3 ms·

This is deeply fascinating. We provide theory and case-study evidence showing how incorrect beliefs persist. Although harmful at the individual-level, w

This is deeply fascinating. We provide theory and case-study evidence showing how incorrect beliefs persist. Although harmful at the individual-level, we show that they generate Pareto efficient outcomes that have group-level benefits. Pretty much my view on religious practices in the West. Many beliefs are almost certainly untrue, yet there are big benefits for group members. Those of us on the outside with our evidence and falsifiable hypotheses are left with envy.

mrec 9y ago
If you enjoy this sort of thing, you might try Marvin Harris' book Cannibals and Kings. It's pretty old now - I read it in 1990 - but it's full of thought-provoking illustrations of how apparently bizarre superstitions and practices can actually be adaptive.
nyolfen 9y ago
i strongly recommend this link, which explores these ideas philosophically: https://samzdat.com/2017/06/19/the-use-and-abuse-of-witchdoctors-for-life/ https://samzdat.com/2017/06/19/the-use-and-abuse-of-witchdoc... and if you have a little spare time, a previous book review that provides extra framing for what the author is getting at, as well as expanding on the notion you mentioned: https://samzdat.com/2017/05/22/man-as-a-rationalist-animal/ https://samzdat.com/2017/05/22/man-as-a-rationalist-animal/ > In the [cool kids scene] of the 2000’s, opposition to Christianity was a given. No subject was more likely to unite than a good old bashing of fundamentalists. Marxists, Anarchists, Libertarians, Liberals, Randians – it crossed political borders. (I’m from California, if that helps.) > It was hard not to – it’s not like the fundies had any coherent reasons they could articulate. Every other day some [class indicator] pastor would announce opposition to “the gay agenda” or seek to return to “a Christian nation” as though that were a desirable thing that had ever existed (like, deism duh, etc.). If that wasn’t bad enough, when pressed for an explanation, they’d just read some passage from John or Corinthians. “And? Was that all?” Readers take note: if someone is busy mocking you for your holy book, justifying your actions based on your holy book is a terrible rhetorical strategy. > Standard interpretation: “The olds are lamenting the loss of an oppressive institution that has no objective value, right?” Right? > So this is what churches do in our language: they’re probably the single most important economic institution in rural America. Period.

mrec 9y ago

If you enjoy this sort of thing, you might try Marvin Harris' book Cannibals and Kings. It's pretty old now - I read it in 1990 - but it's full of thought-provoking illustrations of how apparently bizarre superstitions and practices can actually be adaptive.

nyolfen 9y ago

i strongly recommend this link, which explores these ideas philosophically: https://samzdat.com/2017/06/19/the-use-and-abuse-of-witchdoctors-for-life/ https://samzdat.com/2017/06/19/the-use-and-abuse-of-witchdoc... and if you have a little spare time, a previous book review that provides extra framing for what the author is getting at, as well as expanding on the notion you mentioned: https://samzdat.com/2017/05/22/man-as-a-rationalist-animal/ https://samzdat.com/2017/05/22/man-as-a-rationalist-animal/ > In the [cool kids scene] of the 2000’s, opposition to Christianity was a given. No subject was more likely to unite than a good old bashing of fundamentalists. Marxists, Anarchists, Libertarians, Liberals, Randians – it crossed political borders. (I’m from California, if that helps.) > It was hard not to – it’s not like the fundies had any coherent reasons they could articulate. Every other day some [class indicator] pastor would announce opposition to “the gay agenda” or seek to return to “a Christian nation” as though that were a desirable thing that had ever existed (like, deism duh, etc.). If that wasn’t bad enough, when pressed for an explanation, they’d just read some passage from John or Corinthians. “And? Was that all?” Readers take note: if someone is busy mocking you for your holy book, justifying your actions based on your holy book is a terrible rhetorical strategy. > Standard interpretation: “The olds are lamenting the loss of an oppressive institution that has no objective value, right?” Right? > So this is what churches do in our language: they’re probably the single most important economic institution in rural America. Period.