How to choose what to believe?
In a society where govenments try to tell you what is true and raise you into believing what you believe, in a world that is ever more dividing, when we're looking at news or whatever is going on around us, how do we know what to believe in?
Comments (49)
As far as beliefs go - I think one will naturally form beliefs and morals if they stay true to some core principles while practicing skepticism and speaking truth to power. One can't help but be informed by their upbringing, but I think anyone, if they try hard enough and are capable of some introspection, can transcend that and be something greater than a product of circumstance.
As far as being bullied by the government goes: don't give an inch. The government should serve, protect, and be accountable to its citizens above all else. Wherever it oversteps is a threat to our freedom and wellbeing. We shouldn't let the government tell us what is good or right, and we shouldn't desire a nanny state.
I don't think it's the government. We are much more socialized by our families, communities, schools, jobs, TV, the internet. Socialization is not a bad thing in and of itself. We're social beings and we have to learn how to live with others in the society we grow up in. These days, if I had to point to a villain it would be to the corporatization and financialization of our economy.
That being said, there is a voice inside you, all of us, that tells us what to do, how to live. This is nothing mystical or magical, it's just you. I could give a philosophical or psychological name to that, but it's called different things by different traditions. It takes practice to learn how to hear that voice. It's true, as you note, that it can be drowned out by the noise from outside influences.
Welcome to the forum.
You don't come into the world as an adult shopper walks into a department and choose beliefs. You enter light and noise as a blob of sentient humanity with no ideas or autonomy or judgment. For the first three or four years, you instinctively believe in your physical sensations, the experience of your senses, the results of your experimentation in movement, touch and taste. Intellectually, you pretty much believe whatever your caretakers tell you - which is a huge amount of information on which to base a world-view and attitudes, since this is the most active period of neural network formation. Connections will be made and reconfigured all through life, but it will never as pervasive again.
By the time you start school, you have a whole catalogue of beliefs of which you have never been critical or even particularly aware. Many of these unquestioned beliefs - most of them, if you're not relocated between language acquisition and entering school - are also held by your cohort, which reinforces your confidence in them. In most cultures, the school curriculum and the teachers' attitude aligns closely with those of the community: further reinforcement, and no reason to disbelieve.
By the age when you begin to notice discrepancies between what you are told and what you see or experience, your basic value system is established, and you tend to judge every new datum according to that standard. It is at this stage - say age 9-12 - that children should be encouraged to read widely, from and about other cultures, other time periods, other ways of life and of thought. It is therefore, exactly at this stage that closed, jealous, insecure cultures most fiercely protect their young from outside influences. In those environments, it becomes much more difficult to educate yourself and exercise judgment. In open, liberal, optimistic environments, collecting information from diverse sources and perspectives is not just easier, but encouraged and assisted.
And that is what you must do as an adult. Wherever you are, whatever your background and circumstances, you need to get your information from as many different sources as possible. Some are more trustworthy than others: you can assess the plausibility of a statement through your own experience and reason; you can scan them for internal consistency and accuracy; compare their reputations by their longevity, by their information gathering method, by fact-checking against scientific or other neutral repositories of knowledge, and, of course, observation. And then you have to make up your own mind.
Any government does not have a monopoly in information. This is what a common person believes -- that everything that comes out as information is created by the government. There are modern intelligentsias who continually write, if not verbally contribute, about the society. There are also the capitalist multi-nationals who continue to shape our beliefs -- good or bad.
Agree.
Not trusting government to the point of paranoia is a popular culture trope and a bit convenient.
Quoting Hailey
You can ask that question about anything - religion, media, science, universities, advertising, knowledge in general...
You really need to take things matter by matter and work through them with the information available. Perhaps you can name an issue that you are struggling to get a grip on?
Compared to what? What little can be stitched together of our mutual past is a story of war followed by war.
There have been some interesting interludes.
Simple, reserve judgement on, don't believe in, anything you cannot personally confirm, then provisionally entertain what seems most plausible to you in any matter that interests you and demands that you take a position in order to move forward.
Can we "choose" what to believe? 95%, no; 5% yes.
"Beliefs" are derived from experience, to start with, "when I was a little bitty baby my mama would rock me in the cradle..." Our first experiences are from adequate and competent nurturing -- or not getting as much good nurturing as we need. We have experiences which confirm or disqualify certain assumptions, some of which might be in-born. For example, a baby presented with a helium balloon that doesn't fall to the floor the way objets are "supposed to" will show surprise. Babies might have an innate grasp of gravity, but not of antigravity.
Babies are immersed in language--good, bad, or indifferent. The more good, positive words they hear from their parents, the better. Hearing too many harsh negative words and commands has a negative effect on the child's developing mind. Interaction with other children and adults shapes personality.
Maybe most children have confidence that the world is a reliable place. Other people are usually friendly. All of the childhood experiences shape the kind of beliefs about the world we are likely to have. As we get older, we start running into contrary experiences, good and bad. We might discover that one could drown in deep water--but didn't.
WHAT WE FIND BELIEVABLE and WHAT WE FIND NOT BELIEVABLE will be largely determined by the multitude of experiences we have had.
Maybe as a mature adult, one will actually decide to reject a previous belief or accept a new belief. An adult raised in a sexually repressive household who discovers he is gay, may have to make an effort as an adult to believe gayness is good and live accordingly. Or a career criminal may decide to go straight.
But mostly we don't decide.
And the government doesn't have that much to do with it.
What countries do you have in mind and can you provide an example?
That may be true; if it is, they didn't choose to be gullible.
Quoting Hailey
IF government requires the consent of the governed, THEN it is the interest of all governments to discourage excessive skepticism about their legitimacy. Besides, gullibility isn't the only handy tool governments have to assure compliance. There's fear, force, secret police, plain-out-in-the-open police, prisons with bad reputations, threats, the convenient airplane crash (recent example), poisoning, smear campaigns, public executions, public relations efforts, charm offensives, bread, circuses, sex, drugs, video games, etc...
A land of stupid people, however, is likely to have a very low GDP.
It probably isn't possible to easily figure out WHY anybody likes this, dislikes that, or finds something else totally uninteresting.
In my experience you are exaggerating the influence of governments and not addressing the far more powerful influence of corporations. "Governments" sound scary, but are basically bureaucrats (who have job security and little real power) and elected officials (who are likely to be out on their ear in the next administration). Corporations, OTOH are run by folks who have billions of incentives to manipulate your spending patterns and hundreds of millions of dollars to buy people and technology to accomplish their goals.
I'd say start with believing your senses.
But this is a beginning, and a guess. The trouble you raise is we do not know what to believe in, but we do know that there's a fair bit of false beliefs which seem true. In fact I'd go further and say that we don't know that it's the governments, or any one culprit, which is the culprit in spreading false beliefs. And I'd go further to note that I couldn't answer the question for you -- how do you know I'm not from the government, spreading false beliefs about believing your senses first? The government could be an empiricist, in this silly universe I'm proposing, which wants its people to believe that knowledge comes from the senses.
But then remember the suggestion -- you don't have to believe me. You can believe your senses, and work from there, even if you're following the empiricist's shadow-government ;)
A paternalistic or maternalistic government may influence some people to believe certain Tory/Whig*1 political positions, as opposed to those of the disloyal opposition. But more often it's a charismatic leader, like Hitler, who preaches a Big Lie*2 as "our truth", which is intentionally distinguished from the beliefs of despised Others (them). For example, Donald Trump convinced a surprising number of his adoring followers (fans -- fanatics) that the science-supported COVID vaccine was ineffective, and besides, the virus itself was a liberal hoax. Based on their trust in Der Fuhrer, some even ingested bleach or ivermectin (horse dewormer). The current issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine (Vol 47, issue3) mentions the vaccine & mask beliefs, among many others, under the title : "Who Believes Unsubstantiated Claims?".
That magazine is devoted to the question you asked. Although its position on a variety of issues is primarily characterized as Science vs Pseudoscience, its philosophical approach is simply independent thinking as opposed to going along with a crowd. All too many of us, are dependent believers, who look to someone else to sanction (approve) their beliefs. Not just any "alter ego", but someone in a position of authority in their personal Clique (in-crowd, fellowship, club). Religions and political parties are major players in the dissemination of acceptable beliefs for members of a particular faith society. That social group may be a mainstream religion, or an underdog religion, or a racial category, or economic interest class, or merely a self-interest group, such as the followers of internet conspiracy theorists like Q-Anon. To be an independent believer though, usually requires the courage & self-confidence to go-it-alone.
Apparently, most of those Tribal or Herd believers are uncertain of their own ability to discern the truth in a crazy mixed-up world. So, they place their trust in someone who seems, or claims, to have their personal or tribal interest*4 at heart. Unfortunately, that oft-misplaced trust in substitute parental figures may result in childishly unsophisticated black-white beliefs, and Us-vs-Them antagonisms. So, if the OP indicates a lack of confidence in personal fact-finding ability, then there are two options : A> find someone else with the confidence you lack (teacher, master, con-man), or B> take responsibility to educate yourself in the science of knowing : Philosophy.
In these days of Alternative Facts*3, though, even philosophical loners need all the help they can get. But there is no easy way to distinguish gullible ego-stroking Alt-truths*4 from skeptical superego discernment. So, the first, and hardest, step on the road to Wisdom, may be to off-set your own limitations, pump-up your courage, and gird-up your loins for the long & winding road toward the ideal of pure mountaintop Truth. "What is Truth?" That depends on how you, or your clique, defines the foundation of Belief. :smile:
PS__Another long-running magazine, funded by subscriptions not advertising, is SKEPTIC. Besides giving many examples of what not to believe, these publications teach readers both scientific facts and philosophical methods for "choosing what to believe".
*1. Whig vs Tory :
Whig and Tory, members of two opposing political parties or factions in England, particularly during the 18th century. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Whig-Party-England
Simplistically : Whigs = pro-aristocracy ; Lords ; top-down government --- Tory = anti-monarchy ; Commoners ; bottom-up government.
21st century America : Whig = Republicans, religious & political conservatives ; Tory = Democrats, religious & political liberals
*2. Big Lie :
[i]A big lie is an extreme distortion of the truth, used for the purpose of spreading propaganda. It is often somewhat outrageous.
In theory, people will more easily believe a big lie than a smaller one, because most people assume that there is evidence to support any statement of great magnitude.
The term was coined by Adolph Hitler in his autobiography, Mein Kampf.[/i]
https://politicaldictionary.com/words/big-lie/
*3. Alternative Facts :
"Alternative facts" was a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway, during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States. When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer would "utter a provable falsehood", Conway stated that Spicer was giving "alternative facts". Todd responded, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts
*4. Tribal Trust :
Referring to affiliation (hence trust & loyalty) with a group; interrelated by genetics, or politics, or religion, or simply self-interest.
This was the article at the top of google news for me this morning: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/29/weather/tropical-storm-idalia-florida-tuesday/index.html
Here we have some claims that are written. Some of them have already happened. Some of them are predicted to happen, like the peak storm surge forecast. Now if you follow my original suggestion you couldn't really verify any of what's written down unless you're in Florida. Or you could verify it if you believe that the published weather reports tend to report true things that have happened, but are a little less reliable when it comes to what is going to happen.
Notice how what we're reading is an important part of judging whether we should believe it or not. This is from CNN, it is a weather report, they have a history of having accurate weather reports mostly because they rely upon government agencies and trained individuals. Since it's the weather, rather than an election, there's less of a reason to lie or generate an alternative story to what the other news organizations are saying.
It's that latter bit -- when news is political, or propagandized -- which undermines trust. Or, in some cases, reinforces trust if they're selling the truth you want to hear. But that kind of truth you want to hear isn't usually related to the senses, is it?
And that's where I'd say we have a guide to choosing what to believe.
Quoting BC
Your position seems to be virtually deterministic, and I don't think you are giving chosen belief enough credit. I'm going to try to reframe the discussion because I think we are headed towards a wall.
Many beliefs might be derived from experience, but one usually has a choice at some point in their lives to shed the beliefs that were instilled in them in favor of new ones, if we are talking about incompatible beliefs. It is interesting that the tradeoff in beliefs you give as examples are beliefs that might revolutionize one's life. I would say that the small percentage of beliefs one might choose, even if it is as low as 5%, can be the most potent, as they are likely to induce large and often positive changes in the way one lives, if the person so desires it.
I would say that if one wants to change one's life by adopting new beliefs, one can really effect some serious change depending on how sweeping those changes in beliefs are - regardless of one's unchosen beliefs.
Thus, even if you are right in terms of percentages, this discussion of how to choose one's beliefs is still very important imo, and shouldn't be dismissed merely because it is impossible to determine exactly why, for example, one prefers salty snacks to sweet ones. Or the color blue to yellow.
Quoting BC
Or one could apply rational thought to come to the conclusion that, say, a fetus is not a person, and that a cow is - regardless of their prior beliefs. Most people who would believe such a thing have probably read some ethical philosophy, because most people aren't brought up to believe that a cow is more of a person than a fetus. This conclusion is actually pretty radical and opens up a lot of potential avenues for action. These kinds of radical, and often logical, conclusions, are relatively common, and I think people use valid reasoning to reach them more often than you claim.
For instance, the intense hatred for corporate media among some is concurrent with a rejection of what they claim is propaganda. How would they determine that it is propaganda if not by some sort of dialectic they apply or see someone else apply? This dialectic need not lead to correct conclusions to make the point, but rather merely result in the selection of certain beliefs over others.
You might say some people are sheep who just blindly accuse corporate media of being propaganda, but I tend to think they applied at least some sort of reasoning to come to that conclusion.
I also chose political beliefs -- though that was a more gradual process. I was raised with quite conventional political beliefs about government, democracy, taxation, congress, the president, etc. It was not particularly difficult to adopt socialist ideas and believe that they were sound, feasible, and beneficial. What was difficult was to find other people who agreed, or to convince other people to adapt similar beliefs.
So, two big areas of chosen belief -- religion and politics.
That I believe my senses, believe the world is an understandable place, believe that people are generally reliable and predictable, and so on are much determined by experience which itself is not chosen. But on numerous occasions I did choose to maintain those beliefs in terms of social activities, reading, conversations, etc.
Conclusion: My earlier off-the-cuff estimate favors determinism too much.
Quoting BC
@Hailey My new, revised, and improved off-the-cuff estimate is 60%, no; 40%. yes. -- provided one is endowed with the capacity, time, and energy to undertake voluntary belief changes.
We are not all equally able to revise and edit what we think. How much tolerance we have for ambiguity, cognitive dissonance, opinions or positions outside of dominant social norms, etc. varies from person to person -- and those differences are mostly not voluntary.
A foundation in how to think is a prerequisite to forming ones own beliefs. A base understanding in grammar, logic, and rhetoric suffices in this regard. Grammar is the mechanics of language. Logic is the mechanics of thought. Rhetoric is the application of both to language. With this simple foundation one can see quickly through the propaganda.
How does that provide any sort of dialectic or guiding principles towards forming beliefs? All you need is logic, grammar, and rhetoric? Isn't everyone on this forum endowed with an understanding of such things, yet we disagree fervently on what to believe? Surely not everyone who disagrees with N0S is a purveyor or victim of propaganda?
I said it was a foundation, not all you need. The idea is that one will be better equipped to navigate his own language and thought along with that of others. Not everyone is endowed with such a foundation because not everyone has had any classical education. Rather, theyve been taught what to think, not how to think in state education, which is little different than indoctrination in my opinion.
You are being slippery. You claim that with just this foundation one can see through "the propaganda" and that this foundation is a prerequisite, which could mean that it is necessary and sufficient, or just necessary for forming beliefs.
If it is merely necessary, you have not provided the rest of what is required to form the right beliefs.
I didn't say that it is a prerequisite to forming right beliefs in particular or forming beliefs in general. I said it is required to forming one's own beliefs.
If one doesn't understand rhetoric, for example, one doesn't understand the methods through which people try to use fallacious techniques to try to influence how you think. One learns to avoid appeals to authority or emotion, for example, which is common in propaganda. One can rely on one's own thoughts, language, and judgements, or whatever else is built on this foundation.
It's just the theory that one cannot understand how language can be used against you until one understands how to use language.
For damn sure! I happened to luck out, living in a period of expanding social consciousness, in a liberal country with a pretty decent education system. I know that's far from the norm around the world: I had previously lived in a country where both media and school curriculum were dominated by propaganda. I was further fortunate in that my young adult social circle consisted of university and college students and people new to the work force, on their own for the first time, all wide open, questioning and enthusiastic. Conversations would often turn into debates or arguments lasting half the night, ebbing and swelling in volume according to how hard a neighbour thumped the wall.
Having friends who argue without personal animus are hugely helpful in sorting out what you believe and why you believe it.
Quoting Vera Mont
To me, this forum is like the friends you were refering to. In the wild world, this sort of calm discussion is rare. People often overreact and get straight defensive which is utterly uncondusive to sorting things out. Speaking of freedom, living and raised in a country not generally considered as free, I lately began to ponder on how much unfree my mind is on top of my self-percieved open-mindedness. It's sometimes scary and helpless when you find yourself contrary to what you believe you are.
Lies, calumny, rank knavery! How dare you assert such. I oppose all that you say and shall not dignify it with a response except to declare that it is evil, folly, heresy!
Probably one of the scariest things you have to face. But wanting to have an open mind, making the effort to understand how you think and why you believe is already a very big stride forward. You are already winning! The safest way forward - besides anonymous forums, some of which do become adversarial at times - is by way of books. I don't mean how-to books about logical thinking; I mean good novels, that let you into the minds of fictional people - and indirectly, the author. You can argue with them, warn them of stupid mistakes, witness their errors in judgment, berate them for idiotic decisions - and they never get defensive or abusive.
Thank you, you are both kind and wise. Interestingly, this is exactly what I thought I might lack (in an effort to trying to think a step ahead of myself)! Reading too much nonfiction and too little fiction and novels, not to mention that I have very limited life experience, I'm totally foolish and ignorant about the human condition. Good books can be part of the solution. Thank you for your guidance.
They're not just good for you; they taste good, too. And don't go looking for a list of must-reads or anything like that - just wander through a thrift store or public library and pick up whatever appeals to you. If it turns out to be crap, put it down and pick up something else. You'll soon find out what you like and it won't be much longer before you can see why one is better than another.
Are schools not teaching literature anymore?
Maybe "believe in" is a little too much? It actually means to have faith or confidence in the existence of something. OK, I assume you mean just "believe".
Now, it is well known --since the antiquity-- that politicians lie. So believing everything they say it's naive, at best.
Then, who else is known to be lying in public on political and social matters in general, and in fact in greater scale? Isn't journalists?
What we believe or not has to do with our likes and dislikes, our biases and prejudices, our ability to think critically, and other factors that act as "filters" to our reception and processing of information.
As far as I am concerned, none of them has made me (in my adult life) and cannot make me believe anything. Especially "raising" me. If I believe something or not depends on a lot of things.
And, if I consider an information important enough, and I have doubt about its truth, I try to cross-check it, online or offline. That's all I can do.
So true. This is the stage where these cultures do harm to people. But there are so many people, conforming to these restraints, are at peace inside. They would not be challenged especially not by themselves and they are just happy and content with their circumstance. For others, such discrepancies led to confusion, struggle, disbelief, and pain.
I remember my elders huddled around a radio lat at night, somebody all the time fiddling with the tuning knob, trying to get a clear enough sound from Radio Free Europe... which they didn't know was American propaganda. University students would save up their allowance to buy used copies of banned western books. Tourists from abroad were plied with food and drink to tell stories of life on the other side of the iron curtain.
They were so hungry for news of the free world.
Once out, most of those same people got busy making a living, trying to get ahead, making a buck, pushing their kids to succeed, and stopped paying attention to the news, watched westerns and hockey instead. They learned that the streets are not paved with gold; that the huddled masses are not welcomed with open arms; that the unbounded opportunity of the free world was oversold.
Yet they go on excoriating the system from which they come: they have their bitter memories of loss, privation, restrictions - don't want a balanced view.
Only a few are motivated by a desire for clarity; few take the trouble to inform themself and form a balanced view.
Exactly, in fact, just as you mentioned, if I doubt the info I got from the Chinese media, then how can I know that westerners are not molded into their belief systems by their country. I can't help but think that, in China, we have lots of misinformation about life in the west, then similarly, you could have loads of misinformation about China given that the news your media spread may be more ideology-based rather than truth-based. So now I feel that I can't believe both parties for what they were saying; I can't know what is true anymore. To give you an example, the western countries claim that the Chinese govenment violates human rights in centain areas, which of course, is not the story our govenment would tell. Indeed, Chinese govenment traditionally lacks transparency in these issues, but if I draw conclusion simply based on that, then I'm not being fair.
I'm pleased to see you thinking through the problem. It's something I tend to think about, once and again.
The reason I say the guide is the senses has to do with my time as an activist. I am no longer an activist, so don't trust this as a forever-truth -- one of the things I learned as an activist is that it's too easy to think you have a forever-truth, at least for the philosophically inclined.
But then the world you live within has a way of interrupting thoughts and forever-truths and even certain truths.
****
A dark note -- "violates human rights" in the universal sense is something the United States does. Not in an "on occasion" basis, but of course this will involve a discussion on what human rights are, and when they are worth violating (like war).
But if "human rights" has any meaning outside of the nation, at least, then the U.S. is really good at killing people -- sometimes in the name of war, but sometimes in the name of selling weapons.
In a society where governments try to control information, the probability of information being true may be lower than in a society with more transparency. It is better to assign probabilities of truth instead of settling on a belief. To critically evaluate the information received using Bayesian logic, one should consider the prior probability of the information being true, update it based on new evidence, and assign probabilities of truth based on the credibility of the sources.
For example, if a news outlet has a history of accurate reporting, you may assign a higher probability to the information they provide. On the other hand, if a source has a history of spreading misinformation or propaganda, you may assign a lower probability to the information they provide. Additionally, you can seek out multiple sources of information and compare them to see if they agree or disagree on a particular topic. This can help you identify biases or inconsistencies in the information you receive. Finally, you can also consider your own biases and beliefs, and how they may influence your interpretation of the information.
This approach is more flexible and open-minded than settling on a belief, which can be resistant to change even in the face of new evidence. Assigning probabilities of truth allows you to acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in many situations, and to make decisions based on the best available evidence. It is a more rational and adaptive approach to navigating the information field in a complex and ever-changing world than simply settling on a belief.
I have not been on one for a considerable time now. I did belong to one - my first ever forum on my first ever internet connection via landline - in the mid 90's, but was suspended for sarcasm and never went back. You could do worse than check out Goodreads. It's in the amazon empire, but it lists all the titles you're ever likely to need, with blurbs and reviews, and it has a number of subgroups you can join. Quite nice people hang out there, along with the usual assortment of arrogant smartasses.
Fatanstic, I'll look into it. Thank you :)