4 ms·

> You can't choose your skin color or where you were born, but you can choose your political beliefs. Can one? My political beliefs aren't my tastes: they are

by zeveb 11y ago

> You can't choose your skin color or where you were born, but you can choose your political beliefs. Can one? My political beliefs aren't my tastes: they are things that I believe. I can't choose what I believe to be true. Can you?

orasis 11y ago
With practice, one can objectify and analyze their beliefs. You can start to identify what lens is active that you're filtering reality through. I highly recommend such a practice as it will allow you to hold multiple conflicting beliefs simultaneously. If you'd like a taste at some of the advanced stages that are available with belief objectification, I recommend this short PDF: http://newpossibilitiesassociates.com/uploads/9_levels_of_increasing_embrace_update_1_07.pdf http://newpossibilitiesassociates.com/uploads/9_levels_of_in...
- zeveb 11y ago
  > I highly recommend such a practice as it will allow you to hold multiple conflicting beliefs simultaneously. If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. If X^Y is false, then I don't want to believe that X^Y is true. That'd be insane!
  - mcphage 11y ago
    > If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. Not necessarily. Since you try bringing math in, then there are other possibilities—both could be consistent with your axioms. The continuum hypothesis is neither "true" nor "false", but rather independent of the axioms of ZFC. You are free to adopt it, or its negation, and proceed from there.
  - orasis 11y ago
    It may be insane to the typical person, but if you start to objectify the lens that is active, then you can see there are multiple conflicting truths. As an example: Belief 1: The floor I am standing on is real. Of course it is real. I can experience it right now. Belief 2: The floor I am standing on is not real. Of course it is not real. Most materials are empty space and our nervous system generates the experience of solidity. Besides, time doesn't exist as there is only this present experience so there is no container for material things to exist in. I regard both of these as true from different lenses. Is it insane? Maybe. But it also avoids a ton of existential angst.
npsimons 11y ago
> I can't choose what I believe to be true. Can you? Yes.
Jtsummers 11y ago
What you believe to be true and false can (and probably ought) be based on what you've observed, experienced and researched. Beliefs must be periodically challenged or they're merely blind faith. And that way lies madness. This means your beliefs ought to be malleable. And when they don't change after evaluation you ought to have a reason for it. Even if it's just: No new evidence, evaluate later.
jotux 11y ago
>I can't choose what I believe to be true. Uhhh, what? Fundamentally belief is the acceptance in an idea as true or real. It represents the amount of confidence you have in what is presented to you. Confidence can be based on many things (evidence, social pressure, etc) and can change over time. So you are absolutely free to choose what you believe is true or false.
- zeveb 11y ago
  That doesn't make any sense: I don't choose to have confidence that something is true; I either have confidence that it is true; have confidence that it is false; or do not have sufficient confidence to know either way. I can't choose whether I believe something is true or false, any more than I can choose to wake up an aardvark tomorrow.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - skissane 11y ago
    I think the reality is – we do have some limited degree of choice in our beliefs. For example, I can choose what books I read. If I choose to read two dozen apologies for Marxism, that is not guaranteed to make me believe in Marxism, but it almost certainly increases somewhat the probability I will end up believing in it compared to if I hadn't chosen to read all those books. (Substitute for Marxism any other belief system – Islam, atheism, Christianity, whatever – and the point still holds.) At the same time, I can't wake up tomorrow morning and decide out of the blue "I'm going to believe in Marxism today". Beliefs are ingrained habits of the mind – we have some conscious power over our own habits, but it requires a desire to change them, and a willingness to make concerted efforts over time to change them, and even after all of that there is no guarantee of success. (It's unusual for people to actually want to change their beliefs, but not completely unheard of; while most atheists are quite happy to remain atheists, some of them actually do want to believe in God, but can't; some of those try to make themselves believe it; many of those who try fail, but I'm sure some of them actually do succeed.) In most cases when people change their beliefs, it happens without any conscious effort to do so–the ideal of rationality says on the basis of new evidence or better arguments; however, given the reality of human non-rationality, I'd say that social and emotional factors are often more important in changing beliefs than rational or evidential ones. Now, when it comes to the actual topic at hand – political liberalism vs. political conservatism – I don't think the vast majority of people's political beliefs are the result of a conscious choice to believe one thing rather than another – they are primarily the consequences of social and emotional and personality factors (reason and evidence do play a role, but far less than either side would like to think.) While in theory a person could consciously choose to try to make themselves believe in a particular political ideology, I doubt many people ever actually make that choice in practice.
vertex-four 11y ago
At a base level, you could assert that none of us can "choose" anything and the universe is entirely deterministic, or it's at least deterministic at any level which affects us. In practice, you're generally able to read as much as you want, talk to as many people as you want, and choose who you care about and what issues are important to you. A person's beliefs are changeable with time, effort and understanding of the world they live in.
- guelo 11y ago
  > you're generally able to read as much as you want, talk to as many people as you want No you can't. I'd love to read and research more on a wide range of topics but I don't have enough time. We all have to take shortcuts while developing our beliefs. Ultimately you have to choose a set of giant's shoulders to stand on, as they say. You can't thoroughly research everything on your own, and even if you could there's no guarantee that you'd come up with better answers than anybody else.
pessimizer 11y ago
I certainly can't. I'm a victim of my own interpretation of the evidence. If I could choose what I believed, I'd choose a lot differently. edit: I'm honestly jealous (and intolerant) of people who can. My deeply religious grandmother told me once during a long discussion about her Christianity that "faith" to her meant making a choice to believe. I told her that I have never had faith, and will never have faith. I have faith in that:)
- ktRolster 11y ago
  Good point. I really want to believe that I'll win the lottery, but I just can't bring myself to accepting it.
  - mcphage 11y ago
    > I really want to believe that I'll win the lottery, but I just can't bring myself to accepting it. Probably for the best. Your belief that you will win the lottery doesn't mean that you actually will win the lottery, but it might lead to you losing a lot of money.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  You don't choose to believe something different. You deliberate on your beliefs. And either find validation or repudiation or somewhere in between. Beliefs are formed over a lifetime and in constant (though perhaps slow motion) flux. Consider (for yourself) your present stance on a non-theological postition. Death penalty, abortion, universal suffrage, the draft, something. Consider what you presently believe and why. Then question it. Research or seek out the opposing view. Hold serious (non-strawman) debates in your own mind on the various potential stances and their rationales. Maybe you come back from this unchanged, changed to an opposing view, or to a middle ground. But you'll have arrived their deliberately. That's the essence of being a rational human adult. If you can't, figure out why. If you won't, you're still a child.
- chrismcb 11y ago
  It is possible for you to reinterpret the evidence.

by zeveb 11y ago

orasis 11y ago

With practice, one can objectify and analyze their beliefs. You can start to identify what lens is active that you're filtering reality through. I highly recommend such a practice as it will allow you to hold multiple conflicting beliefs simultaneously. If you'd like a taste at some of the advanced stages that are available with belief objectification, I recommend this short PDF: http://newpossibilitiesassociates.com/uploads/9_levels_of_increasing_embrace_update_1_07.pdf http://newpossibilitiesassociates.com/uploads/9_levels_of_in...

zeveb 11y ago
> I highly recommend such a practice as it will allow you to hold multiple conflicting beliefs simultaneously. If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. If X^Y is false, then I don't want to believe that X^Y is true. That'd be insane!
- mcphage 11y ago
  > If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. Not necessarily. Since you try bringing math in, then there are other possibilities—both could be consistent with your axioms. The continuum hypothesis is neither "true" nor "false", but rather independent of the axioms of ZFC. You are free to adopt it, or its negation, and proceed from there.
- orasis 11y ago
  It may be insane to the typical person, but if you start to objectify the lens that is active, then you can see there are multiple conflicting truths. As an example: Belief 1: The floor I am standing on is real. Of course it is real. I can experience it right now. Belief 2: The floor I am standing on is not real. Of course it is not real. Most materials are empty space and our nervous system generates the experience of solidity. Besides, time doesn't exist as there is only this present experience so there is no container for material things to exist in. I regard both of these as true from different lenses. Is it insane? Maybe. But it also avoids a ton of existential angst.

npsimons 11y ago

> I can't choose what I believe to be true. Can you? Yes.

Jtsummers 11y ago

What you believe to be true and false can (and probably ought) be based on what you've observed, experienced and researched. Beliefs must be periodically challenged or they're merely blind faith. And that way lies madness. This means your beliefs ought to be malleable. And when they don't change after evaluation you ought to have a reason for it. Even if it's just: No new evidence, evaluate later.

jotux 11y ago

>I can't choose what I believe to be true. Uhhh, what? Fundamentally belief is the acceptance in an idea as true or real. It represents the amount of confidence you have in what is presented to you. Confidence can be based on many things (evidence, social pressure, etc) and can change over time. So you are absolutely free to choose what you believe is true or false.

zeveb 11y ago
That doesn't make any sense: I don't choose to have confidence that something is true; I either have confidence that it is true; have confidence that it is false; or do not have sufficient confidence to know either way. I can't choose whether I believe something is true or false, any more than I can choose to wake up an aardvark tomorrow.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- skissane 11y ago
  I think the reality is – we do have some limited degree of choice in our beliefs. For example, I can choose what books I read. If I choose to read two dozen apologies for Marxism, that is not guaranteed to make me believe in Marxism, but it almost certainly increases somewhat the probability I will end up believing in it compared to if I hadn't chosen to read all those books. (Substitute for Marxism any other belief system – Islam, atheism, Christianity, whatever – and the point still holds.) At the same time, I can't wake up tomorrow morning and decide out of the blue "I'm going to believe in Marxism today". Beliefs are ingrained habits of the mind – we have some conscious power over our own habits, but it requires a desire to change them, and a willingness to make concerted efforts over time to change them, and even after all of that there is no guarantee of success. (It's unusual for people to actually want to change their beliefs, but not completely unheard of; while most atheists are quite happy to remain atheists, some of them actually do want to believe in God, but can't; some of those try to make themselves believe it; many of those who try fail, but I'm sure some of them actually do succeed.) In most cases when people change their beliefs, it happens without any conscious effort to do so–the ideal of rationality says on the basis of new evidence or better arguments; however, given the reality of human non-rationality, I'd say that social and emotional factors are often more important in changing beliefs than rational or evidential ones. Now, when it comes to the actual topic at hand – political liberalism vs. political conservatism – I don't think the vast majority of people's political beliefs are the result of a conscious choice to believe one thing rather than another – they are primarily the consequences of social and emotional and personality factors (reason and evidence do play a role, but far less than either side would like to think.) While in theory a person could consciously choose to try to make themselves believe in a particular political ideology, I doubt many people ever actually make that choice in practice.

vertex-four 11y ago

At a base level, you could assert that none of us can "choose" anything and the universe is entirely deterministic, or it's at least deterministic at any level which affects us. In practice, you're generally able to read as much as you want, talk to as many people as you want, and choose who you care about and what issues are important to you. A person's beliefs are changeable with time, effort and understanding of the world they live in.

guelo 11y ago
> you're generally able to read as much as you want, talk to as many people as you want No you can't. I'd love to read and research more on a wide range of topics but I don't have enough time. We all have to take shortcuts while developing our beliefs. Ultimately you have to choose a set of giant's shoulders to stand on, as they say. You can't thoroughly research everything on your own, and even if you could there's no guarantee that you'd come up with better answers than anybody else.

pessimizer 11y ago

I certainly can't. I'm a victim of my own interpretation of the evidence. If I could choose what I believed, I'd choose a lot differently. edit: I'm honestly jealous (and intolerant) of people who can. My deeply religious grandmother told me once during a long discussion about her Christianity that "faith" to her meant making a choice to believe. I told her that I have never had faith, and will never have faith. I have faith in that:)

ktRolster 11y ago
Good point. I really want to believe that I'll win the lottery, but I just can't bring myself to accepting it.
- mcphage 11y ago
  > I really want to believe that I'll win the lottery, but I just can't bring myself to accepting it. Probably for the best. Your belief that you will win the lottery doesn't mean that you actually will win the lottery, but it might lead to you losing a lot of money.
Jtsummers 11y ago
You don't choose to believe something different. You deliberate on your beliefs. And either find validation or repudiation or somewhere in between. Beliefs are formed over a lifetime and in constant (though perhaps slow motion) flux. Consider (for yourself) your present stance on a non-theological postition. Death penalty, abortion, universal suffrage, the draft, something. Consider what you presently believe and why. Then question it. Research or seek out the opposing view. Hold serious (non-strawman) debates in your own mind on the various potential stances and their rationales. Maybe you come back from this unchanged, changed to an opposing view, or to a middle ground. But you'll have arrived their deliberately. That's the essence of being a rational human adult. If you can't, figure out why. If you won't, you're still a child.
chrismcb 11y ago
It is possible for you to reinterpret the evidence.