Scientific American: Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2012, 05:32 PM
RE: Scientific American: Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
You're seriously asking why Scientific American would be quoting American statistics? You're seriously treating this research as a racial attack, and defending it based on your view that Americans work hard dammit and we wouldn't be fooled by no System 1 thinking on religion! We would go the extra mile, not like those continental European types!
Really?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 10:29 PM
RE: Scientific American: Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
Quote:They did only mention America, not worldwide statistics.

The article is from Scientific American.

(02-05-2012 01:10 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Also, they used the word effort like somehow it was substantially harder to think analytically. The point I was trying to make was that I doubt (based on what?) the amount of effort it takes to think analytically could be substantial enough to account for such a large number of Americans having a belief in god. I'm just disagreeing that it helps explain the statistic, given that I feel it has to be only a miniscule part of the equation. It might help explain maybe a statistic of 60%, and even that seems like a stretch, but over 90% isn't just a majority, it's an overwhelming majority (where are you getting "90%" from?). That big of a majority needs way more to help explain than it takes effort to use System 2 and most use System 1.

"I feel it has to be"? Really? Any source for that feeling?

There are two distinct cognitive systems underlying reasoning:

System 1 is old in evolutionary terms and shared with other animals:
it comprises a set of autonomous subsystems that include both innate
input modules and domain-specific knowledge acquired by a domain-general
learning mechanism.

System 2 is evolutionarily recent and distinctively human: it permits abstract
reasoning and hypothetical thinking, but is constrained by working memory
capacity and correlated with measures of general intelligence.


Essentially, two minds in one brain with a range of experimental
psychological evidence showing that the two systems compete for control of
our inferences and actions.

[Image: 0832984001338019225.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2012, 05:14 PM
RE: Scientific American: Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
Quote: The article is from Scientific American.
Okay. I don't see how that has anything to do with what I was talking about, but thanks for pointing that out.

Quote: "I feel it has to be"? Really? Any source for that feeling?
The word 'I' was used to indicate that the idea came from my own brain.

Quote: (where are you getting "90%" from?)
I looked up one, which was a source from Wikipedia's page on religious demographics in the US. Other Wikipedia pages had different sources that went along with the same stats plus or minus a percentage point or two. I also found sources through Google that had similar statistics. I figured that it was pretty much a commonly know statistic among atheist. It should be our main objective to see that number to as close to zero as possible, and knowing the starting point is likely a good idea.

http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/Ameri...t_2008.pdf

Quote: (based on what?)
Basically, based on the fact that it isn't very hard for me to do, and in observing others, it also doesn't seem very hard for them to do either. Also, the article posted some of their own experiments that seemingly shows that my idea has merit.

Quote: Participants who viewed The Thinker reported weaker religious beliefs............
How hard was that?

Quote: In their next two studies, they created a task that more subtly primed
analytic thinking. Participants received sets of five randomly arranged
words (e.g. “high winds the flies plane”) and were asked to drop one
word and rearrange the others in order to create a more meaningful
sentence........After unscrambling the sentences, participants filled out a survey about their religious beliefs
Now does that seem like a substantial amount of effort? Seems like that shows that peoples thinking processes could be turned on and off like a light switch.

Quote: Gervais and Norenzayan point out that analytic thinking is just one
reason out of many why people may or may not hold religious beliefs
Damn, is that another quote that agrees with the concern I was raising. That is what I was attempting to address and raise a conversation on when I was originally posting. It's one of the many reasons. How big of a reason? What are the other reasons? Those are questions that could have been discussed in response to my original statement and to get achieve such as discussion was the reason for me posting. I was pointing out that, in my personal opinion, a statistic of 90% has a lot more to do with other factors.

Also,
Quote: Prior research
has shown that difficult-to-read font promotes analytic thinking by
forcing participants to slow down and think more carefully about the
meaning of what they are reading.

This below quote is the only part of the article I had problems with.
Quote: It may also help explain why the vast majority of Americans tend to believe in God. Since System 2 thinking requires a lot of effort , the majority of us tend to rely on our System 1 thinking processes when possible.
It could have been rewritten, and I might have not had a problem..

It may also help explain might contribute to the vast majority of American's tend to believe belief in God. Since System 2 thinking could require, a lot of effort given the majority of us tend to rely on our System 1 thinking processes when possible, a certain amount of concentration to shift from a main thinking process of System 1 to a System 2 thinking process.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2012, 09:48 PM
RE: Scientific American: Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
(03-05-2012 05:14 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Okay. I don't see how that has anything to do with what I was talking about, but thanks for pointing that out.

Really, smartass? No idea?
Then what was this about?:

Quote:I only quoted that specific portion, because I was addressing what they were saying about Americans.
It seems as if they were trying to imply that American's laziness contributed to such a high number of religious believers.
They did only mention America, not worldwide statistics.
[Image: Doh.gif]
This is why Hafnof and I responded that way we did.
We can't figure out why you think it's weird that Scientific American would be talking about American statistics.
How was that not clear in the first place? Answer: It was.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Quote:The word 'I' was used to indicate that the idea came from my own brain.

Did anyone ask you about the word "I"?
I asked about the source of your "feeling".
I thought perhaps it might have been based on something
substantial (something you were taught, something you read).
Clearly, I was mistaken.

Quote:That is what I was attempting to address and raise a conversation on when I was originally posting.

Well, it was a piss-poor attempt. You clarified your position in a subsequent post,
and so I let it slide... but you want to nitpick with me? [Image: Shades.gif] Fine.
Your original post was backwards, thus, my response. I'll demonstrate.

This is what you originally posted:

Quote:"I can't really see how thinking logically could require so much more effort that it would lead over 90% (or whatever the stats are) of Americans to believe in god."

In this sentence, "thinking logically" and "it" are the same (it refers to thinking logically), and thus, contrary to the point of the article, i.e.:

Thinking logically did not lead over 90% (or whatever the stats are) of Americans to believe in god.

It's a matter of basic grammar, really.

Speaking of rewrites, and knowing your position now, perhaps you should have phrased it like this:

"I can't really see how thinking logically could require so much more effort that not doing it would lead over 90% (or whatever the stats are) of Americans to believe in god."

In any case, you lose all smarm rights when it was your misstatement that caused this back-and-forth. [Image: FloorMop.gif]

[Image: 0832984001338019225.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 06:17 AM
RE: Scientific American: Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
Yeah, it says Americans are religious cause they're lazy and dumb. Get over it. They pick on America cause it makes for easy pickings. A country this advanced shouldn't be this dumb.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 06:49 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 06:54 AM by ahoy.)
RE: Scientific American: Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
Both skills are present in every human being: that is, skills that can be improved.

Although I am more on the opinion that Intuition is more difficult to improve than Critical Thinking.

Intuition is based on personal experience… the more experience you got, the better the intuition.

Although, seems to me there is some “bandwagon effect” has the “analytical/critical thinking”… am just interested to know:

Which one will give you the most out of life: more of Intuition or more of Analytical/Critical Thinking?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 07:13 AM
RE: Scientific American: Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
Intuition is love my Gwynnies. Everything else is analysed and criticized. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 07:56 AM
RE: Scientific American: Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
Yah, the “mystery of women”

Women have better intuition than men.

That is why men have to develop more of analytical thinking then. : )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 10:52 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 10:58 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Scientific American: Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
Quote: This is why Hafnof and I responded that way we did.

We can't figure out why you think it's weird that Scientific American would be talking about American statistics.

How was that not clear in the first place? Answer: It was.
I didn't have a problem with them mentioning it, I was just pointing it out as a fact that they did. Having the word American in the name of your organization doesn't limit you to only being able to talk about America. They could have easily referenced worldwide statistics if they wanted. But, I was pointing that out because it was relevant to the statistic that I felt was too high for what they seemed to have felt, in the couple sentences I addressed, was able to help explain.

Quote: "I can't really see how thinking logically could require so much more effort that it would lead over 90% (or whatever the stats are) of Americans to believe in god."

In this sentence, "thinking logically" and "it" are the same (it refers to thinking logically), and thus, contrary to the point of the article, i.e.:

Thinking logically did not lead over 90% (or whatever the stats are) of Americans to believe in god.
The sentence didn't say: I can't really see how thinking logically would lead to over 90% of Americans to believe in god.

If you ignore the part that says "could require so much more effort", which is not self contained within neither 'thinking', 'logically', nor the phrase 'thinking logically', then you'd have a legitimate beef, but as of right now, I can't quite see what you're trying to say. Unless you feel that somehow it is self-evident that System 2 thinking requires an amount of effort large enough to refute my point? I, however, couldn't see that.

It could have been the case that they weren't trying to infer what I thought they were trying to infer, and that is the reason why I though rephrasing that part could have helped. I could have helped deter any misinterpretations.


I may have made a piss-poor effort with that statement, but the person posting prior to you seemed to get what I was saying.

Here is their quote:

Quote: You may have a point there in that there are likely other factors that
contribute to theism (namely, childhood indoctrination and
peer/community pressure).



This study isn't about why people are/stay theistic. It's about how
critical thinking appears to be correlated with losing religion.
They might not have realized that I was trying to raise a conversation on the second part of their question, but in the first part, they did, at least from that post, seem to understand that I was leading into other factors that might contribute.

Quote: Did anyone ask you about the word "I"?

I asked about the source of your "feeling".

I thought perhaps it might have been based on something

substantial (something you were taught, something you read).

Clearly, I was mistaken
Why is it that I can't be considered a legitimate or "substantial" source? I live in America, I make observations, I lived long enough to form an opinion of the matter, so why can't I be my own source. I was being a smart-ass, but I also thought it would be obvious that when you asked about the source, since you didn't just refer to the subject pronoun in the sentence, I could point out that the source was already present in the sentence. I put the word 'feel', as opposed to 'it's my hypothesis', because it isn't a strong or provable claim, it's just something I thought could be discussed and studied further.

I feel like I just got in an argument for no reason. I think I'll from now on just refrain from posting in any section more than once, when at all possible. If someone disagrees I'll just say okay and move on. I guess I should also refrain from giving my personal opinion and just use sources and quotes from others.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2012, 01:17 AM
RE: Scientific American: Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
(04-05-2012 10:52 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I didn't have a problem with them mentioning it, I was just pointing it out as a fact that they did. Having the word American in the name of your organization doesn't limit you to only being able to talk about America. They could have easily referenced worldwide statistics if they wanted. But, I was pointing that out because it was relevant to the statistic that I felt was too high for what they seemed to have felt, in the couple sentences I addressed, was able to help explain.

Fair enough.

Quote:The sentence didn't say: I can't really see how thinking logically would lead to over 90% of Americans to believe in god.

That's exactly what it said, as I demonstrated.
We now know that is not what you meant.
Mystery solved. Thumbsup

Quote:Why is it that I can't be considered a legitimate or "substantial" source?
I live in America, I make observations, I lived long enough to form an opinion of the matter, so why can't I be my own source?

That was me being a smart ass. Big Grin
Of course your observations are legitimate.

Quote:I think I'll from now on just refrain from posting in any section more than once, when at all possible.
If someone disagrees I'll just say okay and move on.
I guess I should also refrain from giving my personal opinion and just use sources and quotes from others.

Lighten up, Francis.

[Image: FunnyFace.gif]

Don't let anyone (including me) discourage you from giving your personal opinion.
And don't give up and stop posting when someone offers up their personal opinion either.

Have a beer. Relax... [Image: DrinkBeer.gif]
I believe too much analytical thinking can also drive a person batshit. [Image: RockOn.gif]

[Image: 0832984001338019225.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: