Thinking Clearly About Religion & Politics

When it comes to hot topics that are emotionally volatile, it is almost impossible to think clearly about them. We are prone to so many biases that I have come to think that the more certain someone is about their position, the more likely it is that they don’t know what they are talking about. I am not the first to make this observation though, Bertrand Russell said “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” Charles Darwin also observed that “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”

I first realized this several years ago when I was asked to be the “token skeptic” on an evangelical Christian radio show out of San Diego. Very quickly, it became quite clear to me that the host knew one side of an argument, and had absolutely no idea what he was talking about regarding the other side. What bothered me so much about this was his certainty. He was absolutely 100% convinced he was right, and completely closed off to reconsidering that he might not be familiar enough with the relevant topics to make an informed decision.

Of course, I was convinced of the truth of other side of the argument. However, I couldn’t even imagine being so certain. In my mind, when thinking about my positions, I used words such as “likely”, “probable” and “suggested” and I would always try to have an example of something that, if true, could disprove my position. The host, on the other hand, spoke in terms of absolute certainty, and acted as if the fact that nothing could change his mind was evidence of how true his position was. It was then that I decided to NEVER let myself be so certain about something.

The theory of cognitive dissonance says that when there are contradicting ideas in our head, or if our behavior disagrees with our actions, we will rationalize it away as to no longer experience the dissonance. For example, the more work you put into something, the harder it is to admit that you might have made a mistake. “I have devoted my life to this… there is no way I could be wrong! My colleagues are just idiots.” Science is aware of this problem, and that is the reason there are things such as peer review, and the emphasis on independent replication of studies. Even movies do this to a small extent. The editor of a movie doesn't (ideally) have ANY part of the production aspect of the movie. He needs to be completely removed from the work that went into filming, in order to make the best decisions while editing. If the director is editing, he might see a shot and say “Ah! We spent 10 hours setting up that shot… we HAVE to use it”, even if it isn’t the best available option. The editor won’t be prone to those biases.

Now, you might be thinking “Sure, Zak. Some people are like that. But I know both sides of political/religious/etc. debates, and my opinions are firmly planted in reality.” Well, maybe. Let’s look at a relevant study:

A study by Geoffrey Cohen found that people would agree with a political policy, as long as they thought that it was their political party proposing it. For example, Cohen took a policy regarding welfare that was proposed by a republican, and presented it to a group of democrats. He told the democrats that the policy was proposed by a democratic leader, and asked if they agreed with it. Yep, they did. He then took a welfare policy proposed by a democrat, and presented it to a group of republicans, telling them it was from a republican leader. Did they agree with it? Absolutely.

But it gets better. Both groups stated that they would NEVER be influenced to agree with a policy, simply because their party was proposing it. Of course, they didn’t realize it at the time, but they had done just that. They did agree, however, that the OTHER party surely would be influenced by such tricks.

What this study (as well as others like it) shows us, is that our opinions of political policies have very little to do with the actual policy, but are mostly just a result of social identity. You are part of party X, so you agree with whatever they say… unless of course that same thing was said party Y. THEN you are against it.

Here is a real life example. Democrats agree with Obama, no surprise. However when Reagan says the same thing, with Republicans agree with him. There is little doubt that those same Republicans disagree with the Obama's similar statements, simply because he is Obama. How is this possible? Social identity.

Lastly, a 2004 study placed “strong democrats" and “strong republicans" in a brain scanner while they listened to speeches by president Bush and presidential candidate John Kerry. Both groups listened to instances where the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. The democrats would blame Bush for the contradictions, but let Kerry off the hook with some mental gymnastics. The republicans did the same thing. What was most interesting though, were the processes going on in the brain at the time. The researcher concluded, “We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning. What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts. Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.”

Do you hold the positions you hold because you have thought them through, or because they feel good? According to the study, the answer is the later. You agree with a position for emotional reasons and THEN come up with reasons to support your stance.

So what now? Are we just to fall back into a sea of postmodern relativism where there is no truth, and there is no way to go about making decisions, since we are too overwhelmed with bias? Absolutely not. What needs to happen is for people to be aware of these biases and act accordingly to try and circumvent them. Here are some tips on how I think one should go about it.

1. Whenever you hear a politician from the other party say something that you don’t like, stop for a second. Imagine your reaction to it if it had been stated by your favorite politician, and think about how you would feel about it (and vice versa-- do this if your favorite politician says something you like). I have used this tactic for several years, and it is amazing to see just how biased I really am when it comes to who says what. But this technique has also helped me define where exactly I stand on what issues.
   
2. Realize where the biases in the media are. Research has shown that the most left of center news outlet is the CBS Evening News, while the most right of center is Fox. The three most neutral outlets were PBS’s NewsHour, CNN’s NewsNight and ABC’s Good Morning America. However, the most politically central news source of all was found to be USA Today. If watching the news, try and find a balance and take everything from the CBS Evening News and Fox with a grain of salt. Or, do as I do, and don’t even bother with them to begin with!
3. Make an effort to understand and fairly represent the other side’s position. The mathematical psychologist, Anatol Rapoport, said that when it comes to criticizing your opponent, you need to be able to restate their position so clearly, vividly and fairly, that your opponent would absolutely agree with it, and would even thank you for stating the position so well. Once you have done this, only then will your criticisms be valid. So when thinking about how foolish the other side's position is, ask yourself "if I were to describe my understanding of the other groups position to them, would they agree with my assessment?" If the answer is no, you are biased, and need to rethink your position more carefully.
   
4. Avoid organizations, clubs or groups that are solely dedicated to a political or religious idea. Nothing breeds biases more than being surrounded by people who already agree with you, will pat you on the back for slamming the other side, who won’t offer you any criticisms, and will reward you for continuing to believe what everyone else already believes. Of course, I realize that this is basically saying “if you want to be an unbiased religious believer, stop going to church.” And I stand by that. Likewise, I avoid any atheist or skeptic groups, since I have learned that they don’t help me think better, but only serve to reinforce beliefs I already have-- even if they are wrong. Ask yourself, “What is more important, fooling yourself into thinking you are right, or actually being right?” Being objective is hard, and very few people care much about it.
5. Have friends on the other side of the fence, be it political or religious. It is easy to get caught up and think that “all democrats are idiots” or “all republicans are greedy.” We slip into these “us versus them” mindsets extremely easily, and it’s important to realize that people on the other side are just as convinced of their position that you are. It is also important to have an actual face with the position you are against, as not to make the other side out into some abstract villain.

Of course, I don’t mean to come across as some perfectly rational machine. I surely am not. However, I am very interested in learning what biases effect people, and I realize that I am just as susceptible to them as everyone else. Though, knowing these biases exist absolutely helps me fight against them, in an attempt to be just a little more rational. To quote GI Joe, “knowing is half the battle.” The other half is putting that knowledge into practice.

Good luck!

A History of Ridiculous Ideas: Aliens!

People often tease me because I always seem to come up with ridiculous theories to explain all sorts of random stuff (like why guys are jerks and girls are stupid). However, this tendency is not new. Ever since I was a little kid, I would always think of crazy ways to explain the world, or come up with ideas that seemed quite logical at the time, only to be quite absurd. This is one of those ideas...

---

For the majority of my life, I was terrified of being abducted by aliens. It seems that when people have a fear about something, they tend to either obsess over it, or make every effort to avoid anything associated with it. As for myself, I fell into the former group—I was basically obsessed. All I would read were books about aliens, UFOs and the paranormal. I would watch everything I could find about aliens, and the best thing about staying in a hotel was that I could watch the Discovery Channel, which always had something about aliens and UFOs.

Sometime in middle school, I came up with a theory of what aliens were all about and what was going on. Basically, aliens were just humans from the future, coming back to study us. They were probably anthropologists or something. Anyway, the reason that the aliens had overly large heads, and huge eyes was because that was not the actual head of the alien, but was their helmet. And their large eyes were not actually eyes, but were just the eye lenses in the helmet. They were large to help accommodate peripheral vision. And aliens dressed all the same simply because that was their space suit.

As for the idea of aliens not being able to visit earth because the vast distances of space were too large, I agree that that was probably true. But if these aliens were actually just humans from the future, they weren’t traveling and large distances—they were only traveling through time. This also explained why the alien space ships seemed to shoot off and then disappear. It was just like on Back to the Future, the time machine would hit 88 mph, then BAM, it vanishes!

As for why they were coming and abducting people… well, whenever we study any animal, we don’t really tend to sympathize with it too much. Think of apes, we just snatch them from the jungle, put them in a box and ship them away. Likewise with the future humans, they are so far removed from us, that they don’t feel any kinship with us, so they treat us like we treat animals.

And with that, my “theory” explained everything (as far as I could tell) and solved all the problems with the idea of beings from another galaxy coming to visit us. However, as it turns out, these ideas turned out not to be all that original. I watched “Fire in the Sky” while in college, and saw that the idea of the stereotypical alien “look” (big heads, big eyes) being a result of their space suits had already been thought of. And I am sure the whole “time traveling human from the future” isn’t original idea. But hey, I was only a middle schooler. Gimme a break!