquired and accepted based on their immediate surroundings.
Comments
It's pretty sad how underdeveloped the BS detectors of a lot of people are. I find it hard to understand how people can fall for QAnon but then I also find it hard to understand how anybody can be swayed by campaign speeches or political advertising but obviously these things work.
The thing about bullshit detectors is, they tend to work well for most people towards things they don't feel strongly about or things they're opposed to. It's when it comes to things that validates a person's already held beliefs that the bullshit detectors tend to get inaccurate as it were. At least from what i've noticed with people anyway.
When we want to believe something we ask ourselves, "Can I believe it?" and the answer is almost always, "Yes".
When we don't want to believe something we ask ourselves, "Must I believe it?", and the answer is almost always, "No".
I've been noticing this in myself, I think it's boils down to conservation of energy.
But boy could I have saved a lot of effort by spending a bit more a bit sooner to hone some beliefs.
It's difficult to have a good ear for BS if you don't come from an environment where reliable institutions have the most influence. Today an educated person believes a lot of facts that are but bullshit in day-to-day experience: that the sun and earth are orbs in a vacuum held by gravity, that quantum phenomena exists, etc..
These are things that are difficult to verify but that we take by faith from reliable institutions (the more inquisitive and those with the privilege to be able to do so would have independently verified a couple of these claims and taken the rest on faith). And there are also many seemingly reliable institutions that mix up falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims among the more readily verifiable.
I've generally heard the randomly, unbacked quote: "Up to a third of the population is easily swayed by any kind of persuasion/marketing".
I don't know the exact percentage but it is certainly non-zero. Given that many elections in recent memory are won by margins of <10%, it doesn't matter if the majority has a BS detector since that majority isn't the target of "mechanized persuasion" aka A/B testing based advertising.
If there is minority of population with low BS threshold they will only matter if there are only two parties and the rest of the population is also closely split.
Sometimes they're not just underdeveloped, but completely and voluntarily turned off. Those who believe in bullshit conspiracies and as a result find themselves surrounded by other people believing the same absurdities are the hardest to convince. They might have been depressed loners before, and no matter how absurd their beliefs are, they introduced them into some form of society, and more importantly gave them a purpose in life.
Case in point, a friend of mine who believes every conspiracy his facebook friends throw at him. One day we were arguing about chemtrails, and after heavy reasoning and proof showing that it's all a lie from my part, he had nothing more to reply, so he went with "well, ok, then I want to believe in chemtrails, is that clear?". It might be that they need a bullshit story to feel them unite, then stronger, which would be like gold for conspiracies creators. QAnon very likely feeds on that.
The foundational principle of Christianity (in America at least, in my experience) is believe something with no evidence it is true. They call it "faith". I was raised in small town Oregon and Texas going to Christian private schools and church for years, and that "faith" thing is absolutely their central belief. I remember clearly once when I was 9 finding the whole thing deeply illogical. Later in life I got a PhD in math, partly motivated by wanting to better heal my brain from how I was raised.
I'm not at all surprised Christians fall for Trump's lies and Qanon.
Every religion is based on faith, in the exact way you portrayed it. Faith by definition regards things that cannot be proven. If they could be proven, it would be knowledge, not faith.
Exactly, but I wonder how does affect the mind of a child, being raised for years into believing something that cannot be proved and getting reprimanded (often punished in the past) for questioning it.
Would an atheist be a better leader? In my opinion yes, but cannot prove it. What I'm sure about is that being educated into not questioning beliefs imposed from above makes people more easy to herd by bad leaders. I wish someone could do some independent unbiased research in this field, then make sure the results remain independent and unbiased even after publication.
I was in my early twenties before I stopped believing in things that, in hindsight, seem utterly unbelievable to me.
What I've struggled with for a long time is the realization that the person I was, believing all of that, wasn't some brainwashed religious nutjob. I was just as 'rational' then as I am now.
Even worse, if I'm fully honest with myself the paradigm shift wasn't primarily a result of my own rational thinking, but significantly affected by social issues that made it hard for me to keep sweeping various realizations under the rug. If not for the non-rational issues, I might've still been convinced born-again evangelical christian.
I don't think that, day to day, an atheist is a better leader than, say, a born-again evangelical christian. In my experience the quality of a leader is largely unrelated to the 'paradigm' they buy into. There are so many aspects to being a 'good' leader that are entirely unrelated to the version of reality one ascribes to.
Where I /do/ think there's a really issue, is that by and large born-again evangelical christians are less 'anarchic' than atheists in their approach to leadership, and that they tend to operate in environments that are more homogenous. So it's possible that a terrible evangelical leader gets away with it because they keep moving within a very homogenous environment.
but I'd argue that this problem is possibly just as much the case with particular SV-style leaders. Or C-level people in a broader sense. I more than once felt that the processes that led to certain people occupying high-level positions in the companies I worked it were not that different from what I experienced back when I was 'in the fold'.
Perhaps it's not the same, but I'd definitely argue that it's a blind spot for 'atheists'. The idea that somehow they are not as susceptible to the dynamics of, among others, the Evanglicals.
True. But Evangelicals have a unique position at this moment in their ideological history, where their leardship is aggressively backing someone who defies their core tenants. Such a crisis of faith happens in all religions from time to time, but in this moment for this group, it is now. As such, "find a new sect they doesn't require me to reconsile such things" is at peak likelihood for many of that faith.
And the less evidence you need to believe the thing, the more faith points you get.
I'm not at all surprised your comment has been downvoted to oblivion.
Such arrogance. Faith (of any kind) increases humanity.
How do you know?
If they had a working BS detector, they would be into religion in the first place.
[EDIT]: meant to say "they wouldn't be into religion"
Bullshit doesn't have as much to do with it as you might think. These people are often in it because its a part of who they think they are. Also socially applied beliefs are often just acquired and accepted based on their immediate surroundings.
Perhaps you meant "wouldn't"?
Indeed