Are there studies that show if people believe what they say/think they believe?

[ronburgundy]

First you have to ask, What are beliefs? How do we form them? And once formed, why do we defend them in the face of all logic?
My own experience and research show most beliefs form out of comfort, saving energy, and fear. All good survival reasons.

Except beliefs impact actions and reactions, so objectively wrong beliefs lead to actions and reactions that fail to achieve one's goals, which can include goals of avoiding threats, acquiring resources, mating, etc.. This is why beliefs based in emotional goals you refer to are most prevalent in contexts where being wrong appears to have minimal direct impact on survival (this is what I was referring to in my prior post).

This is reflected in the fact that most people become far more empirical and rational and far less faith based when their lives directly depend upon the efficacy of their decisions to get them out of danger. In these cases, fear serves its limited evolved function of motivating effort and preparing the body for action, but empirical experience and reason largely guides what particular actions are taken. Unfortunately, most people are also highly ignorant to their real numerous indirect impacts of their beliefs. So, such emotional/faith based beliefs heavily determine their public rhetoric and political actions which shape the culture in ways that make our "collective" actions and reactions largely emotional based and thus objectively wrong and ineffective, and a threat to our survival and well being.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are there studies that show if people believe what they say or think they believe? If not, how could this be researched?

On what simple study could be to ask religious people at a funeral if they are sad. The sad ones don't really believe in heaven.

Is that the kind of research you're asking for?

 

[OLDMAN]

First you have to ask, What are beliefs? How do we form them? And once formed, why do we defend them in the face of all logic?
My own experience and research show most beliefs form out of comfort, saving energy, and fear. All good survival reasons.

Except beliefs impact actions and reactions, so objectively wrong beliefs lead to actions and reactions that fail to achieve one's goals, which can include goals of avoiding threats, acquiring resources, mating, etc.. This is why beliefs based in emotional goals you refer to are most prevalent in contexts where being wrong appears to have minimal direct impact on survival (this is what I was referring to in my prior post).

This is reflected in the fact that most people become far more empirical and rational and far less faith based when their lives directly depend upon the efficacy of their decisions to get them out of danger. In these cases, fear serves its limited evolved function of motivating effort and preparing the body for action, but empirical experience and reason largely guides what particular actions are taken. Unfortunately, most people are also highly ignorant to their real numerous indirect impacts of their beliefs. So, such emotional/faith based beliefs heavily determine their public rhetoric and political actions which shape the culture in ways that make our "collective" actions and reactions largely emotional based and thus objectively wrong and ineffective, and a threat to our survival and well being.

I agree, but the role of being comforted often outweighs all future threats. We are very bad at determining future threats, which is why people live on flood planes and at the foot of volcanoes. We also group (herd mentality) with those who agree with our beliefs. Change can come, but usually not from outsiders. Trust and social standing play a big part in accepting changes to our beliefs. When the threat to our survival gets close enough, even beliefs that comfort fall short...in other words...RUN!

 

[ronburgundy]

Except beliefs impact actions and reactions, so objectively wrong beliefs lead to actions and reactions that fail to achieve one's goals, which can include goals of avoiding threats, acquiring resources, mating, etc.. This is why beliefs based in emotional goals you refer to are most prevalent in contexts where being wrong appears to have minimal direct impact on survival (this is what I was referring to in my prior post).

This is reflected in the fact that most people become far more empirical and rational and far less faith based when their lives directly depend upon the efficacy of their decisions to get them out of danger. In these cases, fear serves its limited evolved function of motivating effort and preparing the body for action, but empirical experience and reason largely guides what particular actions are taken. Unfortunately, most people are also highly ignorant to their real numerous indirect impacts of their beliefs. So, such emotional/faith based beliefs heavily determine their public rhetoric and political actions which shape the culture in ways that make our "collective" actions and reactions largely emotional based and thus objectively wrong and ineffective, and a threat to our survival and well being.

I agree, but the role of being comforted often outweighs all future threats. We are very bad at determining future threats, which is why people live on flood planes and at the foot of volcanoes. We also group (herd mentality) with those who agree with our beliefs. Change can come, but usually not from outsiders. Trust and social standing play a big part in accepting changes to our beliefs. When the threat to our survival gets close enough, even beliefs that comfort fall short...in other words...RUN!

Counter agree I just wanted to curb the impression your initial post gave that believing based on comfort was a generally good survival strategy. Their are situations where striving to believe what is actually true is objectively more optimal to survival and even to emotional well-being which is affected by physical well-being. That is what makes cultural traditions and ideologies that promote actions without regard for fact or reason so dangerous. They tend promote emotional based belief in situations where its dangerous and far less optimal for personal and societal well being than a rational pursuit of objective understanding. People vary in the degree to which they engage in self delusion to avoid the truth that is right in front of them in favor of a emotional comfort, and a major source of that variance is the culture (including religion) around them and whether it promotes such delusion as not only acceptable but a virtue (as in "faith is a virtue").

As for the flood plain example, I don't think it that people who live there are cognitively unable to accurately determine the threat, but rather they do know the threat on some level, but they actively suppress the reality, not just to gain emotional comfort but also to gain material short term benefits of risking the long term threat.

 

[fromderinside]

I agree, but the role of being comforted often outweighs all future threats. We are very bad at determining future threats, which is why people live on flood planes and at the foot of volcanoes. We also group (herd mentality) with those who agree with our beliefs. Change can come, but usually not from outsiders. Trust and social standing play a big part in accepting changes to our beliefs. When the threat to our survival gets close enough, even beliefs that comfort fall short...in other words...RUN!

Counter agree I just wanted to curb the impression your initial post gave that believing based on comfort was a generally good survival strategy. Their are situations where striving to believe what is actually true is objectively more optimal to survival and even to emotional well-being which is affected by physical well-being. That is what makes cultural traditions and ideologies that promote actions without regard for fact or reason so dangerous. They tend promote emotional based belief in situations where its dangerous and far less optimal for personal and societal well being than a rational pursuit of objective understanding. People vary in the degree to which they engage in self delusion to avoid the truth that is right in front of them in favor of a emotional comfort, and a major source of that variance is the culture (including religion) around them and whether it promotes such delusion as not only acceptable but a virtue (as in "faith is a virtue").

As for the flood plain example, I don't think it that people who live there are cognitively unable to accurately determine the threat, but rather they do know the threat on some level, but they actively suppress the reality, not just to gain emotional comfort but also to gain material short term benefits of risking the long term threat.

I suspect the actual calculation is in who survives under the two regimes. Some flood plain persons will survive whilst the fewer river safe people,being fewer, will not survive the much lower probability earthquake or land slide leading to continuation of such short term choices. We are not in control of our futures. Rationality the not end to which the brain is evolving. Right now we are pretty capable given our advantage in using energy gained by our inventiveness. However as water becomes less accessible and food supplies again begin to be determinants of our futures what comes out the other side will probably not be experimentally oriented.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

First you have to ask, What are beliefs? How do we form them? And once formed, why do we defend them in the face of all logic?
My own experience and research show most beliefs form out of comfort, saving energy, and fear. All good survival reasons.

Except beliefs impact actions and reactions, so objectively wrong beliefs lead to actions and reactions that fail to achieve one's goals, which can include goals of avoiding threats, acquiring resources, mating, etc.. This is why beliefs based in emotional goals you refer to are most prevalent in contexts where being wrong appears to have minimal direct impact on survival (this is what I was referring to in my prior post).

This is reflected in the fact that most people become far more empirical and rational and far less faith based when their lives directly depend upon the efficacy of their decisions to get them out of danger. In these cases, fear serves its limited evolved function of motivating effort and preparing the body for action, but empirical experience and reason largely guides what particular actions are taken. Unfortunately, most people are also highly ignorant to their real numerous indirect impacts of their beliefs. So, such emotional/faith based beliefs heavily determine their public rhetoric and political actions which shape the culture in ways that make our "collective" actions and reactions largely emotional based and thus objectively wrong and ineffective, and a threat to our survival and well being.

But that drive for self preservation has been selected for over countless generations, and in my view best explains the behavior. Simply stated, the people who actually believed they could do crazy shit and tried it are dead, and such people are continually weeded out of the population.

The OP poses a great question. My personal take has become to watch what people do, and from their behavior be able to accurately ascertain the degree to which they hold to a given belief. Also I've witnessed the onset of mental illness in persons that had been previously absolutely normal. The change in behavior is nothing short of unbelievable. Stated beliefs truly get acted on, and cause harm to the individual.