cnorwood: It will be fleeting. The difference between what is and what you think is will create conflict and strife that would not have been there otherwise. You will also be less able to adapt and learn from your environment due to filtering content through a false perspective. This will create more and more conflict as time goes on, and whatever contentment you once had will be crippled. You can postpone the realization by seclusion, but in the end, castles made of sand...
Hhmmm, not to argue for irrationality, but I do see things somewhat differently. The choice between *thinking* and *doing* is quite the conundrum, and the utility of this choice is not always clear cut.
Regarding the highly abstract form of irrationality present with religious mind sets, it is hard to deny that there are innumerable examples of religious individuals who are extremely successful members of society and go through their entire lives without having their perspective "cracked" open by reality. This could be seen as indicative of a few things, namely:
(a) Like Russell’s tea pot, many religious tenets are not falsifiable. The practical utility of these notions is
neutral and their only functional purpose is to preserve the integrity of the memeplex.
(b) All of the major world religions have evolved for thousands of years. They are survivors, resisting and/or adapting to empirical challenges (literal vs metaphorical interpretations of Genesis).
© With resistance to challenges (eg, Creationism), there is no upper limit on the level of cognitive dissonance that can be endured because (1) falsification always contains a degree of uncertainty that can be clung to and (2) faith contains the heuristic that cognitive dissonance is actually a desirable condition (ie, “this is a test of one’s faith” “he’s taking a great leap of faith”). The more difficult it is to reconcile one’s beliefs with reality, the greater one’s “faith”. If faith is a primary value, then the integrity of the memeplex is maintained.
The three points that I’ve made above are all based on the premise that possessing a standard religious mind set is selectively neutral. Yet the argument could also be made that religion, and the faith that produces it, are net positives in terms of their practical utility.
Possessing a psychology that utilizes the concept of *faith* to artificially inflate confidence levels in what constitutes the actual nature of a "higher order reality" can greatly reduce, if not outright eliminate, the need to commit to the activity of abstract reasoning. By not being "worried warts" [lol] individuals can dedicate themselves much more fully to accomplishing the mundane objectives of their day to day lives.
I suspect however that, even though you were addressing comments I made about religious irrationality, what you had in mind was the various types of cognitive bias that can have a negative impact on practical utility. In this regard I am in total agreement with you. Most of the cognitive bias I witness with those around me in my personal life I lump under the heading of “wishful thinking”.
The desire to achieve one’s goals can be corrupting. Making legitimate progress towards a goal brings with it the emotional state of happiness. Unfortunately humans crave happiness so much that they often unconsciously try to cheat the process. This is one of the reasons I often caution against happiness for its own sake. (While I write this I am thinking of someone in particular I care for a great deal, but who also frustrates the shit out of me [lol] ) The switcheroo comes by falsely believing that a goal has been accomplished or, more often, by having an unwarranted high degree of confidence that a goal will be accomplished (such as by being overly confident in one’s abilities or making light of/disregarding the obstacles one is facing).
Like you’ve mentioned, sometimes reality will step in and the walls will come crashing down. More often what happens is small set backs, small “flashes of reality”, that gradually revise the original strategy to what it should have been in the first place. I have found, based on personal anecdotal evidence, that neither outcome makes a dent in the cognitive bias of wishful thinking. Of course, I am sure that “learning your lesson” will vary from individual to individual, but I do not believe “self-debugging” of this type of bias is common. The personal instances I have in mind involve individuals who are very intelligent, so I can only imagine how improbable it would be for the average Joe to change his ways. In order to make the necessary improvements, one would have to be rather perceptive about their own psychology and this requires a level of introspection that most people do not possess.
Lacking the ability to be introspective is particularly the case for the individual I’m considering - a frenetic extrovert, a bundle of pent up creative energy that is constantly looking to make things happen. Instead of going with a more targeted approach, a “scatter shot” strategy is adopted. And, as a matter of probability, successes do occur. The successes are then glorified and the failures conveniently forgotten. Is this a recipe for disaster? Quite possibly, but when even major set backs are rationalized as “meant to be” can you really ever see this perspective changing its ways?
The example I gave above is a bit extreme but as I stated earlier, I think there is a fundamental choice between *thinking* and *doing*. Different dispositions will be more prone to one over the other. In past discussions Lazarus Long pointed out that taking swift action is often vital to evolutionary fitness. A predator is approaching. Sit around for too long pondering the best route of escape and you’re lunch meat. Depending on the circumstance the ratio varies between action (which provides a chance of success) and analysis (which increases the certainty of success). But at some point action must be taken - and in a natural setting, usually the sooner the better.
So, the thinking/doing dilemma is always present, even for the most rational individuals. The *moment of decision* when action is taken
will contain a degree of uncertainty (ie, “a leap of faith”). The rationality of the decision depends on whether the individual is consciously aware that uncertainty exists.
I do think that the best perspective that one may have at any particular moment is a mindset of 'I don't know' as it accommodates for every possibility. It puts a stop to the upfront filtering process of selective memory.
Indeed, Socratic wisdom is the corner stone of all rational perspectives.
LongeCity
