Why do we think the way we do?

To simply take the title of this thread: "Why do we think the way we do?" -- that is one hell of a can of worms, an' i'd say you'd be lucky if the obscurantist lovers of philosophical minutiae don't come outta the woodwork and crawl all over this thread.

Here, i'll see effen i kin make yer link work:

Trinity Link[/color]

Yeah, that works.

I have come to the conclusion that the majority of people hold their beliefs unexamined; nevermind the consideration of the provenance of what they think and how they think about it. I also believe that the majority of people assume that their beliefs are commonly held, and so, would sit down in the church, or the town hall meeting, or the barber shop, and never question that what they believe is not different from what is believed by those who sit next to them. Therefore, i believe that people constantly engage in conversations in which they reinforce the rectitude of their beliefs, when in fact, the interlocutors involved all believe things which are somewhat, or even radically different, but did not hear any distinctions by which to discover the differences. Those involved will go their separate ways, convinced that they have communicated to one another great truths, or "home truths," when, in fact, they have communicated nothing at all to one another.

Apart from that, i like meatloaf sammiches . . .

Setanta

Thanks for fixing the link---still don't know what I did wrong---no matter.

Unfortunately you are probably correct about the majority of society---we each think we are endowed with ample doses of analytical problem solving ability and the communicative prowess to enlighten any observer. The apparent lack of any shred of introspection is obvious as you imply.

Meatloaf sammiches????? Good dogfood.

perception,

The link didn't work because you didn't put a space before it. It's connected to the preceeding text.

Ahhh---so- thanks.

perception

Nice to hear from you. Good link !

Perceptual set is (as you know) one of my hobby horses. If you wish to narrow down this question to its simplist form you might look at "signal detection theory" which is about factors which control central processing of peripheral information. An experimental subject will alter his reporting of perceptual features according to rewards offered. These "rewards" can also be social (see Solomon Asch's classic experiment on group consensus).

The philosophical issues arising from these clear demonstrations of perceptual manipulation are of course epistemological, and imply that concepts such as "truth" and "facts" are ridiculously simplistic.
It follows also that "politics" has nothing to do with "facts" but everything to do with "manipulation".

So - this answers some of the questions on the thread about personality attributes of conservatives! (I wil try to find the link to that thread)

The obvious question, assuming the thesis to be correct, is what makes for fuzzies and rigids? How do they come to be?

I am a fuzzy in essence, I think, with a fair dollop of rigid - often fear/anxiety based - for instance, I hate being on committees where I do not feel the aims etc are really clear and the means well delineated - but I am able to tolerate extreme ambiguity with nary a quiver, eg, I can be an atheist and a Buddhist at the same time (not that Buddhists have a god - but there is a cosmology and a whole, detailed, spiritual sphere and a spiritual destination)

I do not find the thesis set forth here a sufficient explanation of differences in perception, by the way - though I assume the whole article (haven't read it yet) discusses cognitive schemas and such?

I think the reasons for that are multi and many-layered.

Dlowan wrote:So - this answers some of the questions on the thread about personality attributes of conservatives! (I wil try to find the link to that thread)

---and it answers some questions about the personality traits of liberals.

As for "what makes fuzzies and rigids that way" ask Setanta or Lola. As you say the reasons are multi and many layered.

I, for example tend to want to put labels on people because I want to be able to predict how a person will react to a certain event but on the other hand I realize that every individual is far too complex to ever fit into a neat box with a label. Wouldn't it be neat if we could get into the other person's head and predict their behavior?

Hi Fresco:

I really want to know more about this phenomenon (because I encounter it every day) so I'm taking your advice and looking up
"Signal detection theory" and the bit about group concensus. Get back to you.

Since the psychological aspects of my topic are most likely to be manifested in the political arena I submit the following column written by one of the more intellectual conservative writers.


THE SICK RIGHT

August 10, 2003 -- THIS just in: Conservatism often is symptomatic of a psychological syndrome. It can involve fear, aggression, uncertainty avoidance, intolerance of ambiguity, dogmatic dislike of equality, irrational nostalgia and need for "cognitive closure," all aspects of the authoritarian personality.
Actually, this theory has been floating around academic psychology for half a century. It is reprised in "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," written by four professors for Psychological Bulletin.

"Motivated social cognition" refers to the "motivational underpinnings" of ideas, the "situational as well as dispositional variables" that foster particular beliefs. Notice: situations and dispositions - not reasons. Professors have reasons for their beliefs. Other people, particularly conservatives, have social and psychological explanations for their beliefs. "Motivated cognition" involves ways of seeing and reasoning about the world that are unreasonable because they arise from emotional, psychological needs.

The professors note, "The practice of singling out political conservatives for special study began . . . [with a 1950] study of authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality." The industry of studying the sad psychology of conservatism is booming.

It began with a European mixture of Marxism and Freudianism. It often involves a hash of unhistorical judgments, including the supposedly scientific, value-free judgment that conservatives are authoritarians, and that fascists - e.g., the socialist Mussolini, and Hitler, the National Socialist who wanted to conserve nothing - were conservatives.

The four professors now contribute "theories of epistemic and existential needs, and socio-political theories of ideology as individual and collective rationalizations" and "defensive motivations" - defenses against fear of uncertainty and resentment of equality. The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses.

"In the post-Freudian world, the ancient dichotomy between reason and passion is blurred," say the professors, who do not say that their judgments arise from social situations or emotional needs rather than reason.



The professors usefully survey the vast literature churned out by the legions of academics who have searched for the unsavory or pathological origins of conservatism (fear of death? harsh parenting? the "authoritarian personality"?).

But it is difficult to take the professors' seriousness seriously when they say, in an essay responding to a critique of their paper, that Ronald Reagan's "chief accomplishment, in effect, was to roll back both the New Deal and the 1960s." His "accomplishment"? So that is why Social Security and Medicare disappeared.

The professors write, "One is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives . . . because they all preached a return to an idealized past and favored or condoned inequality in some form." Until the professors give examples of political people who do not favor or condone equality in any form, it is fair to conclude that, for all their pretensions to scientific rigor, they are remarkably imprecise. And they are very political people, who would be unlikely ever to begin a sentence: "One is justified in referring to Stalin, Mao, Franklin Roosevelt and the editors of The New York Times as left-wing liberals because . . . "

The professors acknowledge that "the same motives may underlie different beliefs." And "different motives may underlie the same beliefs." And "motivational and informational influences on belief formation are not incompatible."

And no reasoning occurs in a "motivational vacuum." And "virtually all belief systems" are embraced because they "satisfy some psychological needs." And all this "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false."

Not necessarily. What a relief. But there is no comparable academic industry devoted to studying the psychological underpinnings of liberalism. Liberals, you see, embrace liberalism for an obvious and uncomplicated reason - liberalism is self-evidently true. But conservatives embrace conservatism for reasons that must be excavated from their inner turmoils, many of them pitiable or disreputable.

The professors' paper is adorned with this epigraph:

"Conservatism is a demanding mistress and is giving me a migraine."

- George F. Will

A "mistress" who is "demanding"? Freud, call your office. The epigraph is from "Bunts," a book of baseball essays, from an essay concerning what conservatives should think about the designated hitter. Will probably thought he was being lighthearted. Silly him. Actually, he was struggling with fear of ambiguity and the need for cognitive closure.

Conservatives, in the crippling grip of motivated social cognition, think they oppose the DH because it makes the game less interesting by reducing managers' strategic choices. But they really oppose that innovation because mental rigidity makes them phobic about change and intolerant of the ambiguous status of the DH. And because Mussolini would have opposed the DH.


E-mail: [email protected]






Back to: Post Opinion | Editorials | Oped Columnists | Letters | Home


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc. Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

Prejudice can affect perception as Gordon Allport and Leo Postman showed in a famous study (1945). After briefly looking at a drawing of figures inside an underground train - five men, two women and a baby, with two of the men standing - a black man and a white man face-to-face in the centre of the picture. Observers were asked to describe what they had seen. Over half of the observers reported having seen a cut-throat razor in the hands of the black man. Some even claimed that he had been 'brandishing it widely' or 'threatening' the white man whereas it was actually in the left hand of the white man standing with him. This experiment was part of a study of rumour so memory as well as perception was involved.

Many factors which play a part in influencing how things are perceived are relatively 'stable' or long-term individual factors. These include personality, cognitive styles, gender, occupation, age, values, attitudes, long-term motivations, religious beliefs, socio-economic status, cultural background, education, habits and past experience. But there are other factors which may contribute to individual differences in perception which are more transitory. These include current mental 'set', mood (affective/emotional state), goals, intentions, situational motivation and contextual expectancies (Warr & Knapper 1968).

Prejudice, and in particular racial prejudice IMO, is the ugliest but probably most influential factor in determining perception within our culture. However culture itself, as in different cultures, is probably the dominant factor in determining the final perception in the brain. Here is a link to a science article which appeared in the NYTimes recently which I believe arrives at a valid conclusion: http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/080800hth-behavior-culture.html

Perception,

I don't have the time right this minute to participate here. I'm working on a project. But I wanted to say welcome back. Nice to see you again.

Thanks Lola---I hope that project you mentioned doesn't require all of your time because I need your able assistance on this thread. Social psychology is a bit of a stretch from your psychoanalysis regimen but I would be delighted to read any insight you may have on this subject.

Racial prejudice a dominant factor influencing perception in our culture, Perception? Really? Our perception of what? Other than race, of course! I just am not sure how, other than for folk possessed by racism as a dominant concern, this is SUCH a strong mediating factor..

In a sense, prejudice is any view we hold which is not the result of rational examination of the facts (insofar as we are able to do that - culture bound as we so invisibly, generally, are) - so I can see how prejudice, generally, has a huge impact.

I am becoming convinced, again, after a long break, that such posited things as our habitual ego defence mechanisms have a huge effect on our perceptions of the world. Eg, a habitual projector sees the world as much besmirched by the thungs s/he most fears to see in her/himself.

Hey Bunny

Please read that link that I provided about culture created thought patterns and how they influence perception ----it just may give you some insight.

Thanks
Perception

Perception, interesting thread, as usual.

Here is a link, followed by an excerpt, to an article on brain damage caused by childhood abuse. This isn't damage caused by physical violence to the brain, but damage caused by constant fear.

It gives a good perspective of how our method of thinking and our perspective can be effected by our environment, resulting in actual changes to the brain.

http://www.mcleanhospital.org/PublicAffairs/20001214_child_abuse.htm

"The science shows that childhood maltreatment may produce changes in both brain function and structure," says Martin Teicher, MD, PhD, director of the Developmental Biopsychiatry Research Program at McLean, and author of the paper. Although a baby is born with almost all the brain cells (neurons) he will ever have, the brain continues to develop actively throughout childhood and adolescence. "A child's interactions with the outside environment causes connections to form between brain cells," Teicher explains. "Then these connections are pruned during puberty and adulthood. So whatever a child experiences, for good or bad, helps determine how his brain is wired."

Diane

Thanks for that great article----our environment which is the small sphere of the culture within which we grow up, has a huge impact on forming our thought patterns and thus how we perceive events, their cause and effect and the consequences.

It does not however explain how we fall into one of the two categories--rigid or fuzzy(fluid) thinkers. If any participant can come up with a link that would help explain this phenomenon I would be most appreciative.

perception, I do believe I am more of the "context and relationship" colour of sheep. I suppose that makes me "fuzzy", but being that way, I don't really believe that we fall into one or the other category, because I believe in the concept that all human beings have the capacity to grow beyond the need to pigeonhole. In terms of 'how we think', it is part birthright, part socialization, and all mutable, IMO. I would put racial prejudice in the 'socialization' category, seeing as we are categorizing. I do believe that socialization has a HUGE effect on how we think, one that is only now being recognized. I do however, stick by my original opinion that nobody can be labelled one or the other dogmatically.

Cavfancier

I probably didn't make it clear that I consider those two categories as being the extreme but opposite ends of a spectrum with every magnitude of mixtures in between. I consider your socialization as everyday interaction between individuals but we can certainly agree on the end result which is huge. This causes large differences of thought pattern construction but then when you apply this idea to different cultures---wow---it is small wonder that this has and will continue to create a CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS. Because the perceptions created wilhin different cultures relative to almost any subject will continue to be irreconsilable.

Effectuation

Give me some time to "chew" on your response and read the link.