Belief in Myths

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I just found a highly interesting article about the human perception of myths and falsehoods:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933_pf.html

 

In case the article vanishes or you can't read it, here are some key quotes:

 

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently issued a flier to combat myths about the flu vaccine. It recited various commonly held views and labeled them either "true" or "false." Among those identified as false were statements such as "The side effects are worse than the flu" and "Only older people need flu vaccine."

 

When University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwarz had volunteers read the CDC flier, however, he found that within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.

 

But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.

 

As early as 1945, psychologists Floyd Allport and Milton Lepkin found that the more often people heard false wartime rumors, the more likely they were to believe them.

 

The research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works. Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious "rules of thumb" that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. Clever manipulators can take advantage of this tendency.

 

Furthermore, a new experiment by Kimberlee Weaver at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and others shows that hearing the same thing over and over again from one source can have the same effect as hearing that thing from many different people -- the brain gets tricked into thinking it has heard a piece of information from multiple, independent sources, even when it has not. Weaver's study was published this year in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

 

So is silence the best way to deal with myths? Unfortunately, the answer to that question also seems to be no.

 

Another recent study found that when accusations or assertions are met with silence, they are more likely to feel true, said Peter Kim, an organizational psychologist at the University of Southern California. He published his study in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

 

Myth-busters, in other words, have the odds against them.

 

Wacky. It leaves the only option as "fight back, but very carefully." What will this mean for the popular understanding of science? Certainly we now realize that myths are deeply rooted in human psychology, and fighting them isn't as easy as saying "no, it's wrong." Now what?

 

Now, where's the bugtracker for the human brain?

[ecoli]

Interesting study... but I think the advertisment industry knew all this already.

[iNow]

I offer the following speculation based on some real information. In other words, what follows is an educated guess based loosely on what I know of neuroanatomy, development, and cogntion, but I am not planning on supporting it with citation or searching to see if it's fully accurate (take it with a grain of salt)...

 

As we develop and learn new things, the neural pathways associated with those learned concepts get richer, and more neural connections are formed. Generally, the more neural connections there are, the stronger the concept, and the more rooted in our being it is. Through repetition and importance, these pathways are continually pruned and trimmed, and those that remain have greater impact and importance in our concepts and thoughts. The more it's activated, the more it grows and the number of connections (neural web) increases.

 

I like the analogy of erosion. If you have a hill, and it rains often on this hill, soon little trenches will form where the water runs down it. As more rain falls, the waters will begin going into the trench more frequently, making it wider and deeper. The wider and deeper the trench becomes, the more it becomes the primary path of the falling water. If you think of nerval pathways as the trench, and the perceived stimulus or thought as the rain, you see that the more it's used the greater neural branching and strength.

 

As we proceed through the world, especially as we age and become less neural plastic (connections tend more to be attached to the existing pathways instead of generating completely new pathways as they would when young, and all information was novel), incoming information is more quickly associated onto these baseline, or foundation, pathways... simply becoming another branch on the existing structure.

 

So, when you show someone that something was false, it activates this existing pathway (making it stronger), but also the pathway for "concept is false." However, chances are that the "concept is false" pathway is not as robust (since they believed the concept to be true prior to the new information coming in). Until the "concept is false" pathway becomes stronger than the "concept is true" pathway, little or no change will occur. So, in this case, the information proving the myth false can actually serve to strengthen the old (false) idea since there was activation of the existing pathway, and the "concept is false" pathway is still relatively weak.

 

I suppose it's the same with the silence. The pathway is activated, so it becomes stronger, but there is no evidence counter to it to grow more connections in the "concept is false" pathway.

 

In essence, it really depends on how one has learned about the world around them. If their "foundation pathway" is that "nothing is certain, and concepts must be discarded when proven false," then they likely accepted the new information and did not mistakenly think the false myth was true when tested a few days later. However, if their "foundation pathway" is more basic, and more absolute, such as "this concept is true," then it's much harder to let go of the previous concept, and these people are more likely to test a few days later about the false myth remaining true. It depends on where your "foundation" is, and how it's laid. If it's built on the concept of information malleability, then no worries. If it's built on an absolute "set of truths" instead of a flexible "method of approach," then maybe Dawkin's has a point when he raises the alarm bells.

 

 

Sorry if this isn't making any sense. I usually describe neuroanatomy in laymens terms much better, but I am pretty tired after a day of hanging drywall and reframing a wall.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

Not a bad effort. Your theory may well have an element of truth. It seems to tie in with my limited knowledge of learning.

 

A bit depressing, though. I have known for a long time that people with wacky ideas seek out others with the same ideas to talk with. The internet and internet discussion groups is another way of increasing this impact. The end result is that the wackos talk each other into ever firmer belief in their crazy ideas.

 

However, Mother Nature has a solution. It is called growing older and dying. Each new generation starts afresh.

[swansont]

"within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual."

 

Not just old people. When I was teaching, my shipmates and I learned of this effect. We called it the "NOT" filter: never tell your students that something was NOT true or give an example of NOT the right way to do things, since the first thing to be lost from memory was the word "NOT."

 

So if one were to say something like "momentum conservation does NOT always hold" and the students would remember that momentum was always conserved (of course, we all remember that it fails to hold if there is a net force on the system)

[pioneer]

Myths is my chief complaint with empiricsm. This is less of a problem to the trained specialists who run the studies. But often a correlation becomes mass marketed as a fact of life, and becomes a social myth.

 

Let me give an example. The data shows that seatbelts save lives. So we encourage people to wear seatbelts. What the data really says is, if one has an accident wearing a seatbelt, they are much better off than someone not wearing one. If I drive all day and not have an accident, the seatbelt did not save my life. I was useless on that day. Yet the myth is the seatbelt is constantly saving my life, so I need to wear it at all times. For the average person, the seatbelt may never save their life, since the average person may never have such a serious accident, yet one is conditioned to think it is saving their life each day. Law enforcement, uses this myth, so they can raise revenue, with everyone happy they forced another person to believe in their social myth; we just saved your life.

 

The invention of the airbag should have got rid of the myth. The airbag only works in situations when the risk is real, due to some contact. We don't have to pretend it is saving our life each day, by driving with it open. But inspite of the technology upgrade, the seatbelt myth remains, even when a person is surrounded by 1-6 airbags. One can still get pulled over for not wearing the seal belt, even though it is retro technology. This should be a valid seatbelt fine couter-argument, but the myth forbids it.

 

A full electrically insulted bubble suit can saves lives during lightning. This may be shown to be over 5000 times more effective during lightning compared to not wearing it. One may even prove this in the lab. Do we all need to wear this new bubble suit all the time? Even when you sleep, one needs to wear their lightning suit, because once a lightning bolt hit a house and enterered the electrical system. So there is risk, which can be reduced by 5000 times, if we always wear the bubble suit. Common sense is not allowed nor is the risk put into perpective. The numbers are presented in a way that makes people fear even slight risk. Yet science, will keep quiet and not put it into rational perspective to break a myth.

 

I should not have presented the bubble suit example, since liberals might run with it and force feed this to everyone, through some type of law. Then there will be a real risk of getting pulled over for a fine. This will then reinforce the fear concern of the so-called experts, until the myth sticks. Where is science helping to keep people rational to avoid myths? Either they participate irrationally, or they benefit by keeping it alive.

[swansont]

Myths is my chief complaint with empiricsm. This is less of a problem to the trained specialists who run the studies. But often a correlation becomes mass marketed as a fact of life, and becomes a social myth.

 

Let me give an example. The data shows that seatbelts save lives. So we encourage people to wear seatbelts. What the data really says is, if one has an accident wearing a seatbelt, they are much better off than someone not wearing one. If I drive all day and not have an accident, the seatbelt did not save my life. I was useless on that day. Yet the myth is the seatbelt is constantly saving my life, so I need to wear it at all times. For the average person, the seatbelt may never save their life, since the average person may never have such a serious accident, yet one is conditioned to think it is saving their life each day. Law enforcement, uses this myth, so they can raise revenue, with everyone happy they forced another person to believe in their social myth; we just saved your life.

 

The invention of the airbag should have got rid of the myth. The airbag only works in situations when the risk is real, due to some contact. We don't have to pretend it is saving our life each day, by driving with it open. But inspite of the technology upgrade, the seatbelt myth remains, even when a person is surrounded by 1-6 airbags. One can still get pulled over for not wearing the seal belt, even though it is retro technology. This should be a valid seatbelt fine couter-argument, but the myth forbids it.

 

A full electrically insulted bubble suit can saves lives during lightning. This may be shown to be over 5000 times more effective during lightning compared to not wearing it. One may even prove this in the lab. Do we all need to wear this new bubble suit all the time? Even when you sleep, one needs to wear their lightning suit, because once a lightning bolt hit a house and enterered the electrical system. So there is risk, which can be reduced by 5000 times, if we always wear the bubble suit. Common sense is not allowed nor is the risk put into perpective. The numbers are presented in a way that makes people fear even slight risk. Yet science, will keep quiet and not put it into rational perspective to break a myth.

 

I should not have presented the bubble suit example, since liberals might run with it and force feed this to everyone, through some type of law. Then there will be a real risk of getting pulled over for a fine. This will then reinforce the fear concern of the so-called experts, until the myth sticks. Where is science helping to keep people rational to avoid myths? Either they participate irrationally, or they benefit by keeping it alive.

 

But these are not myths perpetuated by others, they are strawmen created by you. That you need to have been in an accident for your seatbelt to come into play is probably understood by most. And since it's unlikely that you can put your seatbelt on (or have an airbag installed) just prior to an accident, you're left with wearing it all the time.

 

What you need to do is find evidence that airbags are a replacement for seatbelts. I don't think you'll be successful. (there's a reason they are termed supplemental restraints)

[pioneer]

I rarely wear seat belts unless I feel a need an urge to wear one. I remember many years ago, I was taking a long trip from the NorthEast US to Tennessee. I left late, and ended up driving through a Nor'easter snow storm working it way north. The going was rough and I lasted about 8 hours driving in the blizzard. I eventually pulled over and took a nap at a truck stop. I awoke about an hour later, due to cold, and started again.

 

By this time the storm had gone north of me, but the roads were still snow and ice. I had a premonition to put my seatbelt on. I hadn't wore it during the worse of the storm. I simply ignorred the feeling, since the conditions were much better. But the gut feeling kept nagging at me until I started to feel I needed to listen. About 15 minutes later, I became part of a multiple car pile-up down this icy hill, that totalled my car.

 

I remember when I was about to impact, I lifted my hands in the air to test the seatbelt, to see how good it would work. It was sort of silly, but the young scientist I was, I decided this was good time to collect data. After I bounced off the seatbelt, I remember wishing I had been going a little faster so i could have had a better test of the belt. I figured, if I was suppose to get hurt, I would not have had the premonition. In the end, I was left totally unharmed and spent from 4AM to 6AM standing out in the icy cold waiting for the police to come and fill out a report. Nowadays they would have airlifted me unharmed, to help drive up the medical costs.

 

To this day I only use seatbelts if I have a gut feeling that I may need it Now I have airbags. These make me drive safer, since I don't feel too good about getting punched by the wind bag, while it does 90mph.

 

I have a brother who had a convertible sports car. When we was a teen, he was racing a friend and missed a turned and rolled the car. He was not wearing a seatbelt. Luckily for him, since he would have been decapitated. As it was, he was thrown onto a lawn and only suffered a broken wrist and a punctured kidney. That was one case a seatbelt would have taken a life.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why would he have been decapitated? A proper convertible would have a rollbar that would prevent it.

[dichotomy]

So if one were to say something like "momentum conservation does NOT always hold" and the students would remember that momentum was always conserved (of course, we all remember that it fails to hold if there is a net force on the system)

 

I wonder if this differs with optimists and pessimists?

 

Wacky. It leaves the only option as "fight back, but very carefully." What will this mean for the popular understanding of science? Certainly we now realize that myths are deeply rooted in human psychology, and fighting them isn't as easy as saying "no, it's wrong." Now what?

 

Now, where's the bugtracker for the human brain?

 

 

 

I've come to understand, over some time, that the best form of proving a fact is NOT to be sarcastic, aggressive and threatening. But to be rational, clear and above all as calm as you can possibly be. As soon as strong emotions come into the picture, people tend to stop listening.

 

Oh, the 'bug tracker' might be acquiring the personal ability to let incorrect and obsolete facts become continually replaced by correct facts. And, teaching this to the kids in a very CALM manner. Lack of calmness is one obvious criticism I have of Dawkin's approach to converting creationists. He should just present the facts mam, just the facts. In a strong calm way.

 

cheers.

[pioneer]

Believing in myths has two different aspects. There are myths like Santa Claus, which most people outgrow since they are obvious enough for the average person to figure out and see through. But there are other myths that are far more subtle. Many of these require maintaining an emotional rapport, so the mind is not able to work properly and see through it.

 

For example, bottled water. People began to panic about tap water and a market was created for bottle water. At about 1000 times the cost you too could be at the cutting edge of social evolution. It turned out, the way the law was written, one can include a high very percent of tap water. Yet the myth, perpetuated with fear and conformity made people believe that this expensive water was magic water from a pure stream. Marketing knows how people are ,and tries to create social myths to peddle products.

 

I remember I had a bottle of water I left in the fridge for some time. I started to drink it and I could taste outgassing from the plastic container. When the water is certified safe, this is before it enters that plastic bottle. So the myth exposed many people to plasticizers from bottled water containers.

 

The problem with these subtle myths is often truth looks like the myth. If someone told you tap water was as safe as bottled water, this would have been the truth, since many brands had tap water. in fact, tap water was found to contain much lower levels of bacteria. Instead the myth was considered the truth, and this inconvenient truth was only a myth.

 

What I thought was rather funny was San Francisco banned bottled water. The reason was it created conflicted with another myth and one had to go. We always tend to chose the most current myth since it is shinier. It turned out drinking bottle water had a huge carbon footprint. The latter is the cutting edge in social myths, so this was chosen, being so shiny.

 

The first type of myth, like Santa Claus, although not true, does create a certain feeling of excitement and anticipation in children. The second type of myth is more geared toward adults, to do the same type of thing.

[1veedo]

The first type of myth, like Santa Claus, although not true, does create a certain feeling of excitement and anticipation in children. The second type of myth is more geared toward adults, to do the same type of thing.

Religion is Santa Claus for adults. (no flame)

[pioneer]

Religion is Santa Claus for adults. (no flame)

 

There is sort of truth to this statement. However, which Santa Claus is healthier for humans, free market Santa Claus, political Santa Claus, cultural Santa Claus etc., or religious Santa Claus? Any way we add it up, humans seem to have this need to believe in some type of myth, because these exercise parts of the brain. At the very least, it makes us use our imaginations. It stirs up feelings while allowing us to connect socially with people whose imagination and feelings tune into the same myth. None of these myths work if we try to rationalize them too much. People pick and chose which myths that will give a rational waiver too.

 

If you look at religion and get past the symbolism, these are systems for govening the behavior of large groups of people. A free market myth gets us to the mall to buy and trade so we can get together with our friends to play, feel good about ourselves and maybe show off. The religious myth may get people doing charity work, instead. Irronically, what appears to be far more modern and rational on the surface, creates a less progressive group affect. The difference is connected to which buttons each myth pushes so it can create a certain social or group output affect.

 

One possible way to compare myths is to compare output and then compare this to the history of human behavior to see if it is advanced, ancient or primative. Is it horse and buggy, or automobile behavior? The laws of the jungle type myth, that may be common to violent criminals; pre-humans probally did that 50,000 years ago, so that is horse behavior before there is was even a buggy. Fashion is a little more modern. It may have been something the cavemen did when they strutted with their fur coats. That may be horse behavior with a fur saddle, but not yet a buggy. It is an interesting exercise to connect so-called modern to the past to see how primative or advance various behaviors actully are. It is important to maintain social continuity to the past, but not assume that a social output affect is an advanced human behavior, and get stuck with a horse.

 

Marriage is actually quite old (horse and buggy) but the alternative is more primative (horse). Advanced (car) would be a marriage based on the word of two people, without any social contract or any social pressure keeping them together in marriage. They would also be able to overcome all problems, distractions, and temptations that would tear them apart. That would be too modern for culture since the two majority myths would apply pressure to either go horse, or horse and buggy. This auto myth would still require a myth, but a unique myth shared by only these two. But that myth would be surrounded by two large myths, until it pops.

[dichotomy]

Myths are obviously important, or they wouldn’t exist (like the paradox? )

 

(I speculate) In psychological evolutionary terms. Myths are important primary building blocks of consciousness, intellect and creativity. I think of it this way. Myths are important in the development of speculations, speculations are important to develop theories, theories are important in order to put unknown things into practice, and prove/disprove the theory.

 

The obvious question is, do we still need myths? What should they be permanently replaced with? assumptions, speculations, postulations, working hypotheses, theories, etc ? These terms seem to be much more acceptable, at present, to ‘rational’ thinkers?

[swansont]

Myths are important because sometimes having the wrong answer is more comforting than the right one, or having no answer at all.

[Reaper]

Myths are important because sometimes having the wrong answer is more comforting than the right one, or having no answer at all.

 

 

That depends on who you ask..... I would rather say I don't know than to have the wrong answer, or delude myself with it.

 

I will say that myths are useful though.

[YT2095]

I`m happy with "I don`t know" also, with the Caveat added; that I will do my best find out!

[pioneer]

If you read the psychology of Carl Jung, he did a lot with myths. He is probably the best source for a scientific study on myths and symbols. He tried to correlate these to what he called the archetypes of the collective unconscious. The archetypes, in turn, are the many aspects of the human personality. Myths were personifications of these inner dynamics.

 

One myth personality, that goes way back to ancient times, has many names, but all do the same thing, is what he called the trickster figure. It is usually a character that is a little weird but quite clever, the subject of laughter. He sort of represents the clever baffoon in all of us. Many people can't see this is a natural part of their personality. Many go into denial, trying to be prim and proper, and project it out and have others play that role for all of us. The comedians sort of play the role of the modern trickster figure. He gives people a way to see parts of themselves without having to be that person on the surface, so we can hide it. That is why we either laugh or get mad when a comedian starts to do his act.

 

In modern times, Hollywood makes stars for us to worship. These are almost analogous to the gods and goddesses of the past. They don't have magical powers, but they are able to do all those things mortals can only dream about. They allow up to excercise parts of ourselves, indirectly. The young male playing air-guitar alone in his room, imagining he is giving a concert, is the type of affect the myth was trying to achieve. Through the myth and our imaginations we are able to express natural parts of the human personality, that may never have an expression in normal life. The young male playing the air-guitar may be inspired, by this rock god, and using that inspiration, he may actually become a star.

 

Santa Claus is a myth, that shows the parents how to be Santa Claus on a smaller scale, bringing presents from above in the attic on Chrismas Eve. They are to do this in the spirit of joy,love and giving. It also shows the children their role in the drama; magical excitement. It is not rational, but it serves the purpose of excercising certain archetypes, once a year. If we rationalized away Santa Claus, then the magic goes away, such that that range of archetypes no longer has a good trigger to become active.

 

What Jung also tried to show is, even if we remove the myths, humans have this need to create other myths, so they can excercise archetypes. These may not appear to be fairy tales characters, but serve the same purpose. Coming back to celebrities, we have our modern myths. Babe Ruth or Albert Einstein now become more than real life, for all of us. They sort of personify what is possible, inspiring to pretend or to follow.

 

The old system of fables and fairy tales may not work for adults, but these still work for children. It pushes certains buttons in their imaginations. Adolescents substitutes these for pop culture hero's. Adult may then substitute these for cultural dollar figures, like Donald Trump or political figures like Hilary Clinton, both appearing larger than life. Heros only work if we make them larger than life in our imaginations. Whatever lights the achetypes. Some are inspired by this and try to follow in the footsteps of their hero. This push buttons, which would not be pushed otherwise.

 

The human personality represents a wide spectrum. But people will tend to specialize and narrow this down to a fraction of the possibilities. In the ancients days, their extensive mythologies tried to push all the buttons. These are not rational but neither is inspiration a rational phenomena. Just like the symbols of Christmas, birth of a child and giving, sort of push certain buttons, the ancients would use mythology to help push buttons on demand. Instead of using viagra, they would use Venus. This has been rationalized away, such that ancient mythology would not work in modern times. We need modern myths in our time.

[dichotomy]

We need modern myths in our time.

 

Until the species is eventually mature and conscious enough to handle the TRUTH?

 

That depends on who you ask..... I would rather say I don't know than to have the wrong answer, or delude myself with it.

 

I will say that myths are useful though.

 

I agree that it IS best to say, "I don't know", at least this is truth.

 

Myths are useful. For one, it helps us to initiate ideas like minotaurs and centaurs for e.g. These myths give us a basic grounding for the more scientific explanations of how man has come to evolve to his present state, perhaps.

[iNow]

Aren't myths really just an artifact of ancient knowledge transfer, where oral epics were used to pass knowledge and information from generation to generation before the use of writing? Oral poets and tribal elders reciting stories which lent to greater understanding in the rest of the tribe, and using great personified gods and homeric presentations to pass knowledge, and increase the sharing of baseline social codes.

 

So, why are they "useful" and "needed" today if we have more grounded knowledge which is repeatable? I don't care how many flood or creation stories you share, or how strong the minotaur is, I want to hear a more accurate description of reality which is more aligned with... adulthood.

[dichotomy]

I should clarify. Myths are not needed today. They served a purpose, like our tails did once. It is time to grow-up, but some people struggle with the concept of what adulthood is supposed to mean today. Possibly due to the lack of credible role models that surround the majority of us.

[gib65]

The human brain wants the truth, but it also wants to keep in touch with what its community believes. If it hears X being promulgated repeatedly by its own community, it tends to lean towards accepting X as truth because it recognizes X as the accept code of the community. In other words, truth is valued, but so is staying within agreement of the community.

 

It's a survival tactique if you ask me. Truth is important for survival, but so is the support of one's own community, and to maintain that support, one needs to stay clear of dissension. So the brain has a natural inclination to fall into belief if it hears a common myth being spread throughout its own community. It's a way of avoiding alienation.

[waitforufo]

Myths fill the gap when one lacks education or life experience. The average person successfully negotiates the problems of their day by applying myths. Rarely do they get into trouble doing so. Yes, it would be better if they had correct understanding, but they have jobs to work, kids to feed, mortgages to pay…. It has always been this way and always will be. If you doubt this, seek out a good administrative assistant in your workplace. Although that person will be very good at what they are paid to do, they will generally have very little understanding of science. In a similar vain, ask any scientist about how the economy works. You will hear a lot of myths their as well.

[dichotomy]

In a similar vain, ask any scientist about how the economy works. You will hear a lot of myths their as well.

 

But, 1. the economy is a myth. 2. Nobody really knows what it's going to do.

[swansont]

The human brain wants the truth, but it also wants to keep in touch with what its community believes

 

Myths fill the gap when one lacks education or life experience. The average person successfully negotiates the problems of their day by applying myths. Rarely do they get into trouble doing so. Yes, it would be better if they had correct understanding, but they have jobs to work, kids to feed, mortgages to pay…. It has always been this way and always will be. If you doubt this, seek out a good administrative assistant in your workplace. Although that person will be very good at what they are paid to do, they will generally have very little understanding of science. In a similar vain, ask any scientist about how the economy works. You will hear a lot of myths their as well.

 

I think the human brain wants answers, and some people want the truth.

 

But take the experience of watching/reading the news. A lot of people trust it, up to the point that the story is something with which they are familiar — then they notice that the story is incomplete, has wrong elements to it, etc. So they know the news is not the actual truth. Yet many trust the rest of it, if they don't have the knowledge to contradict it.