Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I'll let the first bolded sentence stand as proving the point I made.

Your theory of non-beliefism is only supported by your belief that your interpretation of human behavior and their thought processes is correct.

Second bolded: I have.

Your theory is your opinion alone not scientifically supportable.

You are wrong, as is evidenced.

Cognitive article:

Belief evaluation, even in the absence of frank pathology, has several limitations. People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies (Evans, 1989; Gilovich, 1991; Johnson-Laird, 2006; Nickerson, 2008). People, for example, tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their belief and be overly influenced by this information, but neglect information that is critical of their belief (Nickerson, 1998, 2008). People may also use inefficient strategies that waste effort on non-diagnostic data (Fischoff and Beyth-Marom, 1983; Evans, 1989; Johnson-Laird, 2006) or focus on heuristics (Kahneman et al., 1982; Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011; Kahneman, 2011; see also Gilovich et al., 2002). Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information, means that knowledge received after the initial judgment may be distorted to fit the original hypothesis.

It would be optimal if you could present evidence for your claims, instead of streams of non-evidenced sequences:

Albeit, can you provide scientific evidence to show that belief does not mostly facilitate that its users ignore evidence ?
Scientific data already displays that belief occurs typically such that one ignores evidence. Common dictionary definitions also express such. Lest new scientific data arises to the contrary, I'm afraid the sum of your expressions are empirically, unavoidably invalid.

 

[JayUtah]

As I had long mentioned, such was a shortened version, of your long expression.

You put it in quotation marks, suggesting it was a direct quote from me. In fact it was not, and you knew it was not. While you were editing my statements, you changed what I said in order to make it seem that I said things I did not. I repudiate your summary. It does not state my claim correctly.

Now that you admit you were not quoting me directly, do you retract your misquotation?

Also, that there are multiple ways in responding to contradicting evidence, does not suddenly remove that belief facilitates that one ignores evidence.

What you are describing as "ignoring" evidence is, rather, the weighing of contradictory evidence, a practice affected by many factors. Your concepts of belief, evidence, and ignorance are too simplistic to be supported by the available data.

That "different strategies for reconciling apparently conflicting evidence exist.", does not eliminate that beings still ignore evidence on the grounds of prior belief.

Same answer as above. The complexities of interplay between belief and conflicting evidence do not fit youf "belief ignores evidence" caricature.

This is no claim, this is empirically observed.

No. We observe a spectrum of behavior dealing with belief, science, and evidence. You ignore the spectrum and insist that cherry-picked words and phrases -- which shear the observation away from the context its authors carefully lay out -- support your pidgin concepts. They do not.

Your theory attempts to draw a sharp distinction where the evidence clearly shows gradation and complexity.

Your words above does not change that is not typical for science to ignore evidence.

Merely repeating your oversimplifications does not fix the problem with your argument. You insist on polarized words such as "ignore" which fail to capture the sophistication in the data. The criticism of your theory is not that it is diametrically wrong, but that it is oversimplified. Science doesn't "ignore" evidence, but it doesn't treat it with the simplistic policies you envision. Neither does propositional belief.

Albeit, can you provide scientific evidence to show that belief does not mostly facilitate that its users ignore evidence?

Do not reverse the burden of proof. Asking that the existing literature specifically refute your claim -- and every other ignorant claim -- is absurd. The literature is not simply a laundry list of proscriptions against the infinite ways that knowledge in a field can be misread and misapplied. You are responsible for demonstrating competence in the fields that apply to your claim such that when you represent that your claim is the correct product of it, it is a credible affirmative representation. Clearly you have no relevant qualification and you are trying desperately to weasel out from under your obligation to support your affirmations with evidence.

Scientific data already displays that belief occurs typically such that one ignores evidence.

Asked and answered. You misread those sentences, and I have explained several times how. By now I have to assume that you either have no interest in addressing those explanations or that you cannot comprehend the argument.

Common dictionary definitions also express such.

We have already addressed your misguided obsession with dictionaries.

Lest new scientific data arises to the contrary, I'm afraid the sum of your expressions are empirically, unavoidably invalid.

If you really believed that, you wouldn't have to reword what I say into a straw man.

 

[JayUtah]

"Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency...

The tendency is general, meaning it is composed of strongly conformant and weakly conformant cases. That's what "tendency" means. It means some individual data support the proposition and some individual data counterindicate it.

"...means that knowledge received after the initial judgment may be distorted to fit the original hypothesis."

Distortion is not ignorance. Case in point: You believe your theory regarding belief and science is objectively evident. Yet when confronted with evidence that intelligent people don't accept it, you don't alter your belief in the strength of your theory. Instead, you manufacture speculative justifications to explain that evidence: e.g., that your critics must be under the influence of strong drugs, or that some "type of brain" habitually rejects what you deem unassailable. You haven't ignored the evidence that challenges you belief; you just found ways to rationalize it.

"...even when the initial evidence for the beliefs is discredited."

As I explained, the initial beliefs were formed on the basis of evidence. They were not formed by "ignoring" evidence, as you claim. This research describes various ways in which conflicting evidence is reconciled in the face of beliefs. That you continue to misunderstand and misrepresent it does not support the sharp distinction you claim.

 

[JayUtah]

People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies ...

And then the article goes on to describe a few such strategies, all of which entail approaches to evidence. Only one of those approaches describes "ignoring" evidence, and the overall landscape is described as a tendency, not a rule such that your simplistic distinction is justified. All but one describe methods of weighing contradicting evidence, not all of which can be said to be purely rational. But they are approaches to evidence, not "ignoring" evidence.

It would be optimal if you could present evidence for your claims, instead of streams of non-evidenced sequences:

Reversing the burden of proof. You have made claims regarding the nature of belief. When finally confronted with pertinent evidence from the field that specializes in the study of belief, you have tried to shoehorn it into your theory by quoting and interpreting it selectively. In fact the literature shows what your critics have been claiming all along: the interaction between belief and evidence is neither singular nor simple.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You put it in quotation marks, suggesting it was a direct quote from me. In fact it was not, and you knew it was not. While you were editing my statements, you changed what I said in order to make it seem that I said things I did not. I repudiate your summary. It does not state my claim correctly.

Now that you admit you were not quoting me directly, do you retract your misquotation?

(1) Not my theory, see the evidence.

(2) I had summarized your words, however amidst my words, as displayed in the conversation history. (hence the quotes).

Lest both versions fail to express the same outcome, I shall not make any such retraction.

What you are describing as "ignoring" evidence is, rather, the weighing of contradictory evidence, a practice affected by many factors. Your concepts of belief, evidence, and ignorance are too simplistic to be supported by the available data.

Same answer as above. The complexities of interplay between belief and conflicting evidence do not fit youf "belief ignores evidence" caricature.

(3) That beings "weigh contradictory data", does not suddenly warrant that they don't ignore evidence.

No. We observe a spectrum of behavior dealing with belief, science, and evidence. You ignore the spectrum and insist that cherry-picked words and phrases -- which shear the observation away from the context its authors carefully lay out -- support your pidgin concepts. They do not.

Your theory attempts to draw a sharp distinction where the evidence clearly shows gradation and complexity.


Merely repeating your oversimplifications does not fix the problem with your argument. You insist on polarized words such as "ignore" which fail to capture the sophistication in the data. The criticism of your theory is not that it is diametrically wrong, but that it is oversimplified. Science doesn't "ignore" evidence, but it doesn't treat it with the simplistic policies you envision. Neither does propositional belief.


Do not reverse the burden of proof. Asking that the existing literature specifically refute your claim -- and every other ignorant claim -- is absurd. The literature is not simply a laundry list of proscriptions against the infinite ways that knowledge in a field can be misread and misapplied. You are responsible for demonstrating competence in the fields that apply to your claim such that when you represent that your claim is the correct product of it, it is a credible affirmative representation. Clearly you have no relevant qualification and you are trying desperately to weasel out from under your obligation to support your affirmations with evidence.


Asked and answered. You misread those sentences, and I have explained several times how. By now I have to assume that you either have no interest in addressing those explanations or that you cannot comprehend the argument.

We have already addressed your misguided obsession with dictionaries.
If you really believed that, you wouldn't have to reword what I say into a straw man.

(4)
I had long provided evidence, showing belief's science opposing nature.

So no such "burden of proof" reversal occurred.

It is really simple, provide evidence that shows that belief doesn't tend to facilitate that its users ignore evidence.

Also:

Dictionary definitions while simplified, are generally not disparate, but instead robust summaries with respect to whichever process they define.
Note that dictionary definitions of "science" ensue such that science highly concerns evidence, while dictionary definitions of belief ensue such that belief especially concerns non-evidence.

(5)

A curious question. Do you garner that science is true whether or not one believes in it? (NOTE: I didn't ask whether science was perfect)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

The tendency is general, meaning it is composed of strongly conformant and weakly conformant cases. That's what "tendency" means. It means some individual data support the proposition and some individual data counterindicate it.

A tendency is a trend.

Generally, people tend to express confirmation bias, such that prior beliefs are maintained regardless of evidence.

Such is unavoidable.

Distortion is not ignorance. Case in point: You believe your theory regarding belief and science is objectively evident. Yet when confronted with evidence that intelligent people don't accept it, you don't alter your belief in the strength of your theory. Instead, you manufacture speculative justifications to explain that evidence: e.g., that your critics must be under the influence of strong drugs, or that some "type of brain" habitually rejects what you deem unassailable. You haven't ignored the evidence that challenges you belief; you just found ways to rationalize it.

I need not manufacture any such speculation.

Article:
"People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies (Evans, 1989; Gilovich, 1991; Johnson-Laird, 2006; Nickerson, 2008). People, for example, tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their belief and be overly influenced by this information, but neglect information that is critical of their belief (Nickerson, 1998, 2008)."

As I explained, the initial beliefs were formed on the basis of evidence. They were not formed by "ignoring" evidence, as you claim. This research describes various ways in which conflicting evidence is reconciled in the face of beliefs. That you continue to misunderstand and misrepresent it does not support the sharp distinction you claim.

Where does it strictly show that initial beliefs are found on evidence?
The article: "It remains unclear, however, the degree to which the hypotheses and proto-beliefs are scrutinised at this initial stage. "

Also, as the article mentions, beyond the scope of initial beliefs, people tend to ignore evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies ...

And then the article goes on to describe a few such strategies, all of which entail approaches to evidence. Only one of those approaches describes "ignoring" evidence, and the overall landscape is described as a tendency, not a rule such that your simplistic distinction is justified. All but one describe methods of weighing contradicting evidence, not all of which can be said to be purely rational. But they are approaches to evidence, not "ignoring" evidence.

No where had I mentioned of any such rule.

That contradictory evidence arises, is a symptom of ignorance of evidence in the first place, as described in the article, as people may distort new data into their old beliefs, regardless of "information critical of prior beliefs".
Article: "A related notion of consistency is also present in Festinger’s (1962) cognitive dissonance theory, which suggest that humans are strongly predisposed to seek consistency among their beliefs, particularly when holding contradictory beliefs might compromise self-esteem".

That beings seek to maintain consistency amidst beliefs, does not suddenly warrant that these beliefs are not significant of evidence ignorance, as is shown in the article.

Reversing the burden of proof. You have made claims regarding the nature of belief. When finally confronted with pertinent evidence from the field that specializes in the study of belief, you have tried to shoehorn it into your theory by quoting and interpreting it selectively. In fact the literature shows what your critics have been claiming all along: the interaction between belief and evidence is neither singular nor simple.

That "the interaction between belief and evidence" is not simple, does not remove that "people tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their belief and be overly influenced by this information, but neglect information that is critical of their belief".

As such, no burden of proof reversal occurred, as I had long provided evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

@JayUtah, a curious question:

All standard dictionaries (including google) express a flavour of belief, that ensues such that beings especially ignore evidence.
Are they all invalid?

 

[BStrong]

Cognitive article:

Belief evaluation, even in the absence of frank pathology, has several limitations. People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies (Evans, 1989; Gilovich, 1991; Johnson-Laird, 2006; Nickerson, 2008). People, for example,tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their beliefand be overly influenced by this information, but neglect information that is critical of their belief (Nickerson, 1998, 2008). People may also use inefficient strategies that waste effort on non-diagnostic data (Fischoff and Beyth-Marom, 1983; Evans, 1989; Johnson-Laird, 2006) or focus on heuristics (Kahneman et al., 1982; Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011; Kahneman, 2011; see also Gilovich et al., 2002). Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information, means that knowledge received after the initial judgment may be distorted to fit the original hypothesis.


It would be optimal if you could present evidence for your claims, instead of streams of non-evidenced sequences:

Distracting formatting removed

I have done so in the underlined sentence above.

You believe in a twisted interpretation of what you claim is proof of theory - it isn't in any way - It's apparent that you are running on your own belief based system while claiming something called "non-belief-ism" has scientific validity.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Pointless dismissal of criticism.



You miss the point. The point is that you refer to yourself in a context where references tend to indicate credibility. Real scientists quote other scientists. Fake scientists quote themselves.

Extended further;

Real scientists with peer reviewed papers that have been published quote other real scientists with peer reviewed papers that have been published.

Fake Scientists with questionable degrees and papers that only appear on their own websites quote themselves and other like minded fake scientists.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I have done so in the underlined sentence above.

You believe in a twisted interpretation of what you claim is proof of theory - it isn't in any way - It's apparent that you are running on your own belief based system while claiming something called "non-belief-ism" has scientific validity.

Does the following need any "twisting", such that belief is observed as that which facilities ignorance of evidence?

Article:
"People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies (Evans, 1989; Gilovich, 1991; Johnson-Laird, 2006; Nickerson, 2008). People, for example, tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their belief and be overly influenced by this information, but neglect information that is critical of their belief (Nickerson, 1998, 2008)."

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I have done so in the underlined sentence above.

You believe in a twisted interpretation of what you claim is proof of theory - it isn't in any way - It's apparent that you are running on your own belief based system while claiming something called "non-belief-ism" has scientific validity.

Here is yet another researched sequence.

Again, what portion of the following requires "twisting", such that belief facilitates that one ignores evidence?

That "the interaction between belief and evidence" is not simple, does not remove that "people tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their belief and be overly influenced by this information, but neglect information that is critical of their belief".

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Extended further;

Real scientists with peer reviewed papers that have been published quote other real scientists with peer reviewed papers that have been published.

Fake Scientists with questionable degrees and papers that only appear on their own websites quote themselves and other like minded fake scientists.

Regardless of my degree's status, belief is observed to facilitate that beings ignore information critical of said beliefs, as is evidenced, and as is long underlined in nonbeliefism.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

@JayUtah

I had for years observed data, whether such appeared to support non-beliefism or not.
Here are some other papers/articles that had been encountered:


(1)
"In an uncertain and ambiguous world, effective decision making requires that subjects form and maintain a belief about the correctness of their choices, a process called meta-cognition..... It is important to mention that in this paper it is not claimed that belief is explicit, conscious or readily accessible for verbal report."

Paper above[url] occurs on a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference]bayesian description of belief, in the regime of probabilities; a "formalism" entitled "p(z=k|x,d=k)".

Related 'human choice suboptimality' 2-years later paper from an author on the prior paper:
"In such conditions, human choices resemble optimal Bayesian inference, but typically show a large suboptimal variability whose origin remains poorly understood".

The bayesian aligned 'belief' is shown to carry 'large suboptimality'...





(2)
Wikipedia is not complete, but Wikipedia's data distribution is non-trivial.
Wikipedia neuroscience analysis reveals a single paper that clearly refers to belief.

"...Recalling is, in some degree, always falsely believed, for a given recall is never exactly
like the original experience and goes through various modifications without our awareness, so much so that we falsely believe that memories
represent events exactly the way we experienced them."






(3)
"Half of People Believe Fake Facts"

http://neurosciencenews.com/false-memory-facts-psychology-5698/



...

 

[JayUtah]

Lest both versions fail to express the same outcome, I shall not make any such retraction.

You deliberately misquoted me, attributing to me things I never said and do not believe. And you will not retract your misrepresentation. We are essentially done here, as you seem to have affirmed an intent to be dishonest in this debate. To put this in context, had you deliberately misquoted your source like this in an academic exercise in my class, you would immediately have earned a failing grade.

That beings "weigh contradictory data", does not suddenly warrant that they don't ignore evidence.

Your posts have devolved largely to this, where you note contravening evidence and simply declare that it doesn't matter to your theory. You are gravely misrepresenting the activities described in your sources, which clearly describe various approaches to reconciling conflicting evidence. Your theory offers the comically simplistic notion that evidence always tells only one story.

So no such "burden of proof" reversal occurred.

Nonsense. You are demanding that people affirmatively disprove you. You are demanding that they provide academic references that explicitly refute your specific claims. No one is under any obligation to provide only the kind of rebuttal you ask for, especially when it's a patently absurd request.

Do you garner that science is true whether or not one believes in it?

I don't agree that the relationship between belief and science is accurately captured in your question. I will not answer it as such. Formal scientific inquiry involves safeguards designed to minimize -- and if possible, eliminate -- any subjective role in the process. Statements such "science is true" allude to that process, but do so in a way that serves more as a slogan or rallying call than as an accurate depiction of the scientific method. Science is neither "true" nor "false" in any such simplistic sense.

You have dismissed scientific practice as irrelevant to your theory. But it is, in fact, via scientific practice that the scientific method actually produces its results. There is no science without scientific practice. Scientific practice, as a human pursuit, is not entirely free of bias, dishonesty, and entrenchment. Over time the products of these effects diminishes, but they can be seen in snapshot observations.

 

[JayUtah]

@JayUtah, a curious question:

All standard dictionaries (including google) express a flavour of belief, that ensues such that beings especially ignore evidence.
Are they all invalid?

Asked and answered. There are no "standard" dictionaries in the sense that any one of them is canonically approved in some way to dictate meaning. Further, I already discussed at length how dictionary definitions relate to your theory and to the line of reasoning in it. Consult that discussion to find your answer.

 

[JayUtah]

Generally, people tend to express confirmation bias, such that prior beliefs are maintained regardless of evidence.

Such is unavoidable.

It's either unavoidable or it's a tendency. It cannot be both.

I need not manufacture any such speculation.

But in fact you did, whether you believe you needed to or not. You speculated in one case that the reason your critics didn't accept your theory was that they were taking cocaine. In another case you asked your critics a series of questions which you later disclosed were an attempt to discover what "kind of brain" would reject your theory. These were speculative exercises to rationalize away the fact that seemingly intelligent people nevertheless disagreed with your argument. That fact is evidence which challenges your belief that your theory is rational and correct. You didn't ignore the evidence that your belief was unfounded; you just rationalized around it by speculating reasons why your critics' evaluation might not be as probative as it seemed. That is, you let your belief drive you to adjust late-stage evidence to conform to it. You didn't let the evidence sway your belief.

Also, as the article mentions, beyond the scope of initial beliefs, people tend to ignore evidence.

No. Despite your pidgin readings, the material you've presented here describes a spectrum of behavior regarding belief and evidence. It does not fall into your simplistic bifurcation. In fact, your theory cannot even explain your own behavior. At this point it is clear you are unwilling to adopt any reading of the data that does not conform to the conclusions you drew before encountering it. You are simply repeating the same declarative statements over and over. I have no desire to follow you in a tight circle of ipse dixit.

That "the interaction between belief and evidence" is not simple, does not remove that "people tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their belief...

That people tend toward or away from some behaviors exactly supports the notion that a simplistic theory cannot thoroughly explain it. As I stated, your argument has devolved into simply regurgitating non sequiturs and is no longer effectively addressing the points raised.

As such, no burden of proof reversal occurred, as I had long provided evidence.

It is possible for you to both present evidence and also demand specific affirmative counterclaims, inappropriately so, from your critics. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[JayUtah]

Here are some other papers/articles that had been encountered...

But you cannot demonstrate proficiency in the relevant sciences such that a reader can be confident you have understood these materials as they were intended and have put them in a proper context. Nor should the reader have confidence in your research methods. Under color of a literature search, you have once again provided only a smattering of general reference, popular writing, and self-published research. You insinuate that you have conducted a proper literature search, but you clearly have not.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

But you cannot demonstrate proficiency in the relevant sciences such that a reader can be confident you have understood these materials as they were intended and have put them in a proper context. Nor should the reader have confidence in your research methods. Under color of a literature search, you have once again provided only a smattering of general reference, popular writing, and self-published research. You insinuate that you have conducted a proper literature search, but you clearly have not.

(1) The above are not "self-published' research. (See the authors)

(2) I need not distort the publications in anyway, that is left to the reader.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Your posts have devolved largely to this, where you note contravening evidence and simply declare that it doesn't matter to your theory. You are gravely misrepresenting the activities described in your sources, which clearly describe various approaches to reconciling conflicting evidence. Your theory offers the comically simplistic notion that evidence always tells only one story.

Let me be a bit clearer:

That beings may weigh contravening evidence may permit that one strongly consider evidence.

However, as I had long been stating, that beings ignore evidence altogether, such that new information is distorted betwixt old beliefs, is what generally occurs, as is evident.

Article: "Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information, means that knowledge received after the initial judgment may be distorted to fit the original hypothesis."

Nonsense. You are demanding that people affirmatively disprove you. You are demanding that they provide academic references that explicitly refute your specific claims. No one is under any obligation to provide only the kind of rebuttal you ask for, especially when it's a patently absurd request.

Can you please provide evidence?

You can either deny my polite request, or proceed to speak absent evidence.

I have been actively searching for scientific data, so, it would be intriguing/surprising to finally encounter data that disregards nonbeliefism's premise.

Do you garner that science is true whether or not one believes in it?

I don't agree that the relationship between belief and science is accurately captured in your question. I will not answer it as such. Formal scientific inquiry involves safeguards designed to minimize -- and if possible, eliminate -- any subjective role in the process. Statements such "science is true" allude to that process, but do so in a way that serves more as a slogan or rallying call than as an accurate depiction of the scientific method. Science is neither "true" nor "false" in any such simplistic sense.

You have dismissed scientific practice as irrelevant to your theory. But it is, in fact, via scientific practice that the scientific method actually produces its results. There is no science without scientific practice. Scientific practice, as a human pursuit, is not entirely free of bias, dishonesty, and entrenchment. Over time the products of these effects diminishes, but they can be seen in snapshot observations.

Why bother to lie (especially when all our posts are here to witness)?
I had not demised any such practice.

What I mentioned, was that scientists (not all now) may neglect science.

However, that scientists may sometimes neglect science, does not suddenly warrant that science especially concerns non-evidence. This distinguishes scientific methodology, from belief, as is evident.