The power of stories to influence us

[Underseer]

A lot of my theist friends post stories just like this on Facebook. It honestly never occurred to me that they believe these stories count as proof of anything.

This is really useful information for apologetics debates, but I'm posting it in this forum because it cites specific research. My apologies if this is the wrong forum for this discussion. Anyway, if you have friends or relatives who keep throwing stories like this at you, consider asking them to watch this video.

 

[Angry Floof]

Excellent!

 

[rousseau]

To successfully critically analyse anything typically takes a rich internal conceptual framework and understanding of the world that's already there. It's something of a chicken / egg problem, you need reason to be able to understand the world enough in order to reason.

The only solution is for other people to reason for you, and you to not be so dumb that you don't listen.

 

[Davka]

Well done. I only wish there were some way to convince theists to sit still for 18 minutes and watch it. :\

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's much easier and simpler to be theist than atheist.

 

[Kharakov]

Well done. I only wish there were some way to convince theists to sit still for 18 minutes and watch it. :\

If you can't convince someone who doesn't have a firm grasp of the concepts the video illustrates to sit down for 18 minutes, you probably need to watch a couple videos yourself.

Anyway, the moron who made the video is so caught up in attacking the religious narratives that he misses the point of the sermon on hell (cooperation is good). He's like some of the other vocal atheists out there: so caught up in something someone says that they miss the point entirely. I suppose it's only a matter of time before someone with that level of intellect accuses me of mentioning someone missing the point, which are the tips of darts, which do not get missed, instead they miss targets, so of course I am entirely wrong to say miss the point. It's a foolish saying!

And yes, it may be a bit cruel to talk to people who blindly thrash about and attack parts of statements, missing the intent of the whole, as if they are fools, because they will take it the wrong way, thrash about, and attack more statements, because they are fools.

 

[Underseer]

To successfully critically analyse anything typically takes a rich internal conceptual framework and understanding of the world that's already there. It's something of a chicken / egg problem, you need reason to be able to understand the world enough in order to reason.

The only solution is for other people to reason for you, and you to not be so dumb that you don't listen.

That's funny. The video suggests an entirely different solution, so yours probably isn't be the only solution.

 

[Underseer]

Well done. I only wish there were some way to convince theists to sit still for 18 minutes and watch it. :\

If you can't convince someone who doesn't have a firm grasp of the concepts the video illustrates to sit down for 18 minutes, you probably need to watch a couple videos yourself.

Anyway, the moron who made the video is so caught up in attacking the religious narratives that he misses the point of the sermon on hell (cooperation is good). He's like some of the other vocal atheists out there: so caught up in something someone says that they miss the point entirely. I suppose it's only a matter of time before someone with that level of intellect accuses me of mentioning someone missing the point, which are the tips of darts, which do not get missed, instead they miss targets, so of course I am entirely wrong to say miss the point. It's a foolish saying!

And yes, it may be a bit cruel to talk to people who blindly thrash about and attack parts of statements, missing the intent of the whole, as if they are fools, because they will take it the wrong way, thrash about, and attack more statements, because they are fools.

So that's how you ignore the message of the video. Interesting how the theist mind works.

The principles he illuminates are not unique to monotheists. This phenomenon can affect anybody.

He even gave other examples. Did you think one of the other stories provided a compelling reason to believe that polytheism is true and monotheism is false? Did you think one of the other stories provided a compelling reason to think that deism is true and monotheism is false?

Or was he "blindly attacking" polytheism and deism by suggesting that some of those other stories don't actually prove their claims?

 

[bilby]

Well done. I only wish there were some way to convince theists to sit still for 18 minutes and watch it. :\

I must admit, I find the current trend away from text and towards video to be baffling. This interesting presentation didn't need to take up 18 minutes of my time; a text transcript could have imparted the same information in less than five minutes.

Video is painfully slow, at least from my perspective; and yet, despite being glacial, it is always moving forward - there is no time to stop and contemplate the information received, as the video moves inexorably onwards.

Argument by YouTube seems to be becoming very common. I despise it; It forces me to choose to either waste far too much time on too little content, or to skip the content altogether, and potentially miss some interesting kernel of new information.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well done. I only wish there were some way to convince theists to sit still for 18 minutes and watch it. :\

I must admit, I find the current trend away from text and towards video to be baffling. This interesting presentation didn't need to take up 18 minutes of my time; a text transcript could have imparted the same information in less than five minutes.

Video is painfully slow, at least from my perspective; and yet, despite being glacial, it is always moving forward - there is no time to stop and contemplate the information received, as the video moves inexorably onwards.

Argument by YouTube seems to be becoming very common. I despise it; It forces me to choose to either waste far too much time on too little content, or to skip the content altogether, and potentially miss some interesting kernel of new information.

You can always click on the screen to pause the video.

 

[bilby]

I must admit, I find the current trend away from text and towards video to be baffling. This interesting presentation didn't need to take up 18 minutes of my time; a text transcript could have imparted the same information in less than five minutes.

Video is painfully slow, at least from my perspective; and yet, despite being glacial, it is always moving forward - there is no time to stop and contemplate the information received, as the video moves inexorably onwards.

Argument by YouTube seems to be becoming very common. I despise it; It forces me to choose to either waste far too much time on too little content, or to skip the content altogether, and potentially miss some interesting kernel of new information.

You can always click on the screen to pause the video.

I know.

That is an intrusive act upon the train of thought (unlike simply pausing in reading text, which involves far less distraction from the thought process), and does nothing at all to mitigate the other problems; it didn't seem to me to be worthwhile to point out that there is a way to partially mitigate a small part of the problem, but thanks for doing so anyway. I could also fast-forward through the video in the hope that the visuals contain clues as to which parts are interesting. That doesn't help much either.

I do hope you didn't misunderstand my complaint so deeply that you thought that was a helpful solution to the entire problem.

 

[Kharakov]

Did you think one of the other stories provided a compelling reason to believe that polytheism is true and monotheism is false?

Yes. Totally. I was very moved by the story that showed polytheism is true and monotheism is false. My emotions dictated my response to the story, rather than logic, because I generally throw logic out the window when I hear a moving story.

Did you think one of the other stories provided a compelling reason to think that deism is true and monotheism is false?

Yes. Totally. I was very moved by the story that showed deism is true and monotheism is false. My emotions dictated my response to the story, rather than logic, because I generally throw logic out the window when I hear a moving story.

Or was he "blindly attacking" polytheism and deism by suggesting that some of those other stories don't actually prove their claims?

No. Of course not. He presented a totally compelling narrative that showed certain religious beliefs are foolish because those that hold them to be true do not take into account various pieces of evidence that demonstrate their previously held beliefs are incorrect.



I just didn't see a narrative in which a being purposefully built a piano in which it could play the mice music, and then teach them how to play music after they explored the structure of the piano, and then teach them some ultimate lessons about friendship, that eating pizza is fun more than once, and some other things about life.

Anywho, don't feel forced to play the piano. The world will be destroyed by ignorant theists if you don't learn about it and learn how to work with it before they run it into the ground. No pressure for you to learn. God's not going to stop the theists from running amok, so you're going to have to master natural laws in order to educate them. Once you become a virtuoso of natural law, then you'll believe in God. It's sort of a catch 22.

 

[Kharakov]

I must admit, I find the current trend away from text and towards video to be baffling. This interesting presentation didn't need to take up 18 minutes of my time; a text transcript could have imparted the same information in less than five minutes.

It's to obfuscate the weakness of the points made. Generally one can sneak things by someone if they are in general concordance with what you are saying, and if they read what is said, they'll see the holes.

Or I'm bullshitting again.

I've got a copy of Dragon Naturally Speaking in the closet. Not sure if the license has been used though. I'll check it out. Otherwise, if there is sufficient interest, I might type out the transcript myself.

 

[Underseer]

Well done. I only wish there were some way to convince theists to sit still for 18 minutes and watch it. :\

I must admit, I find the current trend away from text and towards video to be baffling. This interesting presentation didn't need to take up 18 minutes of my time; a text transcript could have imparted the same information in less than five minutes.

Video is painfully slow, at least from my perspective; and yet, despite being glacial, it is always moving forward - there is no time to stop and contemplate the information received, as the video moves inexorably onwards.

Argument by YouTube seems to be becoming very common. I despise it; It forces me to choose to either waste far too much time on too little content, or to skip the content altogether, and potentially miss some interesting kernel of new information.

I happen to like this guy's videos, although I admit that I have the attention OMG SOMETHING IS ON TV! BRB!

 

[bilby]

I must admit, I find the current trend away from text and towards video to be baffling. This interesting presentation didn't need to take up 18 minutes of my time; a text transcript could have imparted the same information in less than five minutes.

Video is painfully slow, at least from my perspective; and yet, despite being glacial, it is always moving forward - there is no time to stop and contemplate the information received, as the video moves inexorably onwards.

Argument by YouTube seems to be becoming very common. I despise it; It forces me to choose to either waste far too much time on too little content, or to skip the content altogether, and potentially miss some interesting kernel of new information.

I happen to like this guy's videos, although I admit that I have the attention OMG SOMETHING IS ON TV! BRB!

Oh, I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with this video in particular; just that there is almost no concept that can be expressed in this format that couldn't be better expressed in text.

 

[Davka]

I happen to like this guy's videos, although I admit that I have the attention OMG SOMETHING IS ON TV! BRB!

Oh, I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with this video in particular; just that there is almost no concept that can be expressed in this format that couldn't be better expressed in text.

My feelings exactly. Text also has the benefit of being cut-n-pasteable, so you can refer back to specific points (such as the way stories act on our brains) and even better yet, text can be footnoted.

 

[Underseer]

Yes. Totally. I was very moved by the story that showed polytheism is true and monotheism is false. My emotions dictated my response to the story, rather than logic, because I generally throw logic out the window when I hear a moving story.

Did you think one of the other stories provided a compelling reason to think that deism is true and monotheism is false?

[...]

Aaaand, just like that it sounds like you missed the point of the video.

Did you think the first video was proof of anything? Did you see it as validation of things you already believe?

If not, then you are not the sort of person relevant to the subjects of the two pieces of research cited in the video. If not, then you are more like an atheist than a theist.

If you did think the first story counted as compelling validation or worse proof of things you already believe, did you not notice how unconvincing the other stories were? If you noticed the difference, then the two cited studies very much apply to you, and you should pay more attention to the video because it tells you how to avoid being unduly influenced by stories.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes. Totally. I was very moved by the story that showed polytheism is true and monotheism is false. My emotions dictated my response to the story, rather than logic, because I generally throw logic out the window when I hear a moving story.

[...]

Aaaand, just like that it sounds like you missed the point of the video.

Did you think the first video was proof of anything? Did you see it as validation of things you already believe?

If not, then you are not the sort of person relevant to the subjects of the two pieces of research cited in the video. If not, then you are more like an atheist than a theist.

If you did think the first story counted as compelling validation or worse proof of things you already believe, did you not notice how unconvincing the other stories were? If you noticed the difference, then the two cited studies very much apply to you, and you should pay more attention to the video because it tells you how to avoid being unduly influenced by stories.

My problem with the tale is that science was presented in the same just so style. Those who believe in science nodded their heads to the sound of Galileo, et, al. of the only advances have been yada yada yada. Come gees. How about some experiments, how about sampling, how about a walkabout, why not organize that for which there is repeatable evidence?

Its not video, text, poem, song, or anything like that. Its a being which has curiosity attached to an inquiring mind attached to opposable thumbs and long term memories that just can't take "that's just so" for an answer. My null hypothesis is there is nothing about the earth that cannot be explained by a story.

I plan to have people write stories about what they observe.

One group will find the differences in the stories and go back to verify which tales are correct and then publish a general story based on those they sampled.

Another group will use those stories as a basis for finding common elements in the observations presented in the stories. They will then use these common elements to observe what the original group observed and test each of the common elements they observed against what a group they select who were told to examine what the original group observed and write a story observed.

Ready. Begin.

 

[Bomb#20]

I must admit, I find the current trend away from text and towards video to be baffling. This interesting presentation didn't need to take up 18 minutes of my time; a text transcript could have imparted the same information in less than five minutes.

Video is painfully slow, at least from my perspective; and yet, despite being glacial, it is always moving forward - there is no time to stop and contemplate the information received, as the video moves inexorably onwards.

Argument by YouTube seems to be becoming very common. I despise it; It forces me to choose to either waste far too much time on too little content, or to skip the content altogether, and potentially miss some interesting kernel of new information.

Right? It's the same thing as the godawful trend away from instruction manuals towards instruction videos. When I buy something and only after I open it I find out it has a stupid video in it instead of directions I can refer to while I'm trying to put the bloody thing together my first impulse is to go demand my money back.[/rant]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I know.

That is an intrusive act upon the train of thought (unlike simply pausing in reading text, which involves far less distraction from the thought process), and does nothing at all to mitigate the other problems; it didn't seem to me to be worthwhile to point out that there is a way to partially mitigate a small part of the problem, but thanks for doing so anyway. I could also fast-forward through the video in the hope that the visuals contain clues as to which parts are interesting. That doesn't help much either.

I do hope you didn't misunderstand my complaint so deeply that you thought that was a helpful solution to the entire problem.

I should have included one of those winky emoticons. Sounds Freudian...

But I feel your pain.

I received a juicer recently that came with a user's manual and not a user's video. It's from Korea so there are some small translation problems but it just shows there's hope. /derail