Michael Shermer: The Pattern Behind Self-Deception

[changed]

I like to watch TED talks, and I ended up watching this one last night: link

and was curious to see what others on here thought about Shermer's philosophies as the trend to doubt and be skeptical of everything (rather than believing) seems to be the new trendy thing to do.

The vid starts by suggesting that we have evolved to naturally believe things to be true.

Example, Lucy hears the grass rustling, should she believe it is a predator? or not believe it is a predator? the ones who believe will survive longer.

I thought the above example was misleading, as either way Lucy held a belief - positive belief of a predator, or positive belief of the wind, or positive belief of a the noise coming from a friend - whatever motives Lucy's behavior, it was a positive belief in something.

The main problem I have with skeptics, is that their skepticism scares them away from taking the steps necessary to gain the experiences they need to obtain knowledge. Example: Here, try this piece of cake... to which the skeptic replies, I'm skeptical of that cake, I don't think it will taste good, I think it might make me sick, I don't trust it etc. etc.... so they never try it, and they never know what it actually tastes like, and no matter how long you describe what you have tasted, and how much you enjoy it, and how much energy it gives you etc. etc. they will never know what you know, because they refuse to try the cake for themselves. ... I think going through life with a skeptical attitude is harmful, because it keeps you from experiencing a lot of things - sort of the scared rabbit hiding out in their hole under the rock, not really seeing what is really around them...

The vid also talks about pattern recognition - that spiritual people find more patterns around them than non-religious people do, and he tries to paint pattern recognition as a bad thing - some paranoid/delusional kind of thing.... He posts pictures where you are supposed to find patterns - find the hidden dalmatian, or the fuzzy cow head, and then find what is hidden in _____ (random dots in a page), then states if you found no patter then - you are right! This one has nothing in it, there is no pattern, no hidden picture, and if you saw a pattern, then you are delusional ... but in my opinion, you can still find patterns within random dots - just like we create constellations by connecting the dots of the stars - and those are legitimate patterns, it's not paranoia to look up into the sky, and find patterns... there are patterns in everything, seeing patterns does not make you delusional.

Michael Shermer claims to be against pseudoscience, when he is a pseudo-scientist himself. I think there is a lot of slippery slope logic used in his presentations.

Edited November 10, 2012 by changed

[Calm]

Sounds like art would suffer greatly in a community of highly rational beings if what he said was true.

[volgadon]

Sounds like art would suffer greatly in a community of highly rational beings if what he said was true.

It sounds like Michael Shermer (whoever he is) ought to read the Master and Margarita. Oddly topical.

[pogi]

I think that it is ok to be cautiously skeptical. There is some experience and knowledge that we simply don't want and don't need. We should perhaps be most skeptical of our own beliefs, that is the limiting factor in eternal progression.

I agree with you about patterns. If you are blind to patterns, you are blind to the world. Art, science, math, music, human behavior, animal behavior, weather, etc. All things good and beautiful display patterns.

[changed]

I agree with you about patterns. If you are blind to patterns, you are blind to the world. Art, science, math, music, human behavior, animal behavior, weather, etc. All things good and beautiful display patterns.

Order vs. disorder, life vs. death.... Life is made of patterns and order... death is made of decayed disordered unorganized materials... the more alive you are, the more patterns you see and create.

Spiritual people love life - seek eternal life. I can see why they enjoy and find more patterns than atheists.

Edited November 10, 2012 by changed

[sdc999]

I like to watch TED talks, and I ended up watching this one last night: link

and was curious to see what others on here thought about Shermer's philosophies as the trend to doubt and be skeptical of everything (rather than believing) seems to be the new trendy thing to do.

The vid starts by suggesting that we have evolved to naturally believe things to be true.

Example, Lucy hears the grass rustling, should she believe it is a predator? or not believe it is a predator? the ones who believe will survive longer.

I thought the above example was misleading, as either way Lucy held a belief - positive belief of a predator, or positive belief of the wind, or positive belief of a the noise coming from a friend - whatever motives Lucy's behavior, it was a positive belief in something.

The main problem I have with skeptics, is that their skepticism scares them away from taking the steps necessary to gain the experiences they need to obtain knowledge. Example: Here, try this piece of cake... to which the skeptic replies, I'm skeptical of that cake, I don't think it will taste good, I think it might make me sick, I don't trust it etc. etc.... so they never try it, and they never know what it actually tastes like, and no matter how long you describe what you have tasted, and how much you enjoy it, and how much energy it gives you etc. etc. they will never know what you know, because they refuse to try the cake for themselves. ... I think going through life with a skeptical attitude is harmful, because it keeps you from experiencing a lot of things - sort of the scared rabbit hiding out in their hole under the rock, not really seeing what is really around them...

The vid also talks about pattern recognition - that spiritual people find more patterns around them than non-religious people do, and he tries to paint pattern recognition as a bad thing - some paranoid/delusional kind of thing.... He posts pictures where you are supposed to find patterns - find the hidden dalmatian, or the fuzzy cow head, and then find what is hidden in _____ (random dots in a page), then states if you found no patter then - you are right! This one has nothing in it, there is no pattern, no hidden picture, and if you saw a pattern, then you are delusional ... but in my opinion, you can still find patterns within random dots - just like we create constellations by connecting the dots of the stars - and those are legitimate patterns, it's not paranoia to look up into the sky, and find patterns... there are patterns in everything, seeing patterns does not make you delusional.

Michael Shermer claims to be against pseudoscience, when he is a pseudo-scientist himself. I think there is a lot of slippery slope logic used in his presentations.

I like the idea of 'trying' new things; but, would not the exact same apply to those who are comfortable in their beliefs? My wife would not touch my copy of Todd Compton's book, 'In Sacred Lonliness' because it was 'anti'. She KNEW all about Joseph Smith. She actually asked me to remove it from our home. I did not, but I did put it away in my night stand as opposed to being on top. Curiosity finally got the best of her and she took a bite of the cake. Her world was rocked because she had been taught quite the opposite growing up. Her mother, to this day still declares that Joseph Smith only had one wife and everything else is a lie. When I was having a rough time, I asked some friends and relatives to explain some stuff to me. They didn't even want to become knowledgable as to have an intellegent conversation. Have faith and pray was their default answer.

Some may like the taste of the cake, some may not - but I agree, you should at least try a piece.

[RobertAC]

I'm a fan of Shermer's writings. But he is more of a scoffer than a skeptic.

One can easily rationalize religious experience away, but does one really want to do that? Personally, I found that I was denying myself a spiritual experience by believing that God was as real as Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

[Calm]

It sounds like Michael Shermer (whoever he is) ought to read the Master and Margarita. Oddly topical.

He's editor of Skeptic Magazine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer

He used to be a fundamentalist Christian. I can't remember if he is one of the more civil critics of religion or not. It has been awhile since I've read anything of his.

add-on:

But he is more of a scoffer than a skeptic.

So not particularly civil? Edited November 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[pogi]

The main problem I have with skeptics, is that their skepticism scares them away from taking the steps necessary to gain the experiences they need to obtain knowledge. Example: Here, try this piece of cake... to which the skeptic replies, I'm skeptical of that cake, I don't think it will taste good, I think it might make me sick, I don't trust it etc. etc.... so they never try it, and they never know what it actually tastes like, and no matter how long you describe what you have tasted, and how much you enjoy it, and how much energy it gives you etc. etc. they will never know what you know, because they refuse to try the cake for themselves. ... I think going through life with a skeptical attitude is harmful, because it keeps you from experiencing a lot of things - sort of the scared rabbit hiding out in their hole under the rock, not really seeing what is really around them...

It sounds like you are being skeptical of the skeptic. Satan has a lot of cake to offer, we must be cautiously skeptical and suspicious.

Ephesians 5:6 - "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things comes the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience."

Skepticism keeps us safe from disobedience. On the other hand, if we are not on the right side of belief, it can also keeps us blind in ignorance. The bottom line - one must sincerely question his own beliefs by thoroughly and full-heartedly trying his own beliefs first, without giving room for other pieces of cake.

[thesometimesaint]

I like to watch TED talks, and I ended up watching this one last night: link

and was curious to see what others on here thought about Shermer's philosophies as the trend to doubt and be skeptical of everything (rather than believing) seems to be the new trendy thing to do.

The vid starts by suggesting that we have evolved to naturally believe things to be true.

Example, Lucy hears the grass rustling, should she believe it is a predator? or not believe it is a predator? the ones who believe will survive longer.

I thought the above example was misleading, as either way Lucy held a belief - positive belief of a predator, or positive belief of the wind, or positive belief of a the noise coming from a friend - whatever motives Lucy's behavior, it was a positive belief in something.

The main problem I have with skeptics, is that their skepticism scares them away from taking the steps necessary to gain the experiences they need to obtain knowledge. Example: Here, try this piece of cake... to which the skeptic replies, I'm skeptical of that cake, I don't think it will taste good, I think it might make me sick, I don't trust it etc. etc.... so they never try it, and they never know what it actually tastes like, and no matter how long you describe what you have tasted, and how much you enjoy it, and how much energy it gives you etc. etc. they will never know what you know, because they refuse to try the cake for themselves. ... I think going through life with a skeptical attitude is harmful, because it keeps you from experiencing a lot of things - sort of the scared rabbit hiding out in their hole under the rock, not really seeing what is really around them...

The vid also talks about pattern recognition - that spiritual people find more patterns around them than non-religious people do, and he tries to paint pattern recognition as a bad thing - some paranoid/delusional kind of thing.... He posts pictures where you are supposed to find patterns - find the hidden dalmatian, or the fuzzy cow head, and then find what is hidden in _____ (random dots in a page), then states if you found no patter then - you are right! This one has nothing in it, there is no pattern, no hidden picture, and if you saw a pattern, then you are delusional ... but in my opinion, you can still find patterns within random dots - just like we create constellations by connecting the dots of the stars - and those are legitimate patterns, it's not paranoia to look up into the sky, and find patterns... there are patterns in everything, seeing patterns does not make you delusional.

Michael Shermer claims to be against pseudoscience, when he is a pseudo-scientist himself. I think there is a lot of slippery slope logic used in his presentations.

I watch TED when when ever I get the chance. Not that I always agree, but I do like hearing other peoples ideas.

We evolved to have a level of trust. First with our parents. Daddy will protect us and mommy gives us good things to eat. Then to our larger community. We have friends to help us, teachers to teach us, police to protect us, and doctors will cure us when sick or injured, etc., etc.. By the same token we learn that we can't always be trusting. That somethings are bad to eat, some things are dangerous, and some people are not to be trusted. In this old world we can't exist without both.

[noel00]

I first saw Shermer on the DVD The Question of God: Lewis and Freud. He is part of a discussion group after each section. He is rational, does not talk over people. I was impressed even though I did not agree with all he said.He also makes an appearance on Mr Deity.

[TAO]

Well, I think Hillary Putnam would have a thing or two to say to Michael Sherman on skepticism ;-).

You can't be a true skeptic without being skeptical of skepticism. In other words, you have to balance skepticism with consideration when looking at something.

[mfbukowski]

Two statements that made me practically laugh out loud:

"...some patterns are real and some are not..."

And what does that mean? Did he mean that some were "real" pictures or real "things"? When he showed the pattern considered random, even he said that there were "allegedly" no patterns there. He seems to include conspiracies as "patterns" - that of course totally confuses perceptions with beliefs. What does a conspiracy about 911 have to do with an optical illusion? Nothing!

The other was "... we are natural born dualists..."

That's funny, it's totally cultural. In fact even in the West it has been said that Descartes invented dualism.

And what was with the girls kissing the chimps? What did that have to do with anything? And all the gratuitous political nonsense- one in-group ridiculing the out- group?

Very high school - horrible philosophy, poor psychology and marginal entertainment value. No stars from me.

[Glenn101]

It seems that skeptics only point their skepticism towards religious or supernatural phemomena. When a skeptic turns and looks at other "natural" phenomena with that same level of skepticism, they often find a paradox. That is one of the things that led Don Bradley back into the church.

Glenn

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Sounds like art would suffer greatly in a community of highly rational beings if what he said was true.

Good art will always survive. Edited November 11, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[RobertAC]

add-on:

So not particularly civil?

He usually is civil, but he can be dismissive. A good book that he wrote: Why People Believe Weird Things http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893

[pogi]

Good art will always survive.

Maybe so, but without pattern recognition, no one will be able to recognize it.

[mfbukowski]

Ironically I found it interesting that this pattern recognition is precisely what I think of when I speak of us as mini-gods "organizing worlds from matter unorganized", and see this as a parallel activity to what God does on a universal scale.

So in a sense, without understanding it, he has stumbled on something profound.

[volgadon]

Ironically I found it interesting that this pattern recognition is precisely what I think of when I speak of us as mini-gods "organizing worlds from matter unorganized", and see this as a parallel activity to what God does on a universal scale.

So in a sense, without understanding it, he has stumbled on something profound.

One word: Bezalel.

[mfbukowski]

One word: Bezalel.

Thanks! Fascinating stuff!

[WalkerW]

While not a scientist per se, he is a highly-qualified science writer. His graduate work was in psychology and he went on to get a Ph.D. in the history of science. He's also a columnist for Scientific American. Most of his work deals with psychology and neuroscience. I strongly recommend his The Believing Brain: From Ghost and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies--How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths (Times Books, 2011). He takes it beyond belief in "weird things" and tackles belief in general. He explains it by means of "agenticity" (i.e. the tendency to see intelligent agents behind random events) and "patternicity" (i.e. the tendency to seek patterns in chaos).

For those more market-oriented, you might enjoy his The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales From Evolutionary Economics (Times Books, 2008).

Edited November 11, 2012 by WalkerW

[blackstrap]

Last I heard,there was a math theory that looked for patterns in Chaos. I thought there were some. WAY beyond my pay grade though.

[Calm]

Are you thinking of fractals?

Came across this:

Some scientists have speculated that the presence of chaos---that is, randomness operating through the deterministic laws of physics on a microscopic level---may actually be necessary for larger scale physical patterns to arise.

http://order.ph.utex...ns.html#panel18

Unfortunately no detail, but at least it points out something to look for.

Edited November 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[MAsh]

While I haven't had time to watch the clip, Shermer is my favorite agnostic writer. I like reading his stuff and find myself mentally enriched from the experience. I don't agree with everything he says, and some of his conclusions are based on theories with holes, but all in all, I like what he writes.