5 ms·

I have generally found that there's not that much relation between people's stated beliefs and their actual every-day behaviour. By and large, I do think their

by arp242 3y ago

I have generally found that there's not that much relation between people's stated beliefs and their actual every-day behaviour. By and large, I do think their beliefs are genuine and heart-felt, and that they're not faking them. It's just that it doesn't really influence their daily behaviour all that much. Generally people are motivated by the incentives of the moment, emotion of the moment, and that kind of thing. I am no exception to this by the way. People often assume that if someone has the "right set of beliefs" (whatever that "right set" is, which may or may not be religious) that they're also a good person. I'm not saying there is zero correlation for all people, but typically it's very small at best, if it even exists at all.

at_a_remove 3y ago
Wasn't there a study of ethicists which pointed out that even ethicists were not particularly more ethical in their day to day behavior? More and more, I have come to regard what people state as their beliefs or guiding principles as some kind of mission statement buried on a corporate website. It's more congruent with reality.
RangerScience 3y ago
Related, started realizing that "being a principled person" doesn't really mean "having (stated) principles", it means belief that you can (and should) have principles that you're trying to apply consistently and continuously. Lots of people have principles. Not so many people are principled.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Your actual principles are demonstrated by how you act when nobody is looking.
- smcin 3y ago
  Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? Anyway the UK Fujitsu/Postmaster scandal is about a huge chain of dishonest human behavior, not bugs in software.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    > Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? then you're not a principled person, that's why actions speak louder than words.
    - smcin 3y ago
      But noone external to the contents of their head can know that. It's unknowable to all the rest of us. (The only thing the rest of us can tell is they might be confused, incoherent, have a weak, inconsistent or just idiosyncratic set of principles, etc.) See the author interview of Robert Greene on "Exploring Human Nature" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Being principled would preclude you from changing those principles to excuse your own bad behavior. Put another way, if you were to do this, then you weren't really principled in the first place, were you? And it's not like people don't say out loud that they are a certain way, and then act against that. There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated.
    - smcin 3y ago
      But that wouldn't be proveable, if they never stated their principles. Almost anyone could then claim to be principled if they didn't state what principles, unless we knew the innermost contents of their mind; or unless their behavior was grossly self-contradictory (rather than nuanced, or deniable). > There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated. Sure there is: we can see the audit trail of precisely what principle they claimed to adhere to and, when. For example in this case the defence for Paula Vennells (and other key figures) is going to be very interesting. What if Vennells blames expert advice, or the prosecutors, or Fujitsu?
CoastalCoder 3y ago
> People often assume that if someone has the "right set of beliefs" (whatever that "right set" is) that they're also a good person. IIUC, there are a few aspects of Christian theology that muddy this issue a bit. I'm probably a bit wrong, so I'd be grateful for any corrections: 1) Christians believe in progressive sanctification. I.e., the Holy Spirit works, over time, to make Christians more like Jesus. So you really should expect true Christians, on average, to gradually become better people. 2) Not everyone professing to be a Christian truly is [0]. As an agnostic, those issues have frustrated my efforts to decide if Christianity generally true. [0] https://www.openbible.info/topics/fake_christians https://www.openbible.info/topics/fake_christians
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  >So you really should expect true Christians, on average, to gradually become better people. Only if I accept their beliefs as accurate.
  - ACow_Adonis 3y ago
    Or even their professions of belief to actually be something approaching truthful. But there are many incentives, both on a self-deceptive psychology level, and on a societal-wide level, for wanting to be seen as a virtuous and forthright person irrespective of one's actual behaviours or beliefs.
  - labster 3y ago
    You shouldn’t have to accept the beliefs, just the virtues, if it’s a religion with a stated goal of making people virtuous (excluding some polytheistic faiths, for instance).
    - kelnos 3y ago
      The poster upthread said that the mechanism for becoming better people was that the Holy Spirit makes it so. If the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, then the only mechanism for self-improvement is one's own ability to make those improvements, consciously. Virtues alone don't make people better. Doing the hard work to introspect and actually make yourself better... that's what makes you better.
deepsun 3y ago
Yep, except for the cases when some group of believers becomes so obsessed and intolerable, that they pack belongings and go do great things like founding Providence or Salt Lake City in the middle of a desert. Those deeds are very respectable IMO.
- rayiner 3y ago
  It’s pretty impressive, right? I don’t think if you took random New Yorkers and dumped them into that same situation they would have achieved the same outcomes.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    you don't think other groups would have fought for survival?
    - deepsun 3y ago
      Other groups would adapt to their local community, blend in, so there would be no need to move out and found countries.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      I think everyone would have fought for survival. But there is a difference between survival, and creating an orderly and prosperous civilization in harsh surroundings.
taeric 3y ago
I've found it is easier than that. If a system is setup so that professing a belief will get someone a benefit, then you will find a ton of people claiming said belief. Now, there are also people that will act counter to their beliefs for other reasons. Sometimes for reasons you don't know. But that is, largely, a different thing.

by arp242 3y ago

at_a_remove 3y ago

Wasn't there a study of ethicists which pointed out that even ethicists were not particularly more ethical in their day to day behavior? More and more, I have come to regard what people state as their beliefs or guiding principles as some kind of mission statement buried on a corporate website. It's more congruent with reality.

RangerScience 3y ago

Related, started realizing that "being a principled person" doesn't really mean "having (stated) principles", it means belief that you can (and should) have principles that you're trying to apply consistently and continuously. Lots of people have principles. Not so many people are principled.

JohnFen 3y ago
Your actual principles are demonstrated by how you act when nobody is looking.
smcin 3y ago
Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? Anyway the UK Fujitsu/Postmaster scandal is about a huge chain of dishonest human behavior, not bugs in software.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  > Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? then you're not a principled person, that's why actions speak louder than words.
  - smcin 3y ago
    But noone external to the contents of their head can know that. It's unknowable to all the rest of us. (The only thing the rest of us can tell is they might be confused, incoherent, have a weak, inconsistent or just idiosyncratic set of principles, etc.) See the author interview of Robert Greene on "Exploring Human Nature" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78
- kelnos 3y ago
  Being principled would preclude you from changing those principles to excuse your own bad behavior. Put another way, if you were to do this, then you weren't really principled in the first place, were you? And it's not like people don't say out loud that they are a certain way, and then act against that. There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated.
  - smcin 3y ago
    But that wouldn't be proveable, if they never stated their principles. Almost anyone could then claim to be principled if they didn't state what principles, unless we knew the innermost contents of their mind; or unless their behavior was grossly self-contradictory (rather than nuanced, or deniable). > There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated. Sure there is: we can see the audit trail of precisely what principle they claimed to adhere to and, when. For example in this case the defence for Paula Vennells (and other key figures) is going to be very interesting. What if Vennells blames expert advice, or the prosecutors, or Fujitsu?

CoastalCoder 3y ago

> People often assume that if someone has the "right set of beliefs" (whatever that "right set" is) that they're also a good person. IIUC, there are a few aspects of Christian theology that muddy this issue a bit. I'm probably a bit wrong, so I'd be grateful for any corrections: 1) Christians believe in progressive sanctification. I.e., the Holy Spirit works, over time, to make Christians more like Jesus. So you really should expect true Christians, on average, to gradually become better people. 2) Not everyone professing to be a Christian truly is [0]. As an agnostic, those issues have frustrated my efforts to decide if Christianity generally true. [0] https://www.openbible.info/topics/fake_christians https://www.openbible.info/topics/fake_christians

BobaFloutist 3y ago
>So you really should expect true Christians, on average, to gradually become better people. Only if I accept their beliefs as accurate.
- ACow_Adonis 3y ago
  Or even their professions of belief to actually be something approaching truthful. But there are many incentives, both on a self-deceptive psychology level, and on a societal-wide level, for wanting to be seen as a virtuous and forthright person irrespective of one's actual behaviours or beliefs.
- labster 3y ago
  You shouldn’t have to accept the beliefs, just the virtues, if it’s a religion with a stated goal of making people virtuous (excluding some polytheistic faiths, for instance).
  - kelnos 3y ago
    The poster upthread said that the mechanism for becoming better people was that the Holy Spirit makes it so. If the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, then the only mechanism for self-improvement is one's own ability to make those improvements, consciously. Virtues alone don't make people better. Doing the hard work to introspect and actually make yourself better... that's what makes you better.

deepsun 3y ago

Yep, except for the cases when some group of believers becomes so obsessed and intolerable, that they pack belongings and go do great things like founding Providence or Salt Lake City in the middle of a desert. Those deeds are very respectable IMO.

rayiner 3y ago
It’s pretty impressive, right? I don’t think if you took random New Yorkers and dumped them into that same situation they would have achieved the same outcomes.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  you don't think other groups would have fought for survival?
  - deepsun 3y ago
    Other groups would adapt to their local community, blend in, so there would be no need to move out and found countries.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    I think everyone would have fought for survival. But there is a difference between survival, and creating an orderly and prosperous civilization in harsh surroundings.

taeric 3y ago

I've found it is easier than that. If a system is setup so that professing a belief will get someone a benefit, then you will find a ton of people claiming said belief. Now, there are also people that will act counter to their beliefs for other reasons. Sometimes for reasons you don't know. But that is, largely, a different thing.