Is delusion necessary for successful survival?

[dichotomy]

I’ve been thinking about this on and off for a while, and it would be good to get some other POV’s.

 

Is delusion within a tribe/society/nation and self delusion, to some degree, necessary for a hyper conscious species (like ours) dominant/successful survival?

 

I’m generally thinking about anthropocentric religious belief, and, seemingly dangerous levels of confidence that do pay off (that is, for example, impove a tribes chances of overall survival and dominance).

Edited July 7, 2008 by dichotomy

[PhDP]

I think we have very little reason to believe in the adaptive value of religious ideas, they are, in my opinion, by-products of brain function.

[ecoli]

I think there's theories about how religion could have been a tool of social coercion. ie. cooperating in order for a non-specific, non-immediate reward.

[dichotomy]

I think we have very little reason to believe in the adaptive value of religious ideas, they are, in my opinion, by-products of brain function.

 

What about the value of propaganda? Is it valuable to delude a nation into war in order to secure resources for the greater good of that nation?

 

I think there's theories about how religion could have been a tool of social coercion. ie. cooperating in order for a non-specific, non-immediate reward.

 

So Christian, Islam, Hindu and Buddhist religions delude their leaders and their followers, yet unwittingly built stronger foundations for their children? Non-immediate reward. So, does this make delusion, on occasion, a valuable contributor to the survival of sections of humanity? I don't like to ackowledge this, and I am uncomfortable with it, but I think it does.

[PhDP]

What about the value of propaganda? Is it valuable to delude a nation into war in order to secure resources for the greater good of that nation?

 

Evolution & survival are not about the greater good, they are about individual fitness (well, there is a case for some form of group selection but I doubt it would apply here).

 

I think there's theories about how religion could have been a tool of social coercion. ie. cooperating in order for a non-specific, non-immediate reward.

 

This theory is about morality, not religion (AFAIK). After all, there is no proof that a lack of religious belief lead to less cooperation.

[foodchain]

What about the value of propaganda? Is it valuable to delude a nation into war in order to secure resources for the greater good of that nation?

 

 

 

So Christian, Islam, Hindu and Buddhist religions delude their leaders and their followers, yet unwittingly built stronger foundations for their children? Non-immediate reward. So, does this make delusion, on occasion, a valuable contributor to the survival of sections of humanity? I don't like to ackowledge this, and I am uncomfortable with it, but I think it does.

 

 

Your post seems to be going two places at the same time. In one way I get that you are talking about something similar to a worldview, that has parts associated with say nature, in the terms of a brain, and then nurture, or input from the outside it can get. In a sort of juxtapose fashion though you also seem to be including other aspects such as its evolution.

 

In some model I think the brain is described as a competitive network of individual cells. So how does that lurch up into being something similar to a worldview, or is it other aspects of brain function that are responsible for say delusion or worldview? I think the reward for the cells is more food in some form, not sure about specifics as I have only briefly read up on such stuff.

[dichotomy]

Your post seems to be going two places at the same time.

 

What I’m talking about is the value of delusion/ mass delusion to a species overall long term survival chances. I think it plays a larger part than we’d like to admit.

 

Examples -

The belief in a god/s is a form of mass delusion.

The belief in Santa Claus is the mass delusion of children.

In times of war, the belief that westerners/easterners/communists/capitalists are all evil, is a mass delusion.

The belief in the effectiveness of medical blood letting was a mass delusion.

The belief that ‘savages’ (native inhabitants) are just that, and its okay to take their land.

 

 

In some model I think the brain is described as a competitive network of individual cells. So how does that lurch up into being something similar to a worldview, or is it other aspects of brain function that are responsible for say delusion or worldview? I think the reward for the cells is more food in some form, not sure about specifics as I have only briefly read up on such stuff.

 

So this theory might find that Delusion/worldview is successful for the survival of cells?

[foodchain]

What I’m talking about is the value of delusion/ mass delusion to a species overall long term survival chances. I think it plays a larger part than we’d like to admit.

 

Examples -

The belief in a god/s is a form of mass delusion.

The belief in Santa Claus is the mass delusion of children.

In times of war, the belief that westerners/easterners/communists/capitalists are all evil, is a mass delusion.

The belief in the effectiveness of medical blood letting was a mass delusion.

The belief that ‘savages’ (native inhabitants) are just that, and its okay to take their land.

 

 

You put belief in each sentence, is that what you are using to define delusion? I don’t see belief by itself as the cause for all misfortune, I think it would have helped cavepeople if indeed it has a more hard application biologically, simply put what did they know? Plus who knows if indeed belief has a biological origin it might be a product of some current phenotype. Also I don’t know how you would prove it past saying other animals don’t have "belief" in some form, like barking at the "unknown" with some dogs.

 

So this theory might find that Delusion/worldview is successful for the survival of cells?

 

I have no idea. If its cells just working towards fitness like with evolution, then that would apply what as selective pressures or life history for such? I guess this would entail phylogeny to a great extent. Such as could this have played a role in language formation? I think that’s a cool question.

[iNow]

You seem to be approaching this from the wrong direction, dichotomy. Putting the cart before the horse, as it were.

 

There are many group behavior and "pack" animal traits which were selected due to the advantage they conveyed to the individual. Religion (also delusion) is more of an emergent property of those traits, rather than a necessity of survival in themeselves.

 

It was the traits of group behavior and pack alignment that were necessary for survival, and the collection of those traits is what ultimately emerged into present day religion (and the delusion which often accompanies it). In other words, it wasn't religion which came first and helped survival... it was survival which came first and helped religion.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Religion is a very good way of enforcing social policies in large groups. (Whether you want to call it a "delusion" is up to you and Richard Dawkins.)

 

Let's try not to wander too far into religious territory here.

[Paralith]

So, does this make delusion, on occasion, a valuable contributor to the survival of sections of humanity? I don't like to ackowledge this, and I am uncomfortable with it, but I think it does.

 

I think you are mixing two different questions into one basket. The first question is, can mass group delusion increase the reproductive success of the group that is conducting it? The second question is, can mass group delusion decrease the likelihood that the human race will go extinct in the near future?

 

To the first question is yes, which by this point is fairly obvious. Any behavior, including the promotion of delusion (religion, propaganda, etc) that increases the level of cooperation within the group and increases animosity and aggression towards other, competing groups will most likely result in the accumulation of resources and elimination of some, if not most, of those competitors, resulting in better reproductive success.

 

The second question is much more difficult to answer and depends on a lot of environmental variables that can be hard to predict. Can a species better stand the test of time that continually splits into groups that seek to eliminate each other? I'm inclined to say no.

[dichotomy]

In other words, it wasn't religion which came first and helped survival... it was survival which came first and helped religion.

 

I'm not arguing that religion came first, survival obviously came first. I'm arguing that delusion, religious or otherwise, can and does aid survival. Of course, it can aid destruction equally as well.

 

I think you are mixing two different questions into one basket. The first question is, can mass group delusion increase the reproductive success of the group that is conducting it? The second question is, can mass group delusion decrease the likelihood that the human race will go extinct in the near future?

 

 

Yes, it can be broken into many other questions. But specifically, yours are very good ones.

 

To the first question is yes, which by this point is fairly obvious. Any behavior, including the promotion of delusion (religion, propaganda, etc) that increases the level of cooperation within the group and increases animosity and aggression towards other, competing groups will most likely result in the accumulation of resources and elimination of some, if not most, of those competitors, resulting in better reproductive success.

 

 

This is what I'd intuitively think was true.

 

 

The second question is much more difficult to answer and depends on a lot of environmental variables that can be hard to predict. Can a species better stand the test of time that continually splits into groups that seek to eliminate each other? I'm inclined to say no.

 

Yep, it is much more difficult to answer. I'm inclined to say that the pressure group splitting creates does make a stronger, longer lasting species, to a point. After that invisible point cooperation between groups, delusional or scientific, makes a stronger, happier, longer lasting species. I'm not arguing that delusion is good/bad, I think it delivers both and depends very much on the environmental variables that you point out.

 

Religion is a very good way of enforcing social policies in large groups. (Whether you want to call it a "delusion" is up to you and Richard Dawkins.)

 

I don't blanketly call religion delusional, there are aspects of it that are, the obvious being the belief in a deity without credible evidence. Religion has much to offer societies as you have pointed out: social policies, effective morals, unity.

[iNow]

Religion has much to offer societies as you have pointed out: social policies, effective morals, unity.

 

I challenge those first two points. Since we need to be cautious discussing religion here, I'll simply direct you to this talk which addresses my concerns in a very articulate manner:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3884451176644991836&q=the+clash+between+faith+and+reason&ei=2dNySJy5EqWCrALjneCGAQ

 

 

To the unity point, within group unity is exaggerated with religion, however, between group unity is greatly crippled as a result of religion (this is also addressed in the talk I shared via the link above).

[dichotomy]

To the unity point, within group unity is exaggerated with religion, however, between group unity is greatly crippled as a result of religion (this is also addressed in the talk I shared via the link above).

 

We don't have to discuss religion at all, lets discuss mass/individual delusion successes in other areas instead.

 

Perhaps people whom think they can climb Mt Everest without dyeing? Doctors/Scientists whom over-confidently self experiment on themselves? Over confident engineering/military feats that ended in disaster/ near disaster? These things can all yield success, although, not necessarily to the individual involved.

[john5746]

Is delusion within a tribe/society/nation and self delusion, to some degree, necessary for a hyper conscious species (like ours) dominant/successful survival?

 

You are defining delusion as over confidence and then you throw in "to some degree". IMO, any group can benefit from some members that dream big and are over confident - to some degree. Its a matter of risk/reward.

[dichotomy]

You are defining delusion as over confidence and then you throw in "to some degree". IMO, any group can benefit from some members that dream big and are over confident - to some degree. Its a matter of risk/reward.

 

Of course, over confidence is only delusion when it doesn’t pay off, perhaps? The dreamers and over confident can and do sacrifice themselves for the greater success of the tribe.

 

My “to some degree” comment probably should be ignored at this point. Let’s look at when delusion does work: improves man’s survival chances. Without naming any deluded cultural practices, I think delusional cultural practices/ideologies are successful, generally for the dominant culture. But even, the dominated culture can benefit.

[iNow]

So how are you defining delusion? The statement that delusion is a successful strategy doesn't sit well with me, so I want to better understand what you are describing.

[antimatter]

Yes, saying it's a strategy sounds really manipulative.

Delusion can be useful, but not when it's deliberately done. I can't really explain myself more than I already have, it just seems like it's taking advantage of someone when relying on delusion.

[dichotomy]

So how are you defining delusion? The statement that delusion is a successful strategy doesn't sit well with me, so I want to better understand what you are describing.

 

Delusion (Psychiatry meaning) - A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.

 

You’re correct, I think, in that the problem of course is that any mental concept that seems successful to a tribe, is generally not considered as delusional until it becomes repetitively unsuccessful. Again deities are the obvious most powerful, pervasive contemporary delusion. And the believers, in the dominant religions, are generally doing well, in their respective primary tribes. Many would think this because of their belief.

[Mr Skeptic]

Delusion has been shown to be vital to human reproduction. People are deluded as to their own sexual attractiveness, encouraging them to seek a mate where they otherwise might give up. On occasion, people become extremely deluded as to the quality of a mate they have found (called falling in love). It is quite possible that without such delusion the human race might have gone extinct.

[john5746]

People are deluded as to their own sexual attractiveness, encouraging them to seek a mate where they otherwise might give up.

 

LOL, thin line between persistence and stalking

 

 

On occasion, people become extremely deluded as to the quality of a mate they have found (called falling in love). It is quite possible that without such delusion the human race might have gone extinct.

 

Yes, thank god for lust, or was that the apple?

[dichotomy]

Delusion has been shown to be vital to human reproduction. People are deluded as to their own sexual attractiveness, encouraging them to seek a mate where they otherwise might give up. On occasion, people become extremely deluded as to the quality of a mate they have found (called falling in love). It is quite possible that without such delusion the human race might have gone extinct.

 

Some good points here. Mating would be a lot less successful without being at least partially delusional about prospective mates.

 

Also, the other obvious successful delusion is the placebo effect. Harmless and effective for many. I’d imagine the placebo effect, in its various guises, must go back a long way in H. Sapien history.

[pioneer]

Mass delusion may have begun with religion but the same template is used even by non-religious. Let me give an example; fashion. From a practical point of view, clothes are needed to keep us warm and protect us from the sun, etc. Beyond that it gets irrational. The power clothes are no different than holding a religious artifact for its power. It takes the group delusion to work. Wear an outdated outfit, after the group delusion has shifted, and see if it still has the same magical power the group delusion once gave it. This used to be called idol worship and is based on a primitive template.

 

The psychologist Carl Jung, did a study of cultural mythology. What he found was a very similar structure in terms of myths in cultures that had no known contact with each other. For example, the Aborigine have a myth of a great flood. Whether this flood was real or not is not the point. They came up with this on their own. The way he interpreted this was the brain projects these myths often in dreams of chiefs or medicine men. While the independence and similarity suggested common unconscious brain components within all humans. These myths were a natural output of the brain. This commonality is why group delusion works since the unconscious structure is similar. Some of these group delusions are natural and some are synthetic.

 

The way to tell natural from synthetic group delusions is longevity and the social scope of the collective delusion. Short terms fads for a small group is a sure sign of a synthetic delusion. The synthetic doesn't last nor does it push a wide scope of natural buttons. As we approach the other extreme of very long duration plus very large groups of all types of humans, these are much closer to natural delusions with a natural purpose in mind.

[iNow]

Mass delusion may have begun with religion

...but it probably didn't.

[dichotomy]

From a practical point of view, clothes are needed to keep us warm and protect us from the sun, etc. Beyond that it gets irrational. The power clothes are no different than holding a religious artifact for its power. It takes the group delusion to work.

 

 

The art world is full of group delusion. The king is wearing no clothes. Yet, paintings are still auctioned for thousands/millions. A successful delusion for the artist. A successful placebo for the buyer.

 

 

 

Wear an outdated outfit, after the group delusion has shifted, and see if it still has the same magical power the group delusion once gave it. This used to be called idol worship and is based on a primitive template.

 

I’d love to see Queen Elizabeth out in public, in full formal royal attire, after the group delusion of the importance of royalty in the modern world has fully shifted. I suppose she may even enjoy the personal freedom?

 

...but it probably didn't.

 

No, I'd speculate it began with higher consciousness. A kind of trade off.