Today while sitting in class, I came across a particularly interesting article in the Psychology subscription on Google Reader. It was a very intriguing article on if humans brain's are switched into believing everything they hear / read if not allowed to have evidence contrasting otherwise or are humans capable of discerning the absolute truth immediately while reading it, trying to create alternative answers and a rational explanation to everything.
Here's what the article stated.
It pertained to two different theories by Rene Descartes and Baruch Spinoza.
Rene Descartes theorized that believing and comprehension remain two separate processes. He states in his theory that people take in some information, then discern what is the truth and what are the fallacies. Which is the cognitive dictation that most humans see in their average thinking. Or at least think that they see in their average thinking.
Baruch Spinoza's theory contrasted heavily upon Rene's. Spinoza theorized that humans take in information and believe it while they are reading it. Spinoza's theory takes into account that humans cognitive process cannot discern information unless having evidence which rationalizes this thought. This process that Spinoza theorizes though, heavily contrasts the believe that many humans have simply because they are ignorant to the fact that they believe most of what they read without having the proper evidence to do so. I will admit I am caught in this spinning web of ignorance also, when it comes to fabricated information that cannot be disproved so easily. This goes to show that as a Human Information System, we cannot relatively discern all the information bypassed into our system, we take in all of this BS from a diverse system f information. But I'm getting ahead of myself, let me produce the results from a social experiment implemented to test the theories.
Be aware that the results of the experiment had several introduced variables stemming from the same original problem. The sentence of a man who robbed a store. The variables introduced included statements that made the severity of the crime more or diminished the severity of it. These statements were differed in colors. Green - Statements that are true. Red- Statements are false.
There was a twist that half of the individuals reading the statements were distracted and the other half weren't. These were concurrent to the statements because if Spinoza was correct then the people who were distracted wouldn't be able to process any additional information and there would believe everything they read. If Descartes was right on the other hand, then there was no relativity to being distracted and understanding the variables in the statements.
Results:
The results from the experiment concluded that Spinoza was right and that humans tend to want to believe what they read in not given time to discern the truth from the falsehoods. Humans cannot derive alternative explanations immediately during reading but instead the human process is to believe and understand at the same time. Truthfully though, humans usually have access to most true information and if we went around having to rationalize everything we read. We would lose valuable information trying to discern all the floating variables that pass through our intelligence and cognitive domains.
* Correspondence bias: this is people's assumption that others' behavior reflects their personality, when really it reflects the situation.
* Truthfulness bias: people tend to assume that others are telling the truth, even when they are lying.
* The persuasion effect: when people are distracted it increases the persuasiveness of a message.
* Denial-innuendo effect: people tend to positively believe in things that are being categorically denied.
* Hypothesis testing bias: when testing a theory, instead of trying to prove it wrong people tend to look for information that confirms it.
Conclusion:
In conclusion to this interesting passage, I have come to the conclusion that humans are relative to large information terminals. We introduce large variables of data into our minds and do not have time to discern it, which is a relatively good and bad thing at the same time. Like a double-sided sword. We want to believe everything we hear at the same time as we read. Curiously enough, I have fallen into the same pattern which is why humans are pattern seekers. We seek to understand everything through our cognitive perception of the world and through of insecurities about dissolution of knowledge. Our perceptual notions of the world are reliant on a serious understanding of the world to protect ourselves from falling within the darkness of ignorance. This ties into our correspondence bias of relating information from our perception a a general about an individual, when this isn't necessarily true.
This is why I found the passage quite an invigorating and refreshing piece on human psychology and reminds me why the human in such an interesting and developing piece of intuitive design, cohesive elements, and mental stimulation.
~Alter / Kamryn~
Comments from a few friends of mine.
Scourge: Interesting theory. However i find flaws in this way of thinking. It has been proven that humans typically use only about 13 percent of thier brains. Therefore one with a higher cognitive ability would in theory be able to discern truth from lies. Furthermore, i find that the experiment is not very controlled. When presented with information ... Read Moreportraining to what we are interested in, fact is easily discerned from fiction. I think that we do live in a society of declining brainpower, due to the facts that it is not necessary to be "smart" to live a successfull life, and that being smart is even sometimes scorned by society. I beleive that article to be true in a general sense, but i find holes in the logic.
Me: In logic there are always going to be several debatable statements and I see your point. Though, the control is not necessarily what is wrong with the statement. Intellect does not discern whether or not the truth is relative to what we think but in fact as a human reflex, our perceptual notions drag a sense of false beliefs. This is even with ... Read Moreeducated individuals who are cast from society / non-existent within a socialized place. We are reflexive to believing things we a re told from a totally objective perspective. You are correct in you statement that it is not a necessary notion to be "smart" to be a productive member of society, but you have to understand that the empathy of humans is not to discern evidence immediately, but over time to obtain evidence that falsifies and rationalizes our own thought processes.
Me: Very true, Shyan. I don't think it's America though. It's our reliance on the technological variations in our society accommodating varied intelligence levels for those who piggyback on a platform of laziness and ignorance.
Scourge: I think that the true answer is a mixture of both our theories, however there is insufficient data to suggest WHY this is happening, whereas we have been discussing how
Me:Rofl. Alex we are distanced upon this subject. Though I agree that there is laziness and social standardization that decreases the intelligence and use of intelligence in our society, there is also the facet that it us from this base that ignorance becomes the catalyst upon which it is fueled. People rely on things for them to have a stable condition. It is proven throughout time, that humans must engulf themselves within their own made up system of beliefs to compensate for the insecurities and lack of knowledge in the world. I'm pretty sure that you get where I'm coming from also.
I agree in entirety Alex. You are also correct that we haven't been discussing why this is happening. Shyan, I believe you are correct in that statement also. Individuals from past decades were forced to implement and exhibit higher levels of intelligence rather than now. Though, through technological advancements and intelligence combining with ... Read Morethese enhancements. The society of this day and age has inscribed themselves a stone in which we have the ability to discover more than was possible in the days and age of yore. Because the society today is based upon censorship and fabricating the truth to "protect" the frail skeletal nature of the human mind, it is necessary to fuel one's own desire for the fountain of knowledge to at least reach one's potential in relation to the past.
This is the entire post, you may want to take part in it or not. Just understand our points.
No comments:
Post a Comment