2 ms·
>The people I respect want to know the truth, even if it's upsetting or disillusioning. Even if it makes you dramatically less effective? As far as I can tell
by lsc 8y ago
>The people I respect want to know the truth, even if it's upsetting or disillusioning.
Even if it makes you dramatically less effective?
As far as I can tell, the best evidence is that we probably don't have free will in a way we would find meaningful.
However I can tell you that you will have a much better life if you act as if you have free will, in spite of that evidence.
Even if I'm wrong on that point of fact, and I could be; this isn't really my field, my point stands. Would you prefer to believe in something, even if the 'upsetting or disillusioning' side of that belief is that truly believing it would cripple you as a human?
- CamperBob2 8y agoIt's an interesting question, all right. In some ways it's similar to the question of whether we'd be off as a species if the resources we spend on religious institutions and practices were directed toward rational ends. I'm unquestionably less 'effective' as a member of society because I'm not religious, and I might even be happier if I took advantage of the free social capital that comes with participation in communal irrationality. But at some point, it would threaten my sense of self-actualization. I don't want to die feeling like a successful, happy fraud. Do you? For the same reason, I don't want to pretend that Zimbardo's results can be ignored because of the unscientific manner in which they were obtained.