capsaicin67

I work, alone, with a biblical literalist for hours on end so I've had this conversation bunches. I also have had it with family memebrs etc. I guess the way I see it is that superstition and belief in the supernatural arrests critical thinking and reasoning abilities. Many feel that they are not even allowed to examine topics/evidence critically once they are on board. Not only does this make them vulnerable to fraud of a more immediate and dangerous sort, but it interferes with their ability to problem solve and their concept of self-responsibilty and determination. IMO. I have seen too many people get shaken down for money via religion to not think it has a real effect. Whilst working in mental health I saw that it was employed by those of a predatory nature at least as often as the sincere person looking for solace. But as another post-er mentioned, in the comparison to addiction[which I agree with], there is often an unfortunate period of withdrawal and learning new coping skills after breaking away from superstition. Some people feel they cannot make this jump. And I know from personal experience that it can be a rather solitary experience and mainstream societal support for it is nearly nonexistent. Perhaps if the latter were not true, and there were more pervasive community supports, then it would be easier for them. Otherwise, its a judgement call----is the person in some imminent danger of significance, and as in my co-worker case, are they being fairly ruthless in their attack on your beliefs? Like any intervention, it tends to be a bit thankless even if they finally get it.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: capsaicin67 ]</p>

Troma

Doh! I forgot that one.

Mr. Sammi

Philsoft,

You do have genius qualities, implied from your statement : "Your assertions erroneously imply that some decisions are made in an information vacuum".

What do you think superstition is?

Sorry about the run around. (as an aside insider information, I tried to forget my past, and place my mind into a superstitious state). I know. OH BOY.

Sammi Na boodie ()

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sammi ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

Philsoft,

however to get your mind out of the literal (I am not trying to brainwash you towards being genius). If I was watching you through the window, and saw you take out your 4 greenback bucks, and I wondered, is he gonna buy tampons, or is he gonna buy crackers? what would be the possibilities of the outcomes - observer style?

LET US take this a little further. NOW I have a small gang hanging around the window of said store. Wanting to make a little money for myself, I start taking bets from the gathering of the gang. Someone would enter and I would say, tampon OR tampex? We would make signs and giggle a bit then wait some more.

Sometimes I would make a buck, sometimes no money would pass hands, sometimes i would lose 50 cents or so.

Tell me what is going on in the "real world".

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Philosoft

Nothing much. What I don't think it is is a decision made in an information vacuum.

Philosoft

Okay, you are talking about initial probability.

<strong> Of course, the more you know about the biases that would affect my purchase, the better the odds you can give that I will buy one or the other.

<strong> But not at a 50% rate, despite what you initially believe.

<strong> What's going on is that the initial probabilities you assign to discrete, complex events have little to do with the actual outcomes.

Mr. Sammi

Philsoft,

You say decisions are not made in an information vaccuum, perhaps then the decisions are made in a relative information vaccuum.

I am saying "relative" is a direct implication of what actually pertains to the process.

Of course we all live in a relative information vaccuum, as Philsoft may contend, so Sammi would then insist that superstitious beliefs are off the mark, by being remotely relative to actuality.

OOPS, but this is exactly what Philsoft concluded. 2 worlds - 1 meaning.

Sammi Na Boodie (so long)

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sammi ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Anyone still wondering about why superstition is bad should read some of the posts in the 'my nutty uncle and planet X' thread. There are some excruciatingly poignant case samples there.

Philosoft

You don't have to know why forces affect outcomes, only that they do.

<strong> Only in the sense that you might expect to know more about the biases of event 'x' than event 'y'.

<strong> I would content no such thing. When I say "information vacuum" I refer to a state whereby outcome biases are not only unknown, but unknowable. Since I cannot logically contend there are things that are unknowable, I cannot make a judgement about the relative availability of information.

<strong> Huh?

It's late. Please try to write less mystically.

Mr. Sammi

OK, I am getting queasy about this.

OK.

Sammi Na Boodie ()