The subject’s capacity for deception is finite, and will be needed elsewhere. Sooner or later it becomes more cost-effective for the sincere belief to change.
I generally agree with your point. The problem with the specific application is that the subject’s capacity for thinking logically (especially if you want the logic to be correct) is even more limited.
If the subject is marginally capable of logical thought, the straightforward response is to try stupid random things until it becomes obvious that going along with what you want is the least exhausting option. Even fruit flies are capable of learning from personal experience.
In the event of total incapacity at logical thought… why are you going to all this trouble? What do you actually want?
If the subject is marginally capable of logical thought, the straightforward response is to try stupid random things until it becomes obvious that going along with what you want is the least exhausting option.
That depends on how much effort you’re willing to spend on each subject verifying that they’re not faking.
I think the most common human tactic for appearing to care is to lie to themselves about caring until they actually believe they care; once this is in place they keep up appearances by actually caring if anyone is looking, and if people look often enough this just becomes actually caring.
Maybe the idea could gain popularity from a survival-island type reality program in which contestants have to measure the height of trees without climbing them, calculate the diameter of the earth, or demonstrate the existence of electrons (in order of increasing difficulty).
How would this encourage them to actually value logic and evidence instead of just appearing to do so?
The subject’s capacity for deception is finite, and will be needed elsewhere. Sooner or later it becomes more cost-effective for the sincere belief to change.
That is breathtakingly both the most cynical and beautiful thing I have read all day :)
Postcynicism FTW!
I generally agree with your point. The problem with the specific application is that the subject’s capacity for thinking logically (especially if you want the logic to be correct) is even more limited.
If the subject is marginally capable of logical thought, the straightforward response is to try stupid random things until it becomes obvious that going along with what you want is the least exhausting option. Even fruit flies are capable of learning from personal experience.
In the event of total incapacity at logical thought… why are you going to all this trouble? What do you actually want?
That depends on how much effort you’re willing to spend on each subject verifying that they’re not faking.
People tend to conform to it’s peers values.
And for that matter, to start believing what they behave as if they believe.
It’s not a question of encouragement. Humans tends to want to be like the high status folk that they look up to.
Want to be like or appear to be like? I’m not convinced people can be relied on to make the distinction, much less choose the “correct” one.
Or do they want to be like those folks appear to be like?
I think the most common human tactic for appearing to care is to lie to themselves about caring until they actually believe they care; once this is in place they keep up appearances by actually caring if anyone is looking, and if people look often enough this just becomes actually caring.
Maybe the idea could gain popularity from a survival-island type reality program in which contestants have to measure the height of trees without climbing them, calculate the diameter of the earth, or demonstrate the existence of electrons (in order of increasing difficulty).
Couple of attempts:
The hard sciences
Professions with a professional code of ethics, and consequences for violating it.