For those who felt deceived

[beastie]

Nope. Just my own. I realise that I may not even really exist--I may actually just be a part of someone other being's crazy dream--but, barring such possibilities, I'm left with what I have personally seen and experienced and witnessed for myself.

Well, thatâ??s certainly one option. People can ignore the experiences of others, and refuse to try to make sense of the larger world, and just focus on their own immediate experiences. Itâ??s probably a pretty popular option.

[beastie]

From â??On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When Youâ??re Notâ? by Robert A. Burton:

The Challenger Study

Try to remember where you were when Kennedy was assassinated, the Challenger blew up, or the World Trade Center was attacked. Now ask yourself how certain you are of those memories. If you believe that you are quite sure of where you were when you heard the news, keep that feeling in mind as you read about the Challengerstudy in the next pages. If you donâ??t remember where you were, ask yourself how you know that you donâ??t remember. (Keep in mind the blindsight example when asking this question.) Either way, try to understand the feeling and your degree of certainty of this memory.

At my most recent med school reunion dinner, several former classmates were recalling where they were when Kennedy was assassinated. We had been in the second year of medical school, which meant that we all went to the same classes. Wherever one was, we probably all were. But the recollections were strikingly different; after dinner the discussion was becoming increasingly heated, as though each classmateâ??s mind was on trial. A urologist thought we were at lunch, an internist said we were in the lab. A pathologist remembered being at a pub down the street from the med center. â??That canâ??t be true,â? the urologist said. â??The assassination was at noon, Dallas time. You didnâ??t go to bars â??til after class.â?

I laughed and briefly described the Challenger study.

Within one day of the space shuttle Challenger explosion, Ulric Neisser, a psychologist studying â??flashbulbâ? memories (the recall of high dramatic events), asked his class of 106 students to write down exactly how theyâ??d heard about the explosion, where they were, what theyâ??d been doing, and how they felt. Two and a half years later they were again interviewed. Twenty-five percent of the studentsâ?? subsequent accounts were strikingly different than their original journal entries. More than half the people had lesser degrees of error, and less than ten percent had all the details correct. (Prior to seeing their original journals, most students presumed that their memories were correct.)

Most of us reluctantly admit that memory changes over time. As kids, we saw how a story changed with retellings around a campfire. We have been at enough family reunions to hear once-familiar events morphed into unrecognizable and often contradictory descriptions. So, seeing that your journal entries were different than your recollection a couple years later shouldnâ??t be surprising. What startled me about the Challenger study were the studentsâ?? responses when confronted with their conflicting accounts. Many expressed a high level of confidence that their false recollections were correct, despite being confronted with their own handwritten journals. The most unnerving was one studentâ??s comment, â??Thatâ??s my handwriting, but thatâ??s not what happened.â?

Why wouldnâ??t the students consider their journal entries written shortly after the event to be more accurate than a recollection pulled up several years later? Pride, stubbornness, or fear of admitting an error? Not remembering the details of the Challenger explosion doesnâ??t imply some massive personal failing that would make resistance to contrary evidence so overwhelming. Conversely, wouldnâ??t pride in being logical and rational steer the students toward choosing their own handwriting over memories that they know might have been altered with time?

The inflamed urologist interrupted me, insisting the pathologist concede he was wrong. The pathologist refused, turned to me, and said, â??You tell them, Burton. You were there in the bar with me.â?

â??Beats me. I just donâ??t remember.â?

â??Thatâ??s not possible,â? the two warring doctors said simultaneously. â??Everyone remembers the Kennedy assassination.â?

I shrugged and silently marveled at the vehemence of my classmatesâ?? convictions. Even telling them of the Challenger study persuaded no one, as though they were intent upon reproducing the very study that questioned their recollections. All felt that they were right, that they absolutely knew where they were and what they were doing when Kennedy was assassinated.

Cognitive Dissonance

In 1957, Standford professor of social psychology Leon Festinger introduced the term cognitive dissonance to describe the distressing mental state in which people â??find themselves doing things that donâ??t fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold.â? In a series of clever experiments, Festinger demonstrated that such tensions were more often minimized or resolved through changes in personal attitudes than by relinquishing the dissonant belief or opinion.

As an example, Festinger and his associates described a cult that believed the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood. When the flood did not happen, those less involved with the cult were more inclined to recognize that they had been wrong. The more invested members who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult were more likely to reinterpret the evidence to show they were right all along, but the earth was not destroyed because of their faithfulness.

Festingerâ??s seminal observation: The more committed we are to a belief, the harder it is to relinquish, even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Instead of acknowledging an error in judgment and abandoning the opinion, we tend to develop a new attitude or belief that will justify retaining it. By giving us a model to consider how we deal with conflicting values, the theory of cognitive dissonance has become one of the most influential theories in social psychology. Yet it fails to convincingly answer why it is so difficult to relinquish unreasonable opinions, especially in light of seemingly convincing contrary evidence. It is easy to dismiss such behavior in cult members and others â??on the fringeâ?, but what about those of us who presume ourselves to be less flaky, those of us who pride ourselves on being levelheaded and reasonable?

Pages 10 -12

The rest of the book is an attempt to provide more answers in regards to why it is so difficult to relinquish unreasonable opinions, aside from cognitive dissonance. His theory is that â??knowingâ? is not necessarily the result of analyzing facts and obtaining information, but rather a process that takes place below our level of awareness, which creates a â??feeling of knowingâ??, for which we obligingly then provide facts to support.

As I said, Iâ??m just at the beginning of the book, but so far it really is fascinating. And, as I already pointed out to LoaP, this information is not restricted to religion or believers. This is a universal phenomenon. Part of the reason the workings of the brain interest me is that being aware of these tendencies can help us exercise some care and caution in our own thoughts and reasoning.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Many expressed a high level of confidence that their false recollections were correct, despite being confronted with their own handwritten journals. The most unnerving was one studentâ??s comment, â??Thatâ??s my handwriting, but thatâ??s not what happened.â?

Why wouldnâ??t the students consider their journal entries written shortly after the event to be more accurate than a recollection pulled up several years later?

Cool. I'll add that to my list of reasons why Latter-day prophets have repeatedly urged us to be journal keepers. I've kept a daily journal for two decades now, and I love being able to return to firsthand accounts of what I've experienced, recorded only hours after the fact.

[Honorentheos]

But, assuming I'm reasonably normal mentally and psychologically, I probably have a much better idea about that than a stranger like you or Amor-L would have.

If you wish to read more, the following article is well worth the price of admission.

Self-knowledge and Personal Bias

[Honorentheos]

Found a PDF version that is free for everyone without a subscription or other access -

PDF

I read this article a year or so ago and after the last few posts decided I needed to track it down. Anyway, its worth reading for those who have been following the discussion.

[Daniel Peterson]

Is a stranger to x really a "peer" of x when it comes to knowledge of x and predictions about x?

I doubt it, very much.

[Honorentheos]

The matter of population base-level predictions in the absence of case-based (and biasing) predictions in relation to bias answers show your doubt is not relevent to the question we have been discussing.

Please go back and reread my posts if you are unsure of this.

[Daniel2]

This is a sincere question for those who left the church because you felt that the church hid something from you, or who advocate the church be more forthcoming about what you consider the negatives. Assuming you were able to learn these things sooner, what difference would it have made on whether you left the church or not. I don't see how it makes any difference if some of the things that turn you away from the church are learned earlier or later. Perhaps you can explain it.

I never noticed feeling "deceived" about Church History or Doctrine, per se... but I did feel "deceived" by church leaders who encouraged me to behave a certain way and to avoid external, non-LDS-based knowledge about my own personality and inclinations, while they simultaneously promised specific blessings and change. In retrospect, what I perceive as a level of "less than forthrightness" about how to confront contemporary knowledge or issues in a balanced way, contrasted against the ongoing stark difference of reality and insight I gained from my own experience, are what led me to leave.

I wish my church leaders had been more forthcoming about alternate possibilities, rather than present a white-washed version of the issue I struggled against, while still a member of the church. I'm not sure that it would have affected the eventual outcome (meaning, that I still might have eventually left the church), but it would have prevented a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering for a great many people, if they had.

Even while acknowledging the above, however, I don't believe my leaders were acting in "bad faith," or with any knowingly malicious intent. I believe they are well-intentioned, good-hearted, and flawed human beings (as I believe most of us are) that were doing the best they knew how, with the limited knowledge and experience they had.

All of the variances/differences in church history and doctrine later served to only reinforce the decision I'd already made that the church didn't hold enough personal value for me to stay.

My view,

Darin

[Deborah]

I wish my church leaders had been more forthcoming about alternate possibilities, rather than present a white-washed version of the issue I struggled against, while still a member of the church.

I agree that as we have learned more, it has changed how we look at this, but not how we expect people to behave.

As we learn more about genetic dispositions the scripture that the natural man is an enemy to God takes on more meaning. God wants us to overcome the natural man, however, and no one is saying it is easy. Only God can know what is truly in a person's heart and what struggles they've had and thankfully he will be the judge.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hmmm. That's a tough question. Yes, the church could stand to be more forthcoming about its history, but for someone like me who knew about the "problems" for years and nevertheless stayed and believed, it wouldn't have made any difference.

Some things seem more horrible when not understood in context. My grandmother married at 13 as late as 1903. Abraham whom God associates with his name turned his wife and child out to die. We are so lacking in information and trying to fill the gaps with today's social morays.

[beastie]

Some things seem more horrible when not understood in context. My grandmother married at 13 as late as 1903. Abraham whom God associates with his name turned his wife and child out to die. We are so lacking in information and trying to fill the gaps with today's social morays.

There is no context in which turning out a wife and child to die is morally acceptable.

[LifeOnaPlate]

There is no context in which turning out a wife and child to die is morally acceptable.

What if it prevents awful and certain and prolonged torture should they stay?

[Mortal Man]

Concerning the accusation that the church "whitewashes" its history. What do you suppose motivated the change in the First Vision movie at the Visitors Center? When I was a kid, the snapping branch, binding of tounge and evil force was a major part of the movie. There was none of that last time I saw it. Did the church decide that the scene was turning off some viewers?

[ttribe]

Concerning the accusation that the church "whitewashes" its history. What do you suppose motivated the change in the First Vision movie at the Visitors Center? When I was a kid, the snapping branch, binding of tounge and evil force was a major part of the movie. There was none of that last time I saw it. Did the church decide that the scene was turning off some viewers?

I guess I don't understand why such a change would be a white-wash.

[beastie]

What if it prevents awful and certain and prolonged torture should they stay?

Well, in that case, just shoot them so they die fast.

Really, doesn't it bother you at all that you have to create such bizarre scenarios in order to justify the "morality" presented in the Bible?

[Deborah]

When I was a kid, the snapping branch, binding of tounge and evil force was a major part of the movie.

I always liked that part. It was very eerie. I don't know why they cut it out unless it was scaring some kidlets.

[Daniel Peterson]

The matter of population base-level predictions in the absence of case-based (and biasing) predictions in relation to bias answers show your doubt is not relevent to the question we have been discussing.

Please go back and reread my posts if you are unsure of this.

I'm not sure that we've ever been discussing the same subject, and I'm even less sure that I care.

[beastie]

I'm not sure that we've ever been discussing the same subject, and I'm even less sure that I care.

As I mentioned previously, it's been clear to me that you have not been discussing the same subject all along - hence my wondering if you'd carefully read his posts in the first post. Reading the article honor linked might help, if you care, which you probably don't.

For those who do care, studying how the brain works, and how it often works to deceive our very selves is fascinating - and humbling.

[Deborah]

For those who do care, studying how the brain works, and how it often works to deceive our very selves is fascinating - and humbling.

I've noticed that those who leave the church like to apply this to those who stay but not to themselves. Could it be the change is the self-deception?

[Bender]

I've noticed that those who leave the church like to apply this to those who stay but not to themselves. Could it be the change is the self-deception?

Possibly, each may have different reasons for leaving, and some may be due to some self-deception, but of course this self deception couldn't be any reason some believe or remain believers

[beastie]

I've noticed that those who leave the church like to apply this to those who stay but not to themselves. Could it be the change is the self-deception?

Really.

Just how much more explicit do I need to be than this:

As I said, I’m just at the beginning of the book, but so far it really is fascinating. And, as I already pointed out to LoaP, this information is not restricted to religion or believers. This is a universal phenomenon. Part of the reason the workings of the brain interest me is that being aware of these tendencies can help us exercise some care and caution in our own thoughts and reasoning.

For you to read something like "this is a universal phenomenon", and somehow interpret that to mean that exbelievers only apply this to believers is a great example of how confirmation bias works. You already believe that this is what exbelievers do, hence, your brain tends to "edit out" information that could contradict that belief.

And yes, I'm certain my brain does the same thing. Being aware of the phenomenon is one way to try and combat it in ourselves.

[Deborah]

For you to read something like "this is a universal phenomenon", and somehow interpret that to mean that exbelievers only apply this to believers is a great example of how confirmation bias works.

I wonder if the fact that many ex-mo's have come here to talk about how enlightened they've become and how they are no longer blind sheep following along with the church could contribute to any bias.

You sure do get defensive, which is also a universal phenomena not only when one is getting attacked (which you weren't) but when one isn't sure of his own stand.

[Bender]

I wonder if the fact that many ex-mo's have come here to talk about how enlightened they've become and how they are no longer blind sheep following along with the church could contribute to any bias.

Many do have that attitude, just like many LDS have that attitude of enlightenment and a need to share this enlightenment or truth. Funny I see this attitude in other religions as well. I wonder if it could be fairly common for people to think they have more truth or better information then others. Maybe we all really do self deceive ourselves more then we might like to think, but their is no self-deception when I say I Know I'm better looking then everyone else.

You sure do get defensive, which is also a universal phenomena not only when one is getting attacked (which you weren't) but when one isn't sure of his own stand.

I guess that includes all of us then.

[beastie]

I wonder if the fact that many ex-mo's have come here to talk about how enlightened they've become and how they are no longer blind sheep following along with the church could contribute to any bias.

Iâ??m sure it does. Likewise, the fact that many believing mormons here insist that every person theyâ??ve ever known who fell away from the church did so due to â??lifestyle issuesâ? creates some bias to overcome in exmormons. Add to that fact the numerous statements of revered church leaders who connect apostasy to sin and pride, and there is quite a bit of potential bias on both sides. I think thatâ??s why so little communication occurs.

You sure do get defensive, which is also a universal phenomena not only when one is getting attacked (which you weren't) but when one isn't sure of his own stand.

I didnâ??t feel attacked or defensive. I was simply pointing out how your bias led you to an erroneous conclusion, and how that erroneous conclusion was directly contrary to my own words. It seemed particularly appropriate given the current topic. So perhaps youâ??re projecting your own defensiveness onto me.

[Honorentheos]

I've noticed that those who leave the church like to apply this to those who stay but not to themselves. Could it be the change is the self-deception?

Deborah,

I would encourage you to read these posts from when this thread began to include this topic and then consider what you wrote above -

Post #862

Post #833