Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

On Wednesday, I talked about Bill Whittle's recent essay MAGIC, and the dangers of magical thinking when it becomes too common. A visitor named Iceman also contributed to the debate, by linking to some important discussions re: why the irrational beliefs underlying both magical thinking and conspiracy theories are so hard to shake. His points are worth revisiting.

The Skeptical Inquirer is a magazine that looks into (and usually debunks) paranormal claims from a scientific perspective. Irrational belief is a subject near and dear to their hearts, and a couple of articles in particular are worth your time.

"The Belief Engine" acts as a primer, explaining that human beings are hard-wired for magical thinking:

"...our brains and nervous systems constitute a belief-generating machine, an engine that produces beliefs without any particular respect for what is real or true and what is not. This belief engine selects information from the environment, shapes it, combines it with information from memory, and produces beliefs that are generally consistent with beliefs already held. This system is as capable of generating fallacious beliefs as it is of generating beliefs that are in line with truth. These beliefs guide future actions and, whether correct or erroneous, they may prove functional for the individual who holds them...."

As they explain, this process is actually useful for individual survival. The article then goes on to discuss this process in terms of key functions: learning, critical thinking, yearning, input, emotional response, memory, and environmental feedback. They point out that critical reasoning of the type Bill describes is an unnatural, learned act; a fact that, if true, explains why a widespread world-view of "if it feels good, do it (and implicitly: believe it)" is so corrosively hazardous to a science-based civilization like our own.

Understanding The Belief Engine prepares you to absorb the lessons in "Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die". If you're engaged in debates, this is an article you need to read if you intend to change minds...

I'll let The Skeptical Inquirer take it away:

"Because senses and beliefs are both tools for survival and have evolved to augment one another, our brain considers them to be separate but equally important purveyors of survival information. The loss of either one endangers us. Without our senses we could not know about the world within our perceptual realm. Without our beliefs we could not know about the world outside our senses or about meanings, reasons, or causes.

This means that beliefs are designed to operate independent of sensory data. In fact, the whole survival value of beliefs is based on their ability to persist in the face of contradictory evidence. Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence. If they did, they would be virtually useless as tools for survival. Our caveman would not last long if his belief in potential dangers in the jungle evaporated every time his sensory information told him there was no immediate threat....

As far as our brain is concerned, there is absolutely no need for data and belief to agree. They have each evolved to augment and supplement one another by contacting different sections of the world. They are designed to be able to disagree....

When data and belief come into conflict, the brain does not automatically give preference to data. This is why beliefs-even bad beliefs, irrational beliefs, silly beliefs, or crazy beliefs-often don't die in the face of contradictory evidence. The brain doesn't care whether or not the belief matches the data. It cares whether the belief is helpful for survival. Period."

Hmm. If that's true, what are the implications?

"Skeptical thinkers must realize that because of the survival value of beliefs, disconfirming evidence will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to change beliefs, even in "otherwise intelligent" people. In order to effectively change beliefs skeptics must attend to their survival value, not just their data-accuracy value. This involves several elements.

First, skeptics must not expect beliefs to change simply as the result of data or assuming that people are stupid because their beliefs don't change. They must avoid becoming critical or demeaning in response to the resilience of beliefs. People are not necessarily idiots just because their beliefs don't yield to new information. Data is always necessary, but it is rarely sufficient.

Second, skeptics must learn to always discuss not just the specific topic addressed by the data, but also the implications that changing the related beliefs will have for the fundamental worldview and belief system of the affected individuals.... Skeptics must discuss the meaning of their data in the face of the brain's need to maintain its belief system in order to maintain a sense of wholeness, consistency, and control in life. Skeptics must become adept at discussing issues of fundamental philosophies and the existential anxiety that is stirred up any time beliefs are challenged. The task is every bit as much philosophical and psychological as it is scientific and data-based.

Third, and perhaps most important, skeptics must always appreciate how hard it is for people to have their beliefs challenged. ...people are generally not intending to be mean, contrary, harsh, or stupid when they are challenged. It's a fight for survival....

Skeptics will only win the war for rational beliefs by continuing, even in the face of defensive responses from others, to use behavior that is unfailingly dignified and tactful and that communicates respect and wisdom....

Finally, it should be comforting to all skeptics to remember that the truly amazing part of all of this is not that so few beliefs change or that people can be so irrational, but that anyone's beliefs ever change at all...."

Now, the rules of political debate are not the same as the rules of debate for pseudoscience. Politics is about truth, but it is also about force and participants must never forget that. The strength of one party often means the weakness of the other. Attacking one's enemy directly is not only acceptable, it is often good policy. Survival may even be at stake in a literal sense.

Nevertheless, the underlying human belief engine is similar, so paying attention to The Skeptical Inquirer's reasoning remains important to success on an indivdual level. It's also worthy of note that the deep structure of our civilization and democratic debate is heavily influenced by and for the scientific method. Which means debate that departs too far from its priciples becomes corrosive on a societal level. Finally, there is indeed a wider "war for rational habits and beliefs," and should it be lost the consequences stretch far beyond any one society to our entire civilization.

The war is on, with or without you. You may fight, or you may watch. What will you choose? More important, how will you fight, and who will join you?