HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A possible explanation fo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:15 AM

 

A possible explanation for gun nuttery..... The Mind’s Compartments Create Conflicting Beliefs

I say they should take their ridiculous needs for military style weapons to the "complaint compartment".


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-minds-compartments-create-conflicting-beliefs

If you have pondered how intelligent and educated people can, in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, believe that evolution is a myth, that global warming is a hoax, that vaccines cause autism and asthma, that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration, conjecture no more. The explanation is in what I call logic-tight compartments—modules in the brain analogous to watertight compartments in a ship.

The concept of compartmentalized brain functions acting either in concert or in conflict has been a core idea of evolutionary psychology since the early 1990s. According to University of Pennsylvania evolutionary psychologist Robert Kurzban in Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite (Princeton University Press, 2010), the brain evolved as a modular, multitasking problem-solving organ—a Swiss Army knife of practical tools in the old metaphor or an app-loaded iPhone in Kurzban's upgrade. There is no unified “self” that generates internally consistent and seamlessly coherent beliefs devoid of conflict. Instead we are a collection of distinct but interacting modules often at odds with one another. The module that leads us to crave sweet and fatty foods in the short term is in conflict with the module that monitors our body image and health in the long term. The module for cooperation is in conflict with the one for competition, as are the modules for altruism and avarice or the modules for truth telling and lying.

Compartmentalization is also at work when new scientific theories conflict with older and more naive beliefs. In the 2012 paper “Scientific Knowledge Suppresses but Does Not Supplant Earlier Intuitions” in the journal Cognition, Occidental College psychologists Andrew Shtulman and Joshua Valcarcel found that subjects more quickly verified the validity of scientific statements when those statements agreed with their prior naive beliefs. Contradictory scientific statements were processed more slowly and less accurately, suggesting that “naive theories survive the acquisition of a mutually incompatible scientific theory, coexisting with that theory for many years to follow.”

Cognitive dissonance may also be at work in the compartmentalization of beliefs. In the 2010 article “When in Doubt, Shout!” in Psychological Science, Northwestern University researchers David Gal and Derek Rucker found that when subjects' closely held beliefs were shaken, they “engaged in more advocacy of their beliefs ... than did people whose confidence was not undermined.” Further, they concluded that enthusiastic evangelists of a belief may in fact be “boiling over with doubt,” and thus their persistent proselytizing may be a signal that the belief warrants skepticism.

8 replies, 778 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply A possible explanation for gun nuttery..... The Mind’s Compartments Create Conflicting Beliefs (Original post)
2on2u Jan 2013 OP
Atman Jan 2013 #1
2on2u Jan 2013 #2
RKP5637 Jan 2013 #4
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #8
RKP5637 Jan 2013 #3
UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2013 #5
Viva_La_Revolution Jan 2013 #6
99Forever Jan 2013 #7

Response to 2on2u (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:22 AM

1. I don't believe a word of it.



.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:25 AM

2. You're just conflicted, much like the statement on the box of Ex Lax,

 

this too shall pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:02 AM

4. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:47 PM

8. I just had lunch, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:01 AM

3. K&R !!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:35 AM

5. Yep.

 

Hey gun nuts. Have at it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 01:05 PM

6. k&r just for this line..

"they concluded that enthusiastic evangelists of a belief may in fact be “boiling over with doubt,” and thus their persistent proselytizing may be a signal that the belief warrants skepticism."

uh huh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 01:08 PM

7. What?

That conflicts with what I want to believe!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread