« Making Sense with Sam Harris

#261 — Belief & Identity

2021-09-30 | 🔗

In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Jonas Kaplan about the neuroscience of belief change. They discuss the illusory truth effect, the backfire effect, failures of replication, “The Fireplace Delusion,” the connection between reason and emotion, wishful thinking, persuasion and the sense of self, conspiracy theories, the power of incentives, in-group loyalty, religion, mindfulness, cognitive flexibility, and other topics.

SUBSCRIBE to listen to the rest of this episode and gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/subscribe.

 

Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That’s why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life’s most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Looking to make your search bar cast SAM Harris, just a note to say that if your hearing this you are not currently honour subscriber feed, We here in the first part of this conversation in order to access full episodes of making sense, podcast you'll need to subscribe SAM Harris Network, there, you'll find or private rss feed to add to your favorite pot catcher, along with other subscriber, only content. We don't run ads on the past and therefore its may possible entirely through the support of our subscribers. So if you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one o k of the dam Presenting a conversation on belief
identity and, in particular, its focus on the problem of belief, change and resistance to believe change, the significance of which, both personally and collectively is really hard to exaggerate. We really are in the belief, formation, maintenance and occasionally belief, change business When you look at what it takes to get millions, spend billions of us to cooperate with one another. He is just a matter of persuading one another to change our representations of the world and converge on common.
Projects and failing that we resort to force in one another to converge and then eventually becomes a bloody mess. Solely change, and its impediments is incredibly important to understand- and this is just a first volley in that effort and to do this have been listed. My friend and collaborator Jonas Kaplan, who is a cognitive scientists working at USC, where he is an associate professor, at the brain and creativity institute. This sensitive was founded by and turning to Moscow has also been in the past, and Jonas is focused on issues related to consciousness, identity, empathy and social relationships. He is its functional, neuro imaging. Mostly, F, MRI, combined with machine learning,
examined the neural mechanisms and underline our sense of self has also done research on how the brain processes stories and beliefs and values. And then this conversation we focus on some work that we did jointly with an mri on the nature of belief and belief, change, resistance and that work was published in twenty six in along with our co author, Sarah Gimble as the neural coral. Maintaining one's political beliefs in the face of counter evidence, and that was in natures, scientific reports, fun fact. I just looked at this paper for the first time in years, ghettos published back in twenty sixteen and its on nature dot com, but I just wanted to see the metrics around its engagement and it has been accessed. Two hundred fifty thousand times
comes cited. Seventy one times cross referenced. Seventy five times looks like, but in measures of online attention. It some statistics, her fairly astounding, oh the four hundred and one thousand tracked articles of similar age in all journals rank. Twenty seventh at a four hundred thousand and it is ranked first among me, five thousand plus tracked articles of similar age in the scientific reports section of nature, So, amazingly, there appeared only be twenty six articles in all of science of similar edge that have received more online engagement. Then this article- and I say that not to boast but
Who am I point out how bizarre and ineffectual and organised so much of our science is made from what I can tell the big. Is to engage meant in the media that this article got was from Doktor OZ, who I consider a near total charlatan in northern Europe observer. It was in various blogs. I can't remember what press coverage got beyond any of that, but I don't believe I've ever met. Anyone whose read this paper, and yet, according to natures website, there are only twenty six scientific papers on the planet that have received more engagement.
Then this article make of that. What you will. I can say that in my world the experience of publishing this article was of simply dropping something into the void, but that notwithstanding, we will talk about some of the implications of this research, and this conversation is part of a larger serious have done with it as for the waking Bab there's a section there titled mind and brain, which is essentially a own podcast series with covered the size of mindfulness social emotion, discussed, empathy, islands of awareness, touching summit work that analysis and other podcast guest has done on isolated consciousness in the brain, and we have forthcoming conversations on gratitude. The predictive brain
sleep in dreams, the default mode network willpower and there is much more to come, TAT, a track where we're trying to me in size from neuroscience has personally relevant to one's data experience as we can anyway. As I said, this episode focuses unbelief and belief, change in the way in which identity poses an obstacle to the latter. We cover things like the illusory truth effect, the backfire effect sailors are replication in this area. We talk about an essay. I once wrote title the fireplace delusion we discuss the connection between reason and emotion, wishful thinking, persuasion and the sense of self conspiracy theories, the power of incentives in group, loyalty, religion, mindfulness, cognitive, flexible,
honey and other topics and again, I think both of us consider this just a first instalment on what really should be a serious on belief, change and its enemies and now bringing Jonas Kaplan. I'm here with my friend Jonas Kaplan Jonah. Thanks for join me, thanks, museum You and I now go way back ass, her father time is meeting out blows year by year, I've known you for at least a decade a decade, plus, but perhaps summarize your background as inert scientists and the kinds of issues you focus on now. Sure. I am cognitive, neuroscientist agenda. I use maybe neuro imaging techniques to study how the brain works. Maybe I can
list off my a litany of academic titles, psycho medieval horse. We give you an idea. I saw I'm a research professor at their brain creativity institute at USC, the code director of the Doorn Safe, nor imaging centre- and I am also the associate director from mindfulness and neuro imaging at USC Centre for mindfulness science, nice lick his you some idea of what my research into sovereign, steady, a lot of different things I'm ranging from belief and values and and empathy and how we resonate with other people and a whole bunch of other things and interests me
so now we're talking about up in its really in our we'll house, because we have done some Neuro Imaging studies together on this very topic, we're talking about belief and belief, change and resistance to believe change, wise as an important topic at such an important topic. You hope and belief. Flexibility is just a central to everything we do as a society. In so many ways, we just need to be able to influence each other when we have conversations that will point of having a conversation is to get some information across, especially in a democracy, a truly important now able to info
each other on the basis of conversation, because we can't the only option available to us as some kind of violence right so to build two changes. New evidence comes end, a fruitful conversations to advance science education. All these things require some amount of flexibility in our belief, its particularly prominent. For me, as a scientist I mean this is the very basis of science is some kind of assumption that, as we gather new evidence, we can update our models of the world and our beliefs, and so we have to guilty doing that. If there are things in our psychology make it hard for us to do that, we need to know about them. Yes, we were were recorded in a moment, which is that where these concerns are especially salient because when the middle of the covered pandemic, and just a wash and misinformation about moralist everything minute this political partisanship of a sort that
I don't think I've ever seen in our lifetime. There are conspiracy theories on almost every topic of social importance. Peep have organised into these echo chambers online, the public health messaging, in this pandemic has been almost impossible to get across, because every shred of reasonable scepticism on any point gets amplified into just a complete break. Out of a pistol ology, where we think we know nothing for certain about anything of consequence, and so people can't even agree as you get anywhere toward the edge of mainstream opinion. You find otherwise intelligent people who can't even agree that see in this case the pandemic is real and some basis
sent almost every aspect of this can fall under doubt, and then it becomes impossible to have a conversation about what's real, just trying to converge on a set of facts that all parties can acknowledge becomes an impossible task when people start out sufficiently far are, and there being emotionally hijacked once it any these conversations get started and their mistakes in their emotional reaction for further evidence of the truth of their beliefs, and if you can become sensitive to this in yourself, Are you you have certain things you believe are true, and then you bump into counter arguments are counter evidence were just a people who are espousing an alternate
you a reality and is heard, depends what we're talking about here, but in the generic case, you're either attached to these beliefs, because you think their true warrior, perversely attached to them, because you want them to true, but in any case you meet in yourself an unwillingness to reconsider matter. An ape and almost visceral feeling of revulsion or a contempt for people who had pushed too hard on on adore. You are trying to keep barred ass. Really, the only place where we are at all disciplined and good about getting out of our own way here and revising our beliefs is in science. Him ass. Writ really is what makes science scientists, who is a methodology for being increasingly sure that you're, not fooling yourself and granted? Where were imperfect here and there's a history of scientific fraud, and
scientific ineptitude, but obviously the remedy, for that is always more science and better science is not some alternate mode of which fulfilled or your merely imagining was true. This conversation, I'm sure we'll be evergreen, and if you come back in five years, this will still be relevant to think about. But at the moment its relevance is fairly excuse. It's hard to believe me when we first when you when I first started working on this issue in neuroscience, maybe fifteen years ago, or so I was certainly not an issue that was on the forefront of everyone's minds and now it seems like it's what everybody wants to talk about, and you know it is. I think one one thing you said there is really important this aspect of trying to recognise this process and ourselves because a lot of
times when I talk to people. The the biggest question is your. How can I get my answer on quota to believe me? It understand what I'm saying and how can I influence someone else? What's what's the key to persuasion, and that is one way of looking at the problem, but I think it's actually potentially more fruitful to think about the other way around. So instead of how we can be better persuading know how we can make ourselves more open minded and more available to evidence as it comes in. As we recognize the reasons why were not in the first place, which is often talk about it? Ok, so let's talk about what we know about changing beliefs have admitted, obviously we learn things about the world, albeit slowly and sometimes begrudgingly, and that that is the is synonymous with believe. Formation in in this has the we're using the term about Agus. Perhaps one thing we should clarify here is that, in
Its colloquial use people often distinguished belief from knowledge in our usage here and really throughout most of the relevant fields. Within philosophy, and, I think, would be within cognitive science. Generally, that's not really that point of separation and you can believe things with greater or lesser conviction. This really like, there's an essay probability. Distribution of knowledge were talking about their things that you are absolutely certain You bet your life on other things that you think her very likely to be true. You still count them as knowledge, but you until you hear otherwise, you you'll think this is probably the things are, but you you wouldn't bet everything on it and then their gradations below that, where you think the paper, difference of evidence and argument is point in one direction. You you're certainly waited that way, but you don't really think you have a complete picture of
that part of reality in hand and all it is a matter of belief to one or another degree, in the sense that we are using the term. That's right. We're not going to distinguish there. We're gonna tree believe belief as basically anything you hold true about the world and do you mentioned the process of how we form beliefs? I think that's it. That's an interesting topic, how we gain knowledge and how we develop our kind of initial models of the world and where I can get you deeply into that, and then we're gonna suffered a bypass at issue in this start from the point at which we have formed simply for excepted son piece of information is true, and then what happens? Let's say we encounter a new piece of information that contradicts the old one. How do we revise our beliefs, because this really is the biggest challenge that we face, and there are a couple of effects from communist ideology that are relevant to this? That we can talk about the first one is called be continued influence effect, the idea-
here's that, even after correcting a belief that was formed on the basis of misinformation, we still show evidence of that initial wrong belief affecting the way we think. So there is a classic experimental paradigm which was developed in the ninety. Nine is where you give people a fictional story about something like a warehouse fire then there is a big fire in the warehouse that was started in a closet and there were some paint cans and oil left in the closet, and that's no probably why this fire get out of control and then for half the subjects you, cracked one piece of information and the other half you don't so for half the subjects you might additionally tell them. While police report came in later and it turned out there wasn't any oil and gas in the closet and then you interview these people and you them them about the fire? You asked him to explain why the fire happened and to give you some details, and even when
the information about the oil and gas in the closet was correct. It they ve, been told there wasn't any anything in my closet. People still explained the fire in terms of things like well, you know oil for cars are harder to put out or other than the negligence of the cap, leaving those dangerous things in the closet. You can still show that there is the belief persists. Were unable to go in there with an eraser and just erase it or it were deleted and in all of the subsequent thoughts they had about it. And this is the continued Subject here. This is a fairly sinister bug in arm software, which I am not sure what the the remedy for it is, in the end, a move. This is something that we have to be continually on our guard for this also goes by the name of the illusory truth effect and again it's even in this confirmation of false information. The initial false information gets ramifying in peace.
Whose memory I noticed this in myself, either paying you as a is a naive subject, and on this point c, if you have a more contamination of memory. Do you member of the neck Martin preschool saga they this is was part of these costs. Satanic, ritual abuse, panic craves that happened in the eighties. Yes, and there was the Mc Martin Preschool, which was the most fan this instance of this alleged abuse. Do you remember that case role a vaguely? I feel that there are some parents who basically got in some kind of a here hysteria about the systematic abuse of the children right now. What do you think the net result of that case was what was their actual abuse at eight. You score like. What's your memory, it right, my my my revised narrative is that there was no abuse and there is no actual satanic sultan blood ok, good way at you, you're better than I was ass. It was the one I I hadn't thought about this in in
years and then I had upon cast on some related topic. Maybe two years ago I forget I was talking to, and I went to look this up. Expecting that there was there was some fire where there was all this smoke, but I just didn't you member of the details, and it turns out this is just the ultimate example of in a belief, persistence in my case, because this had been fully debunked diminished this trial went on for years and the one one of the teachers spent five years in prison and then finally got acquitted. All charges were dropped. Hundreds of kids were interviewed with techniques that are now like textbook errors in how not to interview children about alleged abuse. They created a psychological experiment, seemingly designed to produce false memories and false confession.
And its sheer confabulation and this whole thing exploded, but it had been lodged in my memory as guy those problems and where the heinous had happened over there at them at Morton Preschool I'm so glad that people are brought to justice, but this is it an awful piece of a code where we have a truth by us and it seems like this may be based on cover default setting of accepting any. Propositional that we understand may include some tacit acceptance and actually the philosopher Spinoza conjectured, about this in them back in the seventeenth century, and there have been several studies
is that have supported this and actually our own studies of belief with MRI supported this based on our behavioral measures. In that we saw that people were faster to accept propositions as true, then they were to reject them is false, and this is true even if propositions that are equivalent lean simple, so you, if I give you the etc questions to two plus two. It was for two plus three was for in a one is true. One is false there, equally simple, and yet you all answer, the true ones. You will respond true, true on average, faster than you all respond fast, a false and seems to suggest that our default setting new, to accept it is true and that rejecting it as false is a further cognitive judgment that had that takes time to render that's interesting, they added stiffly one of the features. I think it is easier to accept
The statements that were given is true. You hit upon one of the other cognitive bugs at play, which is this repetition of fact, and memory where just hearing something multiple times You got two more times we here at the more likely. We are to accept it as true, and this is particularly sinister in the case of misinformation, correction, because the correction itself often involves a restatement of the false belief. So you say you know that there wasn't paint in the closet. The idea of paint in the closet has to be involved in order to understand that sentence, and so the correction can serve as another repetition and make it more difficult to delete that. The other factor here is that when we accept something is true,
No, we don't stop thinking about it felt like we just have this one sentence that exists on its own, separate from all other ideas in our mind that there was paid to or oil in that closet. We start thinking about all the ramifications, the consequences, the other things that follow from that belief, and we start to build our mental models upon these, these these foundations that we have, and so it's like you know, pulling out a one piece of code when they're all the other pieces of code that have already followed from it now there's a an alleged further integration of the which seems even more dysfunctional of others. I think or some question as to whether or not this is replicated. But this is this meme spread, widely in the culture. Little be ironic if we have to debunk it and find that we can't, because the putative effect is invoked, but there's something on the backfire effect that many people now think they know some
in about what is this an? And what do we think we know about? Yes, sir, see if we can do our own little experiment with the continued influence, a fact of which described this effect first and then try to debunk it. So there's classic study from Brendan. I hadn't Jason Rifle are back in two thousand and ten, where they presented people with little fictional news story about the Iraq war and services, two thousand five, or so that the experiment was done,
and the Iraq war with fresh in people's minds and remember that from that workers, this whole issue about the Bush administration used the presence of weapons of mass destruction incidents stockpile as a justification for the attack. So this little new story contained a quote from President Bush, where he made comments, alluding to the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein having these weapons, and this is the information that they attempted to correct. So some subjects were given an additional corrective piece of information, which was actually a true piece of information that there is. This extensive report doleful report report, which conclusively established that there were basically no weapons of mass destruction, least not in any quantity that could have made a difference and half the arrest weren't, given that correction and they were asked afterwards knew how strongly they agree with the statement that there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and in the conservative subjects who came
do this with a pre existing bias, they probably already believed in there is evidence that conservatives at the time believe this. I believe that the weapons of mass destruction were there when they receive this corrective information. Their belief in the weapons of mass destruction actually got stronger, so not only worthy unable to correct the misinformation, but the act of correcting made the boy stronger and that's why it's called the backfire factors of total backfire, trying to make the belief weaker, and instead you make a stronger right. So I figured
happened couple years back that this might have been born of a new, a new Yorker article on the topic, but this suddenly became very prominent the culture of a people to talk about think about worry about the backfire effect. What efforts have been made to replicate this, so there have been many efforts, replicate this, and it has been difficult to replicate. There was a study a couple years ago by Thomas Wood and Ethan Porter, which pretty much eviscerated the backfire effect they performed really large study you, ten thousand
Six, fifty two different political issues that I gave them corrective information about, and they were not able to find any evidence of backfire fact across any of these. Fifty two different political issues. In fact, most of the people and the study, something like eighty five percent- did show some significant corrective response to the factual information. So why is the backfire fact difficult to establish? Does it when does it occur? If ever of his? These are questions of of ongoing research, but this really lot of context that matters here. You know it. It could be easier to give up on one particular fact, then it is to give up on some underlying important issue for you, so, for example,
one of the experiments that you and I did. We give liberals arguments against gun control, and these are people who believe that gun control laws are good and we gave them information and statistics about. I know how likely people were to get in gun accidents and things like that, and it might be easy for one of the people in this experiment to change their minds about one of these individual facts. What are these statistics that we gave them while still maintaining their general position?
I'm gun control factor might be easier to retreat and individual fact that it is on some underline value that may be the and the easiest path for you to take. If you're trying to maintain your core belief about gun control, so there's some complexity there. In terms of the context, it also probably matters what the issue is right. I mean in this would in Porter study they try to replicate very specifically the weapons of mass destruction, experiment and they were not able to establish a backfire effect there. But the commitment of the individual subjects to these issues matters a lot we found in our own research that for some kinds of issues, it's easy to change people's minds for other kinds of issues, its very difficult those issues to people tend to be most resistant on are the ones that they have some motivation to maintain their belief in that vote of Asian can be a social motivation. These are some of the most common motivations we have now. Beliefs connect us,
two other people and beliefs that we share with our social group, in particular those beliefs that help to form our social identity are sense. If we are in a group, are very, very resistant to change and they may be more likely to show a backfire effect in the end, I think the focus in the backfire effect is a bit of a red herring. It doesn't really matter that much whether corrections, backfire, not the real important question is: why do the crutches not work it all right if they're not corrected? If not softening our belief, it doesn't really matter that much that they made the belief a little bit stronger. What we really want is to be able to correct our beliefs? Yeah? I don't one thinks we found in our narrow imaging study on believe change was that the signal in the amygdala, the insular by both regions. That report
I emotional salience above anything else, especially they may go abroad, also, the the insular that predicted people's resistance to changing their beliefs, underpriced, so there's it there's the feeling component of it and also the those cases where there's a cover, direct line or or direct justification for this. When of emotional charge based on one's beliefs, about oneself the world and one's identity, and that say, that's really them the framework that I think we would expect would produce this resistance to believe change, because we in others there is then not liking. How certain facts sound peace, but then there's the the really not liking it when you- do the emotional math. However, was and realise that if you're the sort of person who accepts this
new argument, or this new set of facts and changes. This specific believe Well, then, you are no longer the sort of person who can have the friends. You have been the political party you here in Europe talk to your family at dinner, I mean that many things big begin to come under pressure depending on Just how fundamental or or cherished the belief is that it is now on the table to be revised, and I think the punchline for any one of us to just be better people in the world is to notice when this This machinery is getting invoked. You can feel it happened. You can feel when you are disposed to take the way certain ideas make you feel as a thoroughgoing analysis of their truth right. If you're kind of doing a pistol, ology buy fear and anger and discussed in some primary
motions that are getting triggered by specific ideas, the place where I have experimented personally with this is some on the topic of burning wood. In a fireplace I wrote, a piece called the fireplace delusion a few years back when I stumbled upon this example, quite literally at a dinner party in I'm somebody who has known for many years that there's nothing magic all about fireplace smoke issue with the fact that we have. We feel that this deep nostalgia for it and and and sentimentality around it, people love the smell it conveys. An idea Christmas and another in a happy thoughts to most people, all that was standing here. If you can smell smoke burning a fire. You know that is, from a health point of view, more or less indistinguishable, made me, I diesel engine running in Europe in your living right away, There should be no more sentimental about this now,
you're smelling then than the fumes you would be smelling of in the case of the engine. But when I found that when ever I push people on this, it trigger a very familiar mean, a quasi religious push back? in them- and this is no matter I do you know these people could be scientists. These could be either a you could just see the trigger and I'm feeling on brewing with myself. Yes right at all of you, I'm gonna, let it out in the sky it again now, but I hear you have an argument against this. Ok I'll say it was a serious argument well the. Maybe you ve heard of what will the argument is that that fire may have played a special role? Human evolution, he also
if you're familiar of the work of Polly Weiss nurse anthropologist and she studied that, what what happens when when, though, the Bush people of of Africa, the Hunter gathers right societies sit around fires at night and she studied that the nature of the types of conversations and communications that happened during the day compared to at night, and you know what happens at night. Is it because you: don't have the world in front of you? You keep basically can't talk about business and the here and now of perceptual things that are confronting you. The conversation turns to other times and places and people start telling stories and there's this whole sort of storytelling culture around the fire. Tat comes Thus, in this may have been something that has been very important for for human culture that we therefore have a nostalgia, for. I think it extends into things like watching movies in theatres in a whirl sit around a flickering light watch things together
Yeah, well, that's quite a heartwarming. None of this is It's actually somebody. I do discuss it in the fireplace delusion and am. I would just point out that you know whether something SAM played a role in evolution is rarely an indication of of whether its normative optimal now right and obviously you're out group violence. Tribal violence has no nine. Think I might explain why we have those feelings about it: yeah yeah, it's just a dip is. It offers no indication that breathing in would smoke is healthy. In our any healthier than than smoking, cigarettes her to breathe in other forms of air pollution, and the data on on this is just one No, this to be true and as a matter of public health, we know that I believe this there's nothing that kills more people globally. Then.
Dirty sources of fuel. In in the home every year middle, what imo, literally millions of people who die every year, because there you know you largely in the. Developing world. They use that You were gonna other kinds of your. I gotta say that fact sounds like one of the ones we made up for our experiment. I hit it shows we should remember yet. We should that was that was hilarious. We were making a fact for the experiment and perhaps did people lasting damage if we couldn't correct those that we only ramifying those facts in the correct in them afterwards, yeah, but no it, sir I'll have to get the data on how many people die, but if it is enormous because much of the world is still using dirty fuel, but it's the air pollution in us Eddie like San Francisco or LOS Angeles, based on the just the recreational burning of wood in the winter
you know it's not even being used as a fuel source is just you. People are burning wood fires near fireplaces. Just for the fun of it is no question that that increases emergency room visits based on pulmonary and cardiac events, and this is all stuff that has been studied and the mon public health people. But we have the sentimental attachment to burning wood and people are a reluctant him to get over it. He had learned the role of a feelings and emotions in this whole process fleet, as is really interesting and there's their multiple aspects of enemy. The one hand you write that debt. If we over, we will it before rely too much on our feelings. We can be led astray and just because we we feel something is true, for example, doesn't mean or good for us like the fire doesn't mean that it is, and certainly in our experiments, we saw the
involvement of negative emotions. You know when your challenge, you can have this feeling that feels bad. You want to get away from the source of the challenge and in fact, one of the most effective self protective mechanisms. We have against changing our belief system, completely, avoid being challenged and were very good at avoiding information, the challenges, our beliefs and avoiding putting ourselves in situation, where we might have to encounter something that we don't like to hear. So there are these negative emotions that can underline our decisions about what to believe and about what evidence to even look at and there's there's some evidence that these feelings might mediate. The hopeless
of belief change. On the other hand, there are other feelings you to just because something is a feeling or an emotion doesn't mean than its necessarily part of an irrational process which we have to recognise that year. Emotions are there because they have conferred some advantage throughout the course of history, so that at least potentially helpful- and there are feelings that are more subtle that are involved in this process. Like this, the feeling of certainty or the feeling of uncertainty is are not purely cognitive experiences. They have some kind of a feeling, a component that can help increase the salient c of the Gostar processes. For us we idea, as your own colleague boss, mentor Antonio Demoiselle has demonstrated this classical split
between reason and emotion doesn't make any sense images neurologically speaking an and when people have specific injuries to the orbital frontal cortex and their thereafter can't feel the implications of otherwise in a knowledge they otherwise seem to? Have they can't make that knowledge behaviorally relevant an operative as classic gambling tasks? Were people seem no the right strategy, but continually bet on wisely, because I can't make the right strategy guide their their behaviour
so it is an interesting problem. Feeling states are part of our cognitive apparatus with a feeling of certainty and the flip side, the feeling of doubt there not dispensable, and yet they can also become uncoupled to the legitimate modes of thought that should deliver certainty and doubt in some ways there or thought, not too cognition and in some ways there indispensable for it. The red flag for me is when you realise that you want reality too, a certain way and you're trying to convince yourself that it is that way. Maybe there's a reason why wishful thinking and obvious by us in the direction one is arguing for conflicts of interest. This
because by being only under many frames, his reason why all of that is stigmatized Wanna comes time to think clearly about. What's going on the world S right, wanting something, is absolute poison to the process of trying to find the truth, and that's why we have all these mechanisms within the scientific method, to try to eliminate the effects of of those things and not just to emphasise one of the other things you talked about earlier. It's really hard to underestimate the effects of wanting things to remain the same, our social relationships I mean the stakes can be so high for some of these decisions. That is virtually impossible for us to change our minds. I talk to someone who was a clear political analysts worked in Washington,
if you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe SAM Herriston work once you do. You'll get access to all full length. Episodes of making sense podcast, along with other subscriber only content include bonus episodes enemies. And the conversations have been having the waking up at the makings has podcast his ad free in her life, Thailand listener support, and you can subscribe now at San Paris network,
Transcript generated on 2021-10-08.