Evolution of Thought

[arahant]

So, I'm browsing around, and find a creationist site that made an interesting (if unintentionally ironic) argument:

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, not being able to correct false thinking is another blow against evolution. The theory of natural selection should conclude that humans should be able to easily correct false thinking because it is the most beneficial approach, but they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, when I find something weird about any animal, I usually look for the evolutionary answer (yep...that's right guys...I am BIASED). I confess to having a little trouble with this one (in fairness, it's been 2 minutes, and I'm drunk).

Anyone care to expound on the benefits of the persistence of beliefs?

[vhawk01]

"False thinking" is a ridiculously loaded phrase. Can you give me an example of what they might mean by false thinking?

Let me try one. Attributing agency to inanimate things, such as lightning, or broken escalators, or the stupid [censored] coffee table that I just stubbed my toe on. This is false thinking, quite obviously, since the lightning is not out to get us. But think about the system that this false thinking is a greater part of. It is generally beneficial to immediately assume agency to things around you, since mistakes of the kind we are talking about cause embarrassment, and the other kind of mistake (ignoring potential agency from, say, a mountain lion) cause death. So, the system is set up to err WAY on the side of caution.

A lot of errors in perception/judgement, so called 'false thinking,' is easily explainable under this paradigm.

However, I don't know exactly what type you are talking about. There are similarly good explanations for why people think the odds of my mother calling me just when I was thinking about her are about the same as the odds of my mother having a psychic connection to me and subtly being able to read my thoughts. And so on.

[Phil153]

Equivalent argument: People should have a dog-like sense of smell, since it would convey huge advantages in avoiding predators, finding food, reading emotions, finding water in dry conditions, and so on.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, not being able to correct false thinking is another blow against evolution. The theory of natural selection should conclude that humans should be able to easily correct false thinking because it is the most beneficial approach, but they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two problems:

1. Just because is beneficial, doesn't mean we would have it. There are a million beneficial traits that humans could have, and don't.

2. Who says that correcting false thinking was a benefit to our ancestors? The selection pressure in ancient tribes would have been on things like virility, strength, size, social abilities, etc. You only have to observe the reproductive success (closing the deal) of stupid 6'2" water polo players vs uber intelligent nerds (Sklansky notwithstanding) to see that the reproductive advantage of intelligence and clear thinking is fairly slim.

[kerowo]

There is a big skeptic who talks about this a bit in "Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things." Arguing that basically early dudes were really good at pattern mapping, which helped finding food and spotting predators, however finding patterns also came in handy in seeing Devils in fires, animals in clouds, and other things that aren't really there. Sometimes bad things that don't provide any advantages get carried along with good things that do.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a big skeptic who talks about this a bit in "Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things." Arguing that basically early dudes were really good at pattern mapping, which helped finding food and spotting predators, however finding patterns also came in handy in seeing Devils in fires, animals in clouds, and other things that aren't really there. Sometimes bad things that don't provide any advantages get carried along with good things that do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic Magazine. I'd recommend this book. Its good, not great, but it does have some funny, interesting anecdotes, and provides a little bit of explanation and evidence. He's apparently coming out with a sequel to this sometime soon.

[soon2bepro]

phil FTW

Good reply

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
phil FTW

Good reply

[/ QUOTE ]

I am impressed by the excellent points in this thread.

I've gotten this kind of question several times in class and I never thought to use the predator-prey example thylacine did. I'll be using that one next time. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I'm browsing around, and find a creationist site that made an interesting (if unintentionally ironic) argument:

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, not being able to correct false thinking is another blow against evolution. The theory of natural selection should conclude that humans should be able to easily correct false thinking because it is the most beneficial approach, but they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, when I find something weird about any animal, I usually look for the evolutionary answer (yep...that's right guys...I am BIASED). I confess to having a little trouble with this one (in fairness, it's been 2 minutes, and I'm drunk).

Anyone care to expound on the benefits of the persistence of beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

By the same argument, predators should always succeed in catching their prey, and the prey should always succeed in escaping.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, I'm browsing around, and find a creationist site that made an interesting (if unintentionally ironic) argument:

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, not being able to correct false thinking is another blow against evolution. The theory of natural selection should conclude that humans should be able to easily correct false thinking because it is the most beneficial approach, but they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, when I find something weird about any animal, I usually look for the evolutionary answer (yep...that's right guys...I am BIASED). I confess to having a little trouble with this one (in fairness, it's been 2 minutes, and I'm drunk).

Anyone care to expound on the benefits of the persistence of beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

By the same argument, predators should always succeed in catching their prey, and the prey should always succeed in escaping.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple points:
first, I don't take it as an 'argument' for creation/evolution one way or the other, and there is no argument on that anyway...I don't want to get into another retarded creation fight. It's not like it's a close call or something.

I think some of you guys are just being argumentative, too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. The predator/prey example just isn't analagous. Prey ARE well-adapted to get away, and predators ARE well-adapted to catch them, and there are obviously competing interests. There may be competing interests here, too, but it's not immediately apparent to me what they are.

I certainly understand the benefits of pattern recognition and agency attribution, but I what I am ASKING is why are those beliefs so resistant to change.

To Vhawk - I don't know exactly what beliefs would be covered (obviously, the site thinks evolution is one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ), but basically, anything where an individual is holding a belief against substantial evidence. Astrology, creationism, demons, etc...

There seems to be a very strong desire on the part of many people to absolutely refuse to even look at any evidence, and if it is thrown in their face, they ignore it. This applies in all sorts of smaller areas, too. Once I decide Bob is out to get me at work, I tend to hold that idea very firmly. Once I decide that I'm good poker player, I can't let that go until I'm broke. Once I decide I'm ugly or undesirable or stupid I'll start to ignore personal interactions that conflict with my belief.

This tendency to not change one's mind is so obviously there and so strong, that I find it hard to believe it doesn't confer some sort of advantage. It's not a minor point about human psychology, but a HUGE driver of EVERYBODY'S belief systems.

[PairTheBoard]

I was thrown off by your link to a Creationist site. If you didn't want that to muddle the discussion you could have just brought the topic up without the link. But I see what you're getting at now.

I suppose stubbornness in applying a belief that has proved successful in the past is helpful in terms of Persistence. You only have to give a dog scraps from the table once. You can deny him all you want after that, but he will persentently try to achieve the same success again. And his persistence will often pay off.

PairTheBoard