A Scientific Argument Why The Problem of "Immodesty" Will Never Be Fixed

[cinepro]

This study examined what may be a common psychological trait, and it made me think of how it might happen both in the Church, and among critics and exmormons:

Quote

Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to “creep” when they ought not to. For example, when blue dots become rare, participants start calling purple dots blue, and when threatening faces become rare, participants start calling neutral faces threatening. This phenomenon has broad implications that may help explain why people whose job is to find and eliminate problems in the world often cannot tell when their work is done.

Prevalence-induced concept change in human judgment

 

The obvious application in the Church would be that as people get more and more modest, the definition of "modesty" changes so more and more things are considered "immodest" (hence, showing shoulders is now "immodest").  And more broadly, if it is our belief that the world is "wicked" or "fallen", then our definition of what "wicked" and "fallen" is would change as the world gets better and better.

But this would also apply to critics and exmormons.  As the Church changes and improves on certain "moral" issues, there would be a tendency to continue to redefine these issues so that the the improvement isn't acknowledged.

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by cinepro

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

This study examined what may be a common psychological trait, and it made me think of how it might happen both in the Church, and among critics and exmormons:

 

The obvious application in the Church would be that as people get more and more modest, the definition of "modesty" changes so more and more things are considered "immodest" (hence, showing shoulders is now "immodest").  And more broadly, if it is our belief that the world is "wicked" or "fallen", then our definition of what "wicked" and "fallen" is would change as the world gets better and better.

But this would also apply to critics and exmormons.  As the Church changes and improves on certain "moral" issues, there would be a tendency to continue to redefine these issues so that the the improvement isn't acknowledged.

 

So much of what is termed "morality" is merely where the dominant culture is at the time and certain groups' reactions to it.  In my opinion, a lot of dress standards by certain groups is more signaling of "in v. out" instead of actual "morality."  I don't think if one gets a tattoo, has a nose ring, more than one earring, wears a beard or has long hair makes any difference other than signaling that one belongs to the group.  It seems to me (and this point isn't new) that the church's dress standards have more to do with whether or not one wants to identify with the group or not.  It is more of a "choose ye this day" sort of thing rather than whether or not someone is moral.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Exiled

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

"Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there.... This phenomenon has broad implications that may help explain why people whose job is to find and eliminate problems in the world often cannot tell when their work is done. "

Imo the study's implications go pretty far.

The study shows that we really do see what we are looking for.   So the way to change the world we see is to change what we are looking for.  Change starts in our minds. 

A man is looking to move out in the country.  He stops at a farmhouse to talk with one of the locals.  He asks the farmer, "What are the people like around here?"  The farmer replies, "What were folks like where you come from?"   The man says, "Oh they were wonderful - friendly, helpful, and considerate."  The farmer says, "Well, that's pretty much what you'll find around here."

Next day another man looking to move out into the country happens to stop at the same farmhouse.  He asks the farmer, "What are the people like around here?"  The farmer replies, "What were folks like where you come from?"  The man says, "Oh they were terrible - selfish, mean, and dishonest."  The farmer says, "Well, that's pretty much what you'll find around here." 

[strappinglad]

Relatedly, when I buy another car, before the purchase the particular type is rare but after the purchase I see them all over the place.

[Exiled]

18 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Imo the study's implications go pretty far.

The study shows that we really do see what we are looking for.   So the way to change the world we see is to change what we are looking for.  Change starts in our minds. 

A man is looking to move out in the country.  He stops at a farmhouse to talk with one of the locals.  He asks the farmer, "What are the people like around here?"  The farmer replies, "What were folks like where you come from?"   The man says, "Oh they were wonderful - friendly, helpful, and considerate."  The farmer says, "Well, that's pretty much what you'll find around here."

Next day another man looking to move out into the country happens to stop at the same farmhouse.  He asks the farmer, "What are the people like around here?"  The farmer replies, "What were folks like where you come from?"  The man says, "Oh they were terrible - selfish, mean, and dishonest."  The farmer says, "Well, that's pretty much what you'll find around here." 

I understand that we all have biases and have a tendency to see what we want to see.  However, aren't some things so obvious that to take a contrary position is simply delusional?  One can always claim that disagreement with the group is due to some predetermined bias and vice versa.  However, sometimes certain views and positions are much better than others.  I think sometimes bias is overused as an excuse to justify certain beliefs when rationality points in the opposite direction.

[cinepro]

47 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Relatedly, when I buy another car, before the purchase the particular type is rare but after the purchase I see them all over the place.

That's a different phenomenon...

Edited July 1, 2018 by cinepro

[Duncan]

When I was a missionary we had this rule about our missionary attire, it was called "the Walk", why I have no idea. There was a rule about everything you wore and when you wore it and wear you wore it, it's unbelievable. Anyways our mission went to the LA Temple every 6 months and we saw the LA missionaries and TBH they looked like these grubby losers, but I remember thinking compared to us yeah but when you look at their rules i'm sure they were dressed modestly and didn't have all this extra stuff we had to do and be mindful of. The dress dial for us had been turned so far that it made others look bad even though they weren't really immodest

[strappinglad]

I remember that German terrorist gang .

[Eek!]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

I understand that we all have biases and have a tendency to see what we want to see.  However, aren't some things so obvious that to take a contrary position is simply delusional?  One can always claim that disagreement with the group is due to some predetermined bias and vice versa.  However, sometimes certain views and positions are much better than others.  I think sometimes bias is overused as an excuse to justify certain beliefs when rationality points in the opposite direction.

Delusional positions arise from delusional thoughts.  That's not a justification of delusional positions, just a statement of cause and effect.  

Bias doesn't explain every irrational belief out there, but it does explain many of them.  Incomplete or incorrect data can result in beliefs that are technically "rational" but still incorrect. 

Some ways of seeing the world are much better than others, and how we see the world arises from our thoughts about the world.  The good news is, our thoughts are under our control (though often considerable effort is required).  We are accustomed to our actions being "right" or "wrong" or somewhere in between, but our actions almost always arise from our thoughts, so if we would focus on the CAUSE instead of the EFFECTS, our focus would be on our thoughts. 

The study cited by Cinepro illustrates this principle:  "Seek, and ye shall find."  This is true whether we are seeking blue dots in a sea of purples, or immodesty at a convent, or considerate fellow drivers.  And this principle applies to far weightier matters as well. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Eek!

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Relatedly, when I buy another car, before the purchase the particular type is rare but after the purchase I see them all over the place.

Try the Audi RS5. 🙂

They are rare.

[Stargazer]

Nevermind.  It was stupid, and the board software just won't let me cancel the post before saving it.  

And that's nuts.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Should you be allowed to post such filth here? 🤬

Edited July 1, 2018 by Stargazer

[strappinglad]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Should you be allowed to post such filth here? 🤬

I was told that , at one time, the back of the female neck was the most erotic in Japanese culture. If true , times change.

[USU78]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

This study examined what may be a common psychological trait, and it made me think of how it might happen both in the Church, and among critics and exmormons:

 

The obvious application in the Church would be that as people get more and more modest, the definition of "modesty" changes so more and more things are considered "immodest" (hence, showing shoulders is now "immodest").  And more broadly, if it is our belief that the world is "wicked" or "fallen", then our definition of what "wicked" and "fallen" is would change as the world gets better and better.

But this would also apply to critics and exmormons.  As the Church changes and improves on certain "moral" issues, there would be a tendency to continue to redefine these issues so that the the improvement isn't acknowledged.

 

In other words: "We have learned through sad experience ..."

[Maidservant]

That's how we get to Coriantumr chopping off the head of Shiz.  If we are willing to have a category called "enemy" at all, then we will find something to fill it.

[Eek!]

4 hours ago, Maidservant said:

If we are willing to have a category called "enemy" at all, then we will find something to fill it.

That is brilliant. 

[changed]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215103210.htm

believing is seeing.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Should you be allowed to post such filth here? 🤬

How about a not sutiable for the workplace warning. 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

This study examined what may be a common psychological trait, and it made me think of how it might happen both in the Church, and among critics and exmormons:

Quote

Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to “creep” when they ought not to. For example, when blue dots become rare, participants start calling purple dots blue, and when threatening faces become rare, participants start calling neutral faces threatening. This phenomenon has broad implications that may help explain why people whose job is to find and eliminate problems in the world often cannot tell when their work is done.

Prevalence-induced concept change in human judgment 

The obvious application in the Church would be that as people get more and more modest, the definition of "modesty" changes so more and more things are considered "immodest" (hence, showing shoulders is now "immodest").  And more broadly, if it is our belief that the world is "wicked" or "fallen", then our definition of what "wicked" and "fallen" is would change as the world gets better and better.

But this would also apply to critics and exmormons.  As the Church changes and improves on certain "moral" issues, there would be a tendency to continue to redefine these issues so that the the improvement isn't acknowledged.

We see this characteristically in modern America, where statistical fact means little to a large sector of the population.  Delusion has become the norm for some "tribal" groups, and populist demagogues take full advantage.  As controlling POVs become dominant and non-congruent with reality, the greater the likelihood of major problems in society, perhaps leading to political & economic failure.  Blame must then be placed, which usually also follows a delusional path.

That reminds me of a July 24th parade in SLC years ago, and David O. McKay was in the reviewing stand with the Brethren.  A scantily clad drum majorette came prancing by at the head of a marching band.  One of the Brethren leaned over to Pres McKay to call attention to her immodesty.  Pres McKay replied that he didn't see anything but beauty.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

When one learns a violin concerto, he solves technical and intonation problems, works out phrasing and expressive aspects, and systematicly eliminates problems. As it approaches the level where it can be performed in public, a single out of tune note can become an issue that requires more study. In a performance, just one miscue becomes a sticking point that critics and fellow musicians will take issue with. The public may think the performance was masterful perfection, but the performer (and his critics) can tell you how many little things went wrong and how he would like to have a do-over.

I used to demonstrate this to my students by playing the Star Spangled Banner, but deliberately missing the last note. I asked them what they thought of my performance, invariably they said it was horrible. I replied that I had played the other 103 notes perfectly. What kind of grade would you get on a math test if you missed only 1 out of a hundred problems? Still, they said, it was a bad performance.

The closer we get to perfection, the more the imperfections, no matter how small, become obvious.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That reminds me of a July 24th parade in SLC years ago, and David O. McKay was in the reviewing stand with the Brethren.  A scantily clad drum majorette came prancing by at the head of a marching band.  One of the Brethren leaned over to Pres McKay to call attention to her immodesty.  Pres McKay replied that he didn't see anything but beauty.

This anecdote appears frequently in LDS modesty discussions, usually followed by “to the pure, all things are pure.” Sometimes I wonder about its authenticity, or whether we got the full story, or whether he thought his associate was being a dirty old man, or what he actually meant if he really said it, or just what is the point of bringing it up?

I’ve also wondered if that story is meant to suggest that since one of our prophets was apparently ok with immodesty, so everyone else should be too. I wonder at what point he might have drawn the line with a majorette costume or how the one in that parade would compare with current costumes and if he would be ok with them, or if  he was just trying not to be judgemental.

 It should be noted that at other times President McKay strongly advocated modesty in dress, including publishing the first For the Strength of Youth pamphlet.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Exiled]

20 hours ago, Eek! said:

Delusional positions arise from delusional thoughts.  That's not a justification of delusional positions, just a statement of cause and effect.  

Bias doesn't explain every irrational belief out there, but it does explain many of them.  Incomplete or incorrect data can result in beliefs that are technically "rational" but still incorrect. 

Some ways of seeing the world are much better than others, and how we see the world arises from our thoughts about the world.  The good news is, our thoughts are under our control (though often considerable effort is required).  We are accustomed to our actions being "right" or "wrong" or somewhere in between, but our actions almost always arise from our thoughts, so if we would focus on the CAUSE instead of the EFFECTS, our focus would be on our thoughts. 

The study cited by Cinepro illustrates this principle:  "Seek, and ye shall find."  This is true whether we are seeking blue dots in a sea of purples, or immodesty at a convent, or considerate fellow drivers.  And this principle applies to far weightier matters as well. 

So, do you believe the bofm was a 19th century invention or do you believe in historicity? It seems that a desire to believe is really group bias in action.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This anecdote appears frequently in LDS modesty discussions, usually followed by “to the pure, all things are pure.” Sometimes I wonder about its authenticity, or whether we got the full story, or whether he thought his associate was being a dirty old man, or what he actually meant if he really said it, or just what is the point of bringing it up?

I’ve also wondered if that story is meant to suggest that since one of our prophets was apparently ok with immodesty, so everyone else should be too. I wonder at what point he might have drawn the line with a majorette costume or how the one in that parade would compare with current costumes and if he would be ok with them, or if  he was just trying not to be judgements.

 It should be noted that at other times President McKay strongly advocated modesty in dress, including publishing the first For the Strength of Youth pamphlet.

I think it indicates the good horse sense of McKay in being able to separate the occasion from a narrow and superficial judgment.  After all, women wear bathing suits to pool and beach, and no one complains about modesty in that context.  So also in a normal parade on July 24.  Such costumes may not be appropriate at Church or Temple, but they are considered normal in other contexts.  The story would be characteristic of McKay, who did not often go in for superficial nonsense.

Even if the tale is merely apocryphal, it fits the same pattern we get in the tale of the two Buddhist monks who came to a river and found a young women there wanting to cross, but afraid she might drown.  One monk picked her up and carried her across, then he and his companion continued on their way.  Much later that day, one monk said to the other:  "I can't believe that you carried her across.  You know that is forbidden by your vows."  His companion replied.  "I put her down on the other side.  You are still carrying her."  Like Jesus, Pres McKay had deeper and more profound values than some of his companions.  That is the lesson.

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

So, do you believe the bofm was a 19th century invention or do you believe in historicity? It seems that a desire to believe is really group bias in action.

I'm no longer LDS (nor part of any group) so haven't put any time and energy into figuring out where the Book of Mormon came from.   I think it contains some great teachings, whatever its origins might be. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Eek!