What really, really bugs me about some people is their total inability to acknowledge that they may be wrong about some part of their world view.
Collectively humanity does not know everything. No one human could know everything simply because it would take too long to learn everything and then there is the issue of comprehension of basic facts.
So why are some people absolutists when the position is unsupportable?
Yes, it certainly does annoy me when people don't understand they might be wrong about stuff. I don't care what your dictionary says about how I speeled that word. I don't care if I used 'then' rather then using 'than'. I don't care what your grammar book says. If your book disagrees with me, it's wrong! I don't understand why people just don't get that I'm a pretty big deal.
I've thought about this a lot, which means that I must be right because of all that thnking about it. Also I argued with a bunch of people the seemed not too interested but I'll take their disinterest for acceptance. All the things I've experienced lead me to my belief system so even though I have no solid evidence, other people must provide solid, undeniable and contrary evidence to my belief system in order for me to change. I assume that I'm right, otherwise why would I even offer up any opinions, and even though I'm only assuming, I'm also assuming that my assumptions are spot on.
All that is why I started to avoid any belief system. Belief systems get in the way of understanding reality. Another problem I found with myself is that being right was less important than never being wrong. Now I'd rather be right than never be wrong, so I must not only be willing to accept when I'm wrong and either drop or repair it, but I must not be emotionally attached to anything that I accept (which has never been much of an issue for me).
Other than that, there is a ballance that must be attained between willingness to change and not letting people walk all over you. I've found that only accepting what I understand and has supporting evidence is the best approach because not only does it allow me to defend against irrational attacks with actual understanding and knowledge, but it also prevents me from blindly accepting anything. If someone wishes to attack what I accept, then they're not going up against my opinion, but scientific theories and empirical evidence.
So maybe I just babbled instead of directly answering the question with my opinion, so here it is: denial of one's own fallibility is a defense mechanism, it prevents one from constantly changing what one accepts as reality at the whims of other people. However when taken to the extreme of thinking that one is right no matter how many fallacies and bare assertions a person finds in one's argument, it just makes one look like a tool.
I think it's cultural encapsulation of the mind. Like in our concept of incest. Minds are encapsulated from even imagining having sex with one's close relative. The mind must not even think about it. To say that some cultures allow incest is seen as absolutely abnormal. That's how I see it on a sociological POV.
Quote from: Davin on June 16, 2011, 04:39:02 PM
I've thought about this a lot, which means that I must be right because of all that thnking about it. Also I argued with a bunch of people the seemed not too interested but I'll take their disinterest for acceptance. All the things I've experienced lead me to my belief system so even though I have no solid evidence, other people must provide solid, undeniable and contrary evidence to my belief system in order for me to change. I assume that I'm right, otherwise why would I even offer up any opinions, and even though I'm only assuming, I'm also assuming that my assumptions are spot on.
All that is why I started to avoid any belief system. Belief systems get in the way of understanding reality. Another problem I found with myself is that being right was less important than never being wrong. Now I'd rather be right than never be wrong, so I must not only be willing to accept when I'm wrong and either drop or repair it, but I must not be emotionally attached to anything that I accept (which has never been much of an issue for me).
Other than that, there is a ballance that must be attained between willingness to change and not letting people walk all over you. I've found that only accepting what I understand and has supporting evidence is the best approach because not only does it allow me to defend against irrational attacks with actual understanding and knowledge, but it also prevents me from blindly accepting anything. If someone wishes to attack what I accept, then they're not going up against my opinion, but scientific theories and empirical evidence.
So maybe I just babbled instead of directly answering the question with my opinion, so here it is: denial of one's own fallibility is a defense mechanism, it prevents one from constantly changing what one accepts as reality at the whims of other people. However when taken to the extreme of thinking that one is right no matter how many fallacies and bare assertions a person finds in one's argument, it just makes one look like a tool.
Took a couple of readings to get that, but it is a very good answer.
Personally I immediately distrust anybody who says 'I know this!", because what almost always follows is a pile of BS. On the other hand, somebody who starts along the lines of 'I think this (xyz) is valid, because of (abc), what do you think?', is usually worth having a discussion with as they are taking a third party standpoint about 'xyz', are willing to back up their view with evidence 'abc' and indicate that they are capable of modifying their view 'xyz' in light of additional evidence or discussion.
I also feel that too many people see 'winning the argument' as the point of discussion. I don't, I discuss to further my knowledge of the subject at hand. I tend to start a discussion from the point of view that my current knowledge/understanding is incomplete/flawed and what follows will either reinforce my current understanding or modify it in some way.
I loath people who consider their world view as correct and expect people to be able to 'knock it down!' And in particular this is an issue with theists (of any type) who approach a discussion in a self-righteous, holier than though, I'm right fuck you!, manner. They are the scum of humanity to my mind. They abrogate any intellectual respect.
Quote from: wildfire_emissary on June 20, 2011, 02:45:35 AM
I think it's cultural encapsulation of the mind. Like in our concept of incest. Minds are encapsulated from even imagining having sex with one's close relative. The mind must not even think about it. To say that some cultures allow incest is seen as absolutely abnormal. That's how I see it on a sociological POV.
Don't really understand that. Would you mind having another go please.
Quote from: wildfire_emissary on June 20, 2011, 02:45:35 AM
I think it's cultural encapsulation of the mind. Like in our concept of incest. Minds are encapsulated from even imagining having sex with one's close relative. The mind must not even think about it. To say that some cultures allow incest is seen as absolutely abnormal. That's how I see it on a sociological POV.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, but there has been at least one study into this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_08.html
This suggests that people (well women in this study), are naturally not attracted to people that are too closely related, so it may be more of a biological thing than a belief system or otherwise biased blockage.
The immensity of choice is crippling to some people. When we were in school and the teacher gave an open assignment. I.e. write a paper on anything you want to. Draw a picture of whatever you want. Many students were crippled by the immensity of the possibilities. As the teacher whittled this away more and more student become more and more comfortable even if the subject matter was not of particular interest to them. It is in this regard that I believe that tenacious meaning systems are derived. Without a rule book the endless possibilities and potential meaninglessness of everything becomes too overwhelming. These people find safety and solace in restricting the possibilities for reality and even more comfort in the justification of their choices "because the teacher said so". Anger is a defensive manifestation of deep sadness, fear or pain. That is why fundamentalists become so enraged when their belief system is challenged. They are terrified of the endless possibilities.
Quote from: Tank on June 20, 2011, 10:28:30 AM
Quote from: wildfire_emissary on June 20, 2011, 02:45:35 AM
I think it's cultural encapsulation of the mind. Like in our concept of incest. Minds are encapsulated from even imagining having sex with one's close relative. The mind must not even think about it. To say that some cultures allow incest is seen as absolutely abnormal. That's how I see it on a sociological POV.
Don't really understand that. Would you mind having another go please.
Sorry about that. I should've expounded on the context.
Before being colonized by Spain and its eventual Christianization, there were indigenous communities in the Philippines who practiced endogamy, which allowed for incestuous relationships, and these people who arrived in the islands were close relatives. After the Christianization of these communities, monogamy was established as the norm and incest regarded as taboo by the newly-acquired religion. Now, I am not saying that it was the church which provided for this kind morality. When they were practicing incest no one questioned its morality. They thought it was right. And when the Christians came, they were forced to take it as wrong. I am glad Davin cited a study on evolution and incest because we can now at least say that whether the church declared incest immoral or not, it might have naturally died as a culture. Here, there is this culture of prohibiting incest for religious moral reasons.
I am comparing this culture of the mind being encapsulated from external (internal even) questioning. You cannot ask or even think about it. Incest as a taboo is an infallible moral knowledge. Nobody can change it.
Quote from: wildfire_emissary on June 21, 2011, 01:17:34 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 20, 2011, 10:28:30 AM
Quote from: wildfire_emissary on June 20, 2011, 02:45:35 AM
I think it's cultural encapsulation of the mind. Like in our concept of incest. Minds are encapsulated from even imagining having sex with one's close relative. The mind must not even think about it. To say that some cultures allow incest is seen as absolutely abnormal. That's how I see it on a sociological POV.
Don't really understand that. Would you mind having another go please.
Sorry about that. I should've expounded on the context.
Before being colonized by Spain and its eventual Christianization, there were indigenous communities in the Philippines who practiced endogamy, which allowed for incestuous relationships, and these people who arrived in the islands were close relatives. After the Christianization of these communities, monogamy was established as the norm and incest regarded as taboo by the newly-acquired religion. Now, I am not saying that it was the church which provided for this kind morality. When they were practicing incest no one questioned its morality. They thought it was right. And when the Christians came, they were forced to take it as wrong. I am glad Davin cited a study on evolution and incest because we can now at least say that whether the church declared incest immoral or not, it might have naturally died as a culture. Here, there is this culture of prohibiting incest for religious moral reasons.
I am comparing this culture of the mind being encapsulated from external (internal even) questioning. You cannot ask or even think about it. Incest as a taboo is an infallible moral knowledge. Nobody can change it.
I think there are clear biological arguments against incest which is the higher probability of inheriting genes that would not be favourable (or favourable) and subsequent lack of biological variability which makes a group with close kinship genetically vulnerable to selective forces as a group, but socially, at least in certain familial situations (with very large businesses to their names) or groups turning in on themselves you might say (make sense?) when other purely social factors come into play.
It's more difficult to justify why it and a host of other things would be "infallible moral knowledge" based on social or even divine arguments.
Quote from: Twentythree on June 20, 2011, 11:00:58 PM
The immensity of choice is crippling to some people. When we were in school and the teacher gave an open assignment. I.e. write a paper on anything you want to. Draw a picture of whatever you want. Many students were crippled by the immensity of the possibilities. As the teacher whittled this away more and more student become more and more comfortable even if the subject matter was not of particular interest to them. It is in this regard that I believe that tenacious meaning systems are derived. Without a rule book the endless possibilities and potential meaninglessness of everything becomes too overwhelming. These people find safety and solace in restricting the possibilities for reality and even more comfort in the justification of their choices "because the teacher said so".
I always saw that as people getting too used to doing what their teachers told them to do...
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2011, 10:06:18 AM
What really, really bugs me about some people is their total inability to acknowledge that they may be wrong about some part of their world view.
Collectively humanity does not know everything. No one human could know everything simply because it would take too long to learn everything and then there is the issue of comprehension of basic facts.
So why are some people absolutists when the position is unsupportable?
It matters to see what part of their worldview you're referring to here...is it their predominantly emotional religious views? Those are ways to cheat death and such a thing is not easily let go of by minds who are aware that they will die and have been taught/programmed to believe that anything less than eternal life and themselves being created in the image of the creator of the vast universe means meaninglessness and existential anxiety.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 21, 2011, 08:11:09 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2011, 10:06:18 AM
What really, really bugs me about some people is their total inability to acknowledge that they may be wrong about some part of their world view.
Collectively humanity does not know everything. No one human could know everything simply because it would take too long to learn everything and then there is the issue of comprehension of basic facts.
So why are some people absolutists when the position is unsupportable?
It matters to see what part of their worldview you're referring to here...is it their predominantly emotional religious views? Those are ways to cheat death and such a thing is not easily let go of by minds who are aware that they will die and have been taught/programmed to believe that anything less than eternal life and themselves being created in the image of the creator of the vast universe means meaninglessness and existential anxiety.
In my experience the people who I would consider absolutists are also theists/deists of some kind, not exclusively but predominantly. More often than not their emotional attachments to their world view overrides their ability to hold a view that has any scepticism of their position whatsoever. I'm being careful not to be absolutist about theists though because a) I have not met all theists (and never could), b) I have come across a few that have claimed they would concede their world view could be changed (although in practice this has proved to be a hollow claim).
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2011, 10:06:18 AM
Collectively humanity does not know everything. No one human could know everything simply because it would take too long to learn everything and then there is the issue of comprehension of basic facts.
Are you sure?
Quote from: Will37 on June 22, 2011, 08:04:00 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2011, 10:06:18 AM
Collectively humanity does not know everything. No one human could know everything simply because it would take too long to learn everything and then there is the issue of comprehension of basic facts.
Are you sure?
Yep. As we continue to discover new things we cannot know everything can we?
I think this attitude has more to do with nurture and is the route of racism, homophobia, sexism and the other negative views of the same ilk as well as the thousands of theistic worldviews. None of these points of view have any factual research to back up any of there claims yet still hang to the irrational views - cherry picking information that supports what they have been taught.
At the route of this attitude I think its seeds are planted by a mix of elders, peers, the education system, the media, and living in a segregated society. For one example; with the education system we have all been exposed to the irrational fear of being incorrect, schools use this method of teaching combined with a model of right and wrong to try and make students acquire better grades to improve funding and the nations education statistics. If we apply this fear of being wrong with a black and white perspective with the indoctrination of a certain worldview and other external stimuli suggesting that this may be correct, naturally that person is going to believe this view is right. When a viewpoint formed in such a deep way is challenged its not just an attack on an opinion but an attack on that person, there parents, peers, and community.
@Crow: I agree with you. Though I would recommend not using my endorsement because my agreement is based on anecdotal evidence.
Quote from: TankIn my experience the people who I would consider absolutists are also theists/deists of some kind, not exclusively but predominantly. More often than not their emotional attachments to their world view overrides their ability to hold a view that has any scepticism of their position whatsoever. I'm being careful not to be absolutist about theists though because a) I have not met all theists (and never could), b) I have come across a few that have claimed they would concede their world view could be changed (although in practice this has proved to be a hollow claim).
I tend to agree with this. That having been said, we're often blind to fault with those who share our opinions. That's a weakness that none of us are above. I've met plenty of atheists who like to throw words like 'objective' 'rational' 'logical' around with very little idea of what they actually mean, and this recent Atheist movement has begun to look dangerously like a massive circle-jerk in certain corners of cyberspace. Here, people don't seem to have their heads too far up each others arses. But there are other atheist forums around which cultivate some incredibly arrogant, hypocritical attitudes - where the members are so smugly certain of their intellectual highground it make me want to yank something's teeth out.
Quote from: Melmoth on June 28, 2011, 01:19:06 PM
Quote from: TankIn my experience the people who I would consider absolutists are also theists/deists of some kind, not exclusively but predominantly. More often than not their emotional attachments to their world view overrides their ability to hold a view that has any scepticism of their position whatsoever. I'm being careful not to be absolutist about theists though because a) I have not met all theists (and never could), b) I have come across a few that have claimed they would concede their world view could be changed (although in practice this has proved to be a hollow claim).
I tend to agree with this. That having been said, we're often blind to fault with those who share our opinions. That's a weakness that none of us are above. I've met plenty of atheists who like to throw words like 'objective' 'rational' 'logical' around with very little idea of what they actually mean, and this recent Atheist movement has begun to look dangerously like a massive circle-jerk in certain corners of cyberspace. Here, people don't seem to have their heads too far up each others arses. But there are other atheist forums around which cultivate some incredibly arrogant, hypocritical attitudes - where the members are so smugly certain of their intellectual highground it make me want to yank something's teeth out.
I agree. Arrogance is a personal trait that knows no ideological boundaries.
Quote from: Tank on June 28, 2011, 02:06:55 PM
Quote from: Melmoth on June 28, 2011, 01:19:06 PM
Quote from: TankIn my experience the people who I would consider absolutists are also theists/deists of some kind, not exclusively but predominantly. More often than not their emotional attachments to their world view overrides their ability to hold a view that has any scepticism of their position whatsoever. I'm being careful not to be absolutist about theists though because a) I have not met all theists (and never could), b) I have come across a few that have claimed they would concede their world view could be changed (although in practice this has proved to be a hollow claim).
I tend to agree with this. That having been said, we're often blind to fault with those who share our opinions. That's a weakness that none of us are above. I've met plenty of atheists who like to throw words like 'objective' 'rational' 'logical' around with very little idea of what they actually mean, and this recent Atheist movement has begun to look dangerously like a massive circle-jerk in certain corners of cyberspace. Here, people don't seem to have their heads too far up each others arses. But there are other atheist forums around which cultivate some incredibly arrogant, hypocritical attitudes - where the members are so smugly certain of their intellectual highground it make me want to yank something's teeth out.
I agree. Arrogance is a personal trait that knows no ideological boundaries.
Arrogance has to be earned, but to able to be humbly arrogant is an art. 8)
But back to the point, yes, I agree that some of the new atheists look a bit too much like a religious following.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 29, 2011, 10:12:54 PMBut back to the point, yes, I agree that some of the new atheists look a bit too much like a religious following.
Your criticism has been reported to the Elders of Atheism, you will now be harassed by thousands of mindless atomotons until you apologize for saying something not flattering about us.
Quote from: Davin on June 29, 2011, 10:20:28 PM
Your criticism has been reported to the Elders of Atheism, you will now be harassed by thousands of mindless atomotons until you apologize for saying something not flattering about us.
Atheists have their own version of the inquisition ??? I didn't sign up for this!
I think it is really interesting to try and understand the way others think. Sometimes when I dialogue with theists, i really struggle to understand how they can believe in the things that they say. it almost feels like they are taking the piss.
But they really do believe it and they struggle, really struggle to understand my position, how i can not have a belief in god. How i can want to be good dispite there not being an objective morality or a god to please or a heaven to earn my way into.
Sometimes I think these people are brainwashed and incapable of really seeing and understanding things for what they are.
Sometimes I wonder how limited my own thinking is, for what things am I brainwashed in, what beliefs of mine are rediculous but where I am unable to see clearly enough to know this?
Quote from: StevilSometimes I wonder how limited my own thinking is, for what things am I brainwashed in, what beliefs of mine are rediculous but where I am unable to see clearly enough to know this?
Safe to assume all of them, since there's no real way to tell.
Quote from: Stevil on June 30, 2011, 11:16:53 AM
I think it is really interesting to try and understand the way others think. Sometimes when I dialogue with theists, i really struggle to understand how they can believe in the things that they say. it almost feels like they are taking the piss.
But they really do believe it and they struggle, really struggle to understand my position, how i can not have a belief in god. How i can want to be good dispite there not being an objective morality or a god to please or a heaven to earn my way into.
Sometimes I think these people are brainwashed and incapable of really seeing and understanding things for what they are.
Sometimes I wonder how limited my own thinking is, for what things am I brainwashed in, what beliefs of mine are rediculous but where I am unable to see clearly enough to know this?
I think its easier to imagine thinking as a theist for an atheist than the other way round, god is so ingrained in the fabric of reality for them that they can really have a hard time understanding a paradigm or interpretation of existence without god.
IMO god is essentially unknowable so whether he exists or not is irrelavent and won't get us any closer or further away from any objective metaphysical truth (assuming there is one). Beliefs about god would not fall within the range of 'justified knowledge' in epistimological terms, just 'belief'.