Belief Polerization: A possible reason JWs are more convinced when facing critical information.

by bohm 25 Replies latest jw friends

  • bohm
    bohm

    Mary - i allmost become sorry that i gave the example of jehovahs witnesses (but it was to tempting, given Alices recent ... i dont know what happened during the last 4 pages of that thread ... you dont have her lying in your backyard by any chance?), because its so damn obvious jehovahs witnesses are irrational most of the time they are faced with critical information. I think the effect i describe above is most relevant in non-cult religious groups and political/economical contexts.

    I think it may explain a lot regarding conspiracy theories where otherwise intelligent people suddenly seem to draw the opposite conclusions on the same information; ie. a definite study which showed in great detail how a fire could have brought down the buildings can be interpreted as a non-conspiracy theorist as evidence AGAINST A conspiracy, while at the same time, the conspiracy theorists can, rationally, use it to SUPPORT there was a conspiracy.

    If you are interested, i would suggest the following study:

    http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/spring07/borgidae/psy5202/readings/lord,%20ross%20&%20lepper%20(1979).pdf

    Its a classical study where participants read about two studies, one concluded that the death penalty deters crime and another concluded that the death penalty has no effect on crime. After exposure to the evidence, supporters of the death penalty strengthened their support and opponents strengthened their opposition.

    Had you asked me a couple of years ago, i would have taken that as a clear evidence at least one side was not being rational, but it need not be so.

    A thing i left out from the original post was how to test if its irrationality or rationality which drive the other person. One simple test is to ask the person before the information is being presented what he would conclude given the information and its logical negation. For example, while Alices response to the study may have been rational in the above context, she could not the next day read a study with the opposite conclusion - that jehovahs witnesses have less pedophelia than others - and conclude that proove they are gods organization. Its one or the other, not both.

    Another thing is if a person is willing to listen... but thats completely out of the scope of this post.

  • Hadit
    Hadit

    Good post Bohm.

    I'm inclined to believe mind control is involved even at that point. As JWs our mind has continuously been exposed layer, by layer (some since birth) to the WTS teachings or programming – repetitively and at regular intervals. They install Pavlovian trigger words and an automatic subconscious reaction - brain circuits fire (bringing to the conscious mind the previously instilled belief system) at the same time shutting down the frontal lobes which immediately shut down reasoning and logic. Your brain is on autopilot run by the meticulously installed programming and your mind runs in circles defending your position. You literally cannot hear or even think about what is being presented from an objective point of view – it is all subjective to your previous programming (of course fear is also another mind paralyzing tactic they instill in us which freezes logical thinking). Yet, the belief is there that it is coming from “within us” our thoughts that we made independently – which is not so.

    As JWs we have not been allowed to form various belief systems outside of the WTS and not allowed objectivity (no independent thought). Therefore, our frame of reference is extremely skewed and narrow. Now what is the difference with the doubting JW? In most cases, the person who has doubts was exposed to more than one belief system with varying degrees of objectivity and many sided views about different topics. They are, therefore, able to reason objectively from various frames of reference. They are thus able to comprehend things that are negative about the witnesses. Somewhere at some point the doubting person enlarged their frame of reference – perhaps allowed themselves more independent thought, perhaps they internally rejected some doctrines, read more books or had some degree of education, were not always witnesses or had liberal parents (even as JWs) or had outsiders as friends – whatever may have broadened their “outside” information base.

    That is why we must at all costs avoid trigger words with people we are trying to get through to. We need to work around the programming – short circuiting it. We need to help them develop their logic and reasoning skills outside of the JW world. Fear is another mind paralyzing addition to all this b

    This is why the WTS discourages independent thinking, education and worldly association and ties up our time with their mind programming literature and meetings.

    I hope this makes sense (they are only my thoughts on it and could be totally off base)! Of course it takes a lot of patience and time to do this. It’s also hard to not use trigger words when our emotions are involved and we just desperately want them to see the truth about the WTS.

  • VampireDCLXV
    VampireDCLXV

    Good one Hadit. I couldn't have said it any better myself. When dealing with the borg, you are walking through a mental mine-field as it were.

    V665

  • quietlyleaving
    quietlyleaving

    bohm, feminists would argue that gender comes into it. it has been said (Carol Gilligan, In a different Voice) that men value abstraction and separation while women value care and connectedness. Gilligan provdes empirical proof of this.

    Imo this throws light on Bob and Alices opposite responses to the case you mentioned and fits with your conclusion

    Plausible reasoning alone may actually be an adaquate explanation.

    So Alice's responses to the pedophila problem need not be seen as irrational.

    (or perhaps I haven't understood what you saying at all and need more responses from you and/or others to clarify)

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    One reason why people can become/remain polarised afer receiving information, it because one, or both , have failed to to investigate the quality of the information before forming/reforming an opinion on it.

    In cults, investigation is circumvented by describing all contrary information as coming from the devil/big business/The Establishment/or any other target of hate or suspicion.

    It is difficult to slip in information that they can't refute without using trigger words. Saying as little as possible can help, as you are less likely to put your foot in it. Keep it really simple too.

    Yesterday a Dub mentioned earthquakes to me because we have just had quite a big one. Me, "We should be grateful, our mountains erode 40mm a year. If it wasn't for earthquakes pushing them up, this country would have just eroded away into the sea and disappeared!". She decided it was time to say goodbye. That's good. Nuff said already. One teensy bit of info at a time is better than none. She has something to think about and she will still talk to me again.

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    Thanks for this post. It took me a few days to digest it, but belief polarization is the reason for the cognitive dissodence.

  • Mary
    Mary

    It makes me wonder what the mindset was of the members of Jonestown just before they drank the kool-aid. Did they have any misgivings or doubts as to what they were about to do? If memory serves, I think there were some that were forced at gunpoint to drink it, so obviously there were at least some that had doubts.

  • debator
    debator

    Hi bohm

    May I question your example. While both are given this information, what about checking if there is any basis of truth in the information?

    Paying "millions" is provably true of the catholics but patently untrue of witnesses with these type of cases. from my research the only known figures for settlement s atm is about 50,000 with any witness case.

    And when you talk about polerization doesn't it reflect also how biased a group are if they accept anything negative to uphold their basic anti-witness position without questioning it's truthfulness?

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    From bohm's link :

    Empirical studies have documented cases of belief polarization, where two people with opposing prior beliefs both strengthen their beliefs after observing the same evidence.

    Pehaps it just shows that human nature is such that we (as humans) do not want to change our beliefs just because of a pesky thing called "evidence". We are comfortable with what we believe and, the older we get the less we want to have to change

    Who said that human nature is rational?

  • quietlyleaving
    quietlyleaving

    I agree blues brother

    imo the capacity for belief polarization is actively nullifed and negated by organizations like the WTS. So I'm suggesting the complete opposite of your thread title bohm. If belief polarization causes divergence then this is not present amongst JWs because when they are presented with contrary evidence they tend to remain the same.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit