Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Muslim grooming gangs sti...
Today at 07:08 PM

Islam and Science Fiction
Yesterday at 11:57 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 09:32 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 08, 2025, 01:38 PM

German nationalist party ...
February 07, 2025, 01:11 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 05, 2025, 10:04 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
February 02, 2025, 04:29 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 11:48 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 07:29 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!

 (Read 8871 times)
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     OP - May 14, 2012, 06:38 PM

    I ran into this interesting article and I thought some of you might find this interesting.

    Quote
    A rare and controversial study merging science and faith suggests that analytic thinking, a process that favors reason over intuition, promotes religious disbelief.
    Canadian researchers used math puzzles and “priming,” a technique that plants subtle suggestions in pictures and text, to persuade more than 650 believers and non-believers to think analytically. They then used surveys to probe religious beliefs, from faith in God to the power of prayer.
    “If you can get people to engage in analytic thinking, whether it’s by looking at pictures or showing them difficult-to-read text, analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief,” said Will Gervais, a PhD student in psychology at the University of British Columbia and lead author of the study published today in the journal Science. “This indicates that analytic thinking is one of many factors affecting people’s religious beliefs.”
    In the first of five tests, people who solved a math problem analytically rather than arriving at the intuitive answer were more likely to report religious disbelief. For example: A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? The intuitive answer is $0.10; the analytic answer is $0.05.
    In the second test, subjects were randomly assigned to look at one of four images. Those who viewed Rodin’s “The Thinker,” which was previously found to prime analytic thinking, reported having weaker religious beliefs. The third and fourth tests used words like “think,” “reason,” and “rational” to prime analytic thinking, which was also linked to religious disbelief.
    In the fifth test, 91 people who rated their religious beliefs on a survey in a hard-to-read font were more likely to report religious disbelief than 91 subjects given the same questions in an easy-to-read font. The difference in font is a subtler way to prime analytic thinking, Gervais said.
    “If people find something hard to process, it engages analytic thinking,” he said. “It’s a neat manipulation.”
    Intuitive thinking, a mental shortcut that bypasses reason, is linked to stronger religious beliefs.
    “It’s largely intuitive processes that let people form religious beliefs,” said Gervais. “If you’re surrounded by a lot of other religious people publically demonstrating their faith, you’re more likely to develop those beliefs.”
    The study does little to calm the culture clash between science and religion.
    “Religion versus science; believers versus atheists; our evidence doesn’t say much about those debates,” said Gervais. “But it sheds light on one cognitive factor that may influence where people stand on those debates.
    It also challenges the notion that religious beliefs are set in stone.
    “People have this impression that they’re really core, central beliefs that don’t change. But we know people’s religious beliefs can vary across situations and across their lifespan,” Gervais said.
    But devout believers may be shocked to hear their faith can wax and wane with tricky tests.
    “I suppose some people might find it surprising,” Gervais said, “that really subtle experimental manipulations might be able to temporarily alter religious beliefs.”


    SOURCE: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/04/26/logic-linked-to-religious-disbelief-study-implies/

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #1 - May 14, 2012, 06:43 PM

    Quote
    For example: A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? The intuitive answer is $0.10; the analytic answer is $0.05.

     Huh?
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #2 - May 14, 2012, 06:48 PM

    Huh?


    1 dollar + price of ball = price of bat, total = bat + ball

    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #3 - May 14, 2012, 06:52 PM

    Huh?


    x = Bat
    y = Ball

    x+y = 1.10

    x= y+1

    y+1+y = 1.10

    2y+1 = 1.10

    2y = 0.1

    y = 0.1/2

    y = 0.05

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #4 - May 14, 2012, 06:54 PM

    I think the intuitive way is the quickest way to AN answer, though it not necessarily correct. Makes sense to use intuition as a primary method since the fastest reaction to decision making means better survival chances.

    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #5 - May 14, 2012, 06:56 PM

    @ stardust:

    I agree but as u said intuition can lead to erroneous results, many times.

    Just look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument, we wonder why people keep insisting it is sound and logical when we know if broken down analytically it makes very little sense, it is more intuitive than logical or in other words that could be the fallacy of Intuition.

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #6 - May 14, 2012, 09:59 PM

    Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!

    In other news, grass is green.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #7 - May 14, 2012, 10:12 PM

    x = Bat
    y = Ball

    x+y = 1.10

    x= y+1

    y+1+y = 1.10

    2y+1 = 1.10

    2y = 0.1

    y = 0.1/2

    y = 0.05

    Math is not my forte, neither is analytical thinking it seems wacko Took my bf a few attempts to explain it to me, your explanation just confuzzled me! Cheesy

    This does not bode well for my programming career. As long as I define my int variables in the for loops as 'i' I think I'll be safe...
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #8 - May 14, 2012, 10:19 PM

    Scary. Try not to program any weapons systems, ok? Smiley

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #9 - May 14, 2012, 10:23 PM

    Interesting article, sturmgewehr. Thanks for sharing. Afro
    Neat little math puzzle too. Tripped me up when I skim-read it. Grin

    "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." -- Bertrand Russell

    Baloney Detection Kit
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #10 - May 14, 2012, 10:29 PM

    I answered wrong at first too...Took me a while to figure it out wacko

    Have you heard the good news? There is no God!
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #11 - May 14, 2012, 10:35 PM

    Scary. Try not to program any weapons systems, ok? Smiley

    Intuitive programming could work! lipsrsealed
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #12 - May 14, 2012, 10:36 PM

    I did it like this:

    "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?"

    Was going to say 10c at this point, but by the time I had formulated that thought I had read this:

    "The intuitive answer is $0.10; the analytic answer is $0.05."

    Which made me go "Hmm. Oh yeah. If the bat cost $1 it would only cost 90c more than the ball. Right. No worries."

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #13 - May 14, 2012, 10:38 PM

    Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!

    In other news, grass is green.


    yeah of course but this is actually a good article with a good experiment.
    Math is not my forte, neither is analytical thinking it seems wacko Took my bf a few attempts to explain it to me, your explanation just confuzzled me! Cheesy

    This does not bode well for my programming career. As long as I define my int variables in the for loops as 'i' I think I'll be safe...


    heeh, if u practice it enough u will get used to it, don't be scared of math, if u get scared of mathematics u won't learn much, trying to study math with stress and I CAN"T DO IT mentality is very bad.

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #14 - May 14, 2012, 10:42 PM

    You're forgetting that Peru is a girl, and girls can't do maths. They can dye their hair pretty colours though.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #15 - May 14, 2012, 10:51 PM

    Cheesy

    Self ban for Ramadan (THAT RHYMES)

    Expect me to come back a Muslim. Cool Tongue j/k we'll see..
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #16 - May 14, 2012, 10:53 PM

    I figure that about now she should be pissed off enough to go out and prove me wrong. Psychological warfare. Wink

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #17 - May 14, 2012, 10:55 PM

    Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy You're so funny!

    Self ban for Ramadan (THAT RHYMES)

    Expect me to come back a Muslim. Cool Tongue j/k we'll see..
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #18 - May 15, 2012, 06:32 AM

    fuck you Shooter
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #19 - May 15, 2012, 02:46 PM

    Quote
    The difference in font is a subtler way to prime analytic thinking, Gervais said.
    “If people find something hard to process, it engages analytic thinking,” he said. “It’s a neat manipulation.”


    Hey, which are these "work out" fonts?  I am tired of easy read fast food fonts!  Maybe this board would be more successful if reading gave a slight work out!

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #20 - May 16, 2012, 07:33 AM

    Been wondering about this $1.10 thing. Ok, so the "intuitive" answer is 10c for the price of the ball. Why?

    This is interesting, at least to me, because I can't see any obvious reason why the supposedly intuitive answer should be so goddammed stupid. I mean if you ask anyone if $1 is $1 more than 10c they'll think you're an idiot, so why do people get tricked when it's phrased slightly differently?

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #21 - May 16, 2012, 07:38 AM

    ^ ^

    I think the intuitive answer usually is 10cents because it says the bat costs 1 Dollar more than the ball so people add like this, if the bat costs 1 dollar more than the ball and the sum of the ball and the bat is 1.10 then the ball is 10cents because 10cents + 1 Dollar = 1 Dollar and 10cents.

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #22 - May 16, 2012, 07:46 AM

    Yeah that's the only thing I can think of so far. IOW, it'd basically be an artifact of using a base ten numerical system and currency. That's still conjectural though. It would be interesting to try the same trick with cultures that don't use base ten, and see what the results were.

    Somewhere along the line it's still telling us something pretty sneaky about perception, so it would be worth checking out.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #23 - May 16, 2012, 07:58 AM

    I think it's the word 'more', usually people use the word 'more' in a particular context, for example you're going to buy something and the total is '10 pounds' say and then the cashier says 'oh sorry, that's 10p more', meaning 10p more added to the Total. So so looking quickly you see, total is 1.10, 'something something is 1 pound MORE something blah blah blah' and without having to 'think', you process the input immediately as the difference.

    People don't read or listen to details/analyse much in the general, so it's a habitual way of processing information that causes this error.

    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #24 - May 16, 2012, 08:01 AM

    And when you get a society where you have to process information faster and faster, time=money etc etc, unless you've formed a solid habit of thinking/appraoching a certain way, can see how a lot 'fast processing' is just going to lead to misjudgements.

    People start relying on their subconscious mind to pick up on things for more speed, that's fine as long a you have grounded a correct program in your head to do so.

    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #25 - May 16, 2012, 12:00 PM

    Yeah that's the only thing I can think of so far. IOW, it'd basically be an artifact of using a base ten numerical system and currency. That's still conjectural though. It would be interesting to try the same trick with cultures that don't use base ten, and see what the results were.

    Somewhere along the line it's still telling us something pretty sneaky about perception, so it would be worth checking out.

    Not sure why base 10 would have effect on this? Any base would have the same issue.

    sturmgewehr's right. That was how I thought about it. I really am awful with numbers, no matter how simple the equations are, I have always been terrible with mental arithmetic.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #26 - May 16, 2012, 09:22 PM

    Any base might have the same issue, but you would have to test with different base systems to be sure.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #27 - May 16, 2012, 09:30 PM

    But you're assuming that logic puzzle plays with base 10, and I don't see how it does.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #28 - May 16, 2012, 09:33 PM

    Yeah, but you're crap with numbers. grin12

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #29 - May 16, 2012, 10:08 PM

    I may be, but that's irrelevant here.
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »