Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
34 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, ringo, Tangle (5 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,070 Year: 19,106/19,786 Month: 1,526/1,705 Week: 332/446 Day: 71/59 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   creationist/religious behavioral patterns and psychology
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 3285 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 1 of 9 (546319)
02-09-2010 10:24 PM


Hi I'd like to know if

a) there is any behavioral patterns or psychological traits that are common to those people who have a strong belief in a religion or creationism, especially given the current era of readily available alternative information on ideologies (including science), and

b) whether (or not), by pointing out these behavioral patterns/psychological traits, they can be used to stimulate alternative thinking on their given indoctrinated state.

I've had a bit of a look on the web and haven't found bits and pieces on the subject, but most of them seem to be aimed around indoctrination from one religion to another (perhaps my search terms need refining). Either way I'm especially interested in the responses from the 'longer serving' users of this forum.. let's be honest, there's no lack of interaction with the indoctrinated here...


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dimebag, posted 02-22-2010 6:19 PM killinghurts has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Peter, posted 02-25-2010 11:05 AM killinghurts has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 02-25-2010 12:40 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 9 (546486)
02-11-2010 8:04 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the creationist/religious behavioral patterns and psychology thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

    
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 3285 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 3 of 9 (547182)
02-17-2010 12:28 AM


I was informed of this book by Bob Altemeyer:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Very interesting piece for anyone is interested in this subject.

Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-17-2010 1:27 AM killinghurts has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3767
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 4 of 9 (547184)
02-17-2010 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by killinghurts
02-17-2010 12:28 AM


An existing topic on "The Authoritarians"
Seems so long ago, but the topic is less than a year old:

Are You an Authoritarian?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by killinghurts, posted 02-17-2010 12:28 AM killinghurts has not yet responded

    
Dimebag
Junior Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 02-14-2010


Message 5 of 9 (547773)
02-22-2010 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
02-09-2010 10:24 PM


I seem to remember reading an article in Scientific American Mind magazine (I know, not exactly a journal to be quoting when trying to argue a point, but it proves for interesting reading) that had a similar line of thought. They were interested to find out if there is any difference between the way that religious people think about religion compared to say the way people think about secular things.

Basically they used fMRI's (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) to see what areas of the brain were activated during religious thought, and secular thought. They were asked a series of questions both religious and secular, and the patterns of their brain activations were scanned. Both the religious and secular subject's fMRIs were identical, which means they use the same areas of the brain when thinking about both religious and secular things. The areas which were used in the brain were the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is associated with emotions, rewards and self representation. Both groups provided completely different answers.

I think this shows us that it's not what you've got, its how you use it. Two people can be completely identical as far as intellectual capacity, brain development, etc. but it is their beliefs which determine how they think. Noone is destined to be a religious person solely because of genetics or biology, it is nurture, not nature (although genetic inheritance of psychological traits has been shown to occur) which determines how we think.

This article can be seen here .

This isn't a definitive answer to your question, and only relates to beliefs, rather than behavioural patterns, which is a very broad area of one's psychology. Also, I don't think behaviour and belief are directly intertwined. You can behave one way, but believe something which is contradictory. Behaviour is mostly driven by motivation, which is an unconscious or subconscious driving force, whereas belief is mostly conscious, although it is formed unconsciously. You may believe in being faithful, but be unable to stop yourself from unfaithful urges, as an example.

Anyway, hope that helps.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 02-09-2010 10:24 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 6 of 9 (548070)
02-25-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
02-09-2010 10:24 PM


I think the answers to (a) is yes .... it's the fairly human traits of 'needing to believe in something' and 'wanting to belong to something'.

The answer to (b) is 'no'.

Once someone views themselves as part of a group, and accepts the beliefs of that group there's very little that some-one outside that person's mind can do to change anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 02-09-2010 10:24 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 7 of 9 (548084)
02-25-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
02-09-2010 10:24 PM


The irrational human mind
Very interesting questions.

a) there is any behavioral patterns or psychological traits that are common to those people who have a strong belief in a religion or creationism, especially given the current era of readily available alternative information on ideologies (including science)

The short answer is that the human brain is not wired to be rational by default.

The long answer is this: objective analysis and logical thought are not the default in human behavior. Our brains evolved to be successful in the world of predator and prey, not scientific research. Sure, our aware, conscious mind can be rational...but our subconscious mind, the part of us driven by instinct and which drives our "gut feelings," wouldn't know the first thing about objectivity.

We find that which we find most personally satisfying to be more plausible by default. Think about that for a moment. We're actually hardwired this way - it's a built-in instinct. We can counter it, but it takes effort, and we often don't realize that it's happening because it's all subconscious.

We find the dramatic and personally frightening to be more likely than everyday statistics, even if rationally the reverse should be true. Remember the often-referenced Stalin quote that "One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic?" It's even deeper than that. In the United States over the past 10 years we have had fewer than 10,000 deaths due to terrorism...yet we instinctually find terrorism to be a greater threat (as easily observed in our media, our government spending, politics, and the fact that we started two wars over the subject) than death by traffic accident. You are literally more likely to die every time you take your car out of the garage than to be killed by a terrorist - yet terrorism strikes us with a deep and automatic fear, while we don;t think twice about strapping ourselves into a car and hurtling along at over 60MPH.

We find the more "familiar" to be more likely than the unfamiliar, even if our personal perspective is flawed. Again the car example - we individually have not experienced death by a car accident, and we drive every day without incident. While our rational mind may acknowledge the statistics, our "gut" doesn't feel fear when we get behind the wheel.

We have difficulty (and this is a BIG one) differentiating fantasy from reality by default when it comes to memories. Quite literally, if you ask a group of test subjects to vividly imagine an event, wait a few weeks, and then ask them if that event actually happened, many of them will believe that the event was real rather than imagined. This is compounded by the fact that we automatically "fill in" unremembered details with our imaginations, often without realizing it. All we're doing is subconsciously pulling our own memories from similar circumstances and filling in the specifics that we don;t directly remember...but this is why eyewitness testimony in court is so unreliable, particularly when it comes to small details.

The subconscious mind is literally hardwired to work this way. It's part of the reason those "I have 10 million dollars from a Nigerian prince" scams work on occasion - the possible benefit if the claim is true causes the instinctual mind to give it more credence than the idea that it's a scam. The same mechanism works for the lottery and gambling. It's part of the reason conspiracy theories are so popular - emotionally satisfying and personally preferable (ie. "Bush caused 9/11 because he's evil, and because I personally feel like I have more control in such a scenario than believing in random attacks from international terrorists can come from anywhere") explanations, regardless of absurd complexity or a lack of evidence, are believed over rational and objective analysis.

If you ask someone "How likely is it, on a scale of 1 to 10, that event x will happen," the result will have little bearing on actual probability, but will instead be more dependent on how much the subject likes or fears with strong emotion the event in question.

You can see the results pretty easily - religion is just one of several. The thought of a reward for "good" people and a punishment for "bad" people in the end is dramatic and emotionally satisfying, so our "gut" tells us this is plausible regardless of whether any evidence has been brought forth.

We are walked through vividly imagining God's "presence," and our subconscious ind has difficulty differentiating that "feeling" from reality.

Religious adherents are typically surrounded by like-minded people reaffirming their "feelings," convincing their conscious ind to trust and believe their "gut feelings." This also serves to make the religious experience more familiar, and therefore more instinctually plausible as real.

Apologetics work so well despite its obvious flaws because people want the conclusions to be true, and so bending and cherry-picking evidence is overlooked, the "explanations" determined by the "gut" to be plausible and more likely even if they explain nothing or rape objectivity, logic, and evidence with a rusty tire iron.

It's not only common to religious people. It's common in all of us.

b) whether (or not), by pointing out these behavioral patterns/psychological traits, they can be used to stimulate alternative thinking on their given indoctrinated state.

Sometimes. Remember, human behavior is not be default rational. If an idea is sufficiently emotionally satisfying, and abandonment of that ideal causes sufficient fear, there is no amount of objective evidence or behavioral description that will break through.

As a de-converted Christian, I can truthfully say that only removing myself from being surrounded by other Christians and encouraged in faith by family and friends allowed the rationalist sources that eventually caused my unbelief to reach me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 02-09-2010 10:24 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8104
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 8 of 9 (548102)
02-25-2010 3:28 PM


Dunning-Kruger Effect
There is also the Dunning-Kruger effect where:

"Across four studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd."
http://en.wikipedia.org/...3Kruger_effect#cite_note-Kruger-0

That is, those who know the least think they are experts while the experts doubt their own expertise. Those most ignorant of science, and by extension evolution and the age of the Earth, will be certain that they are right due to their own ignorance.


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by caffeine, posted 02-26-2010 9:36 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1702
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 9 of 9 (548222)
02-26-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taq
02-25-2010 3:28 PM


Re: Dunning-Kruger Effect
"Across four studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd."
http://en.wikipedia.org/...3Kruger_effect#cite_note-Kruger-0

Just out of curiousity, how on earth do you test for humour?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taq, posted 02-25-2010 3:28 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019