Posted on 07/03/2018 6:55:35 AM PDT by Heartlander
There are some things that you can be absolutely sure of. The Earth is round, it goes around the sun, everybody is going to die someday, and tax day is going to come around every single year. But if you feel that you've got the one correct answer to a question that's a little more controversial, then you might want to double-check that. It turns out, the more certain you are about something, the less informed you're likely to be about it.
According to a new study by Michael Hall and Kaitlin Raimi from the University of Michigan Ann Arbor, people with a high degree of what they call "belief superiority" had the largest gap between how informed they believed they were and how informed they actually were about the subjects they were so opinionated about. First, let's clear up what, exactly, belief superiority is. It's not just how confident you are in your belief; it's how much you believe that belief is better than those of other people. In other words, confidence is an absolute value, but belief-superiority is a relative value based on what you think of others' opinions.
It's yet another version of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where the most qualified people feel the least confident about their abilities and the least qualified are the most certain that they've got the skills to pay the bills.
For this study, the researchers gathered their participants through Amazon's Mechanical Turk, which allowed them access to people of a wide variety of demographics and viewpoints. When they asked those people about some politically contentious topics, they were able to find which of them had the greatest sense of belief superiority. Then, they compared how those participants ranked their own knowledge about those subjects and how much they actually knew. Then came the fun part.
After they compared people's presumed knowledge against their actual knowledge, the researchers then presented them with a spread of headlines from various sources. They included a mix of headlines that were belief congruent and belief incongruent — that is, some headlines that participants would agree with and some that they'd disagree with. The participants were then asked how likely they would be to read each article to the end. You might not be too surprised to find out that the people with the strongest sense of belief superiority were also the least likely to read articles that didn't jibe with their previously held beliefs.
In other words, not only were they less informed about the things they felt the most strongly about, but they were also less likely to seek out information that might expand their knowledge about those things. It's not all bad news, though. For one thing, the participants with the bias against headlines they didn't like were absolutely aware of that tendency in themselves. And secondly, the researchers found that when they tried methods to lower their sense of belief superiority, those same participants were more likely to try reading horizon-expanding think pieces. So maybe the answer is that the next time you're feeling especially fired up about something, it's a good moment to step back and consider a different point of view.
(Note: Not necessarily aimed at anyone!)
So - If I claim to be insane and can’t fly the mission, I’m sane enough to ask to get out of it, and I must fly the mission. If I want to fly the mission, I’m insane, but the Doc says I have to ask not to fly before he can ground me. (Catch-22)
So - If I know my own mind, I’ve got to be wrong, but if I’m not sure what I think, I’m much smarter. Riiiiight.
I like what GOPJ said in post 2. If you didn’t believe your belief was better, you wouldn’t believe it. That’s pretty much a definition.
Here’s one from me. If I’m pretty sure where I’m going, why would I take a side road instead of the route I know? The “open-minded” discussions are simply people trying to convince me to turn off early. I can listen, if I have time, but not sure why I would, most of the time. I have to have some sort of respect for someone (or his message) to spend time listening to him.
I tell people that if you are going to follow Christ, you need to be willing to do what He plainly says to do, and to believe what he’s told you (the Bible). Is my faith in Christ better than doubting him? He says it is. He also says I need to be ready to give reasons why I believe. I get it - to anyone who does not believe, it sounds like circular reasoning. And the Bible tells me that’s what they will think.
The MORE I study scripture, with the underlying meaning of the words, the MORE I believe what it says. Flame away.
“A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” James 1:8
Besides, God said when sin entered then death entered.
The word for “world” is Kosmos. http://biblehub.com/greek/2889.htm
When you look at all the information at the above link, it becomes clear that it is dealing with the “earth” as created in genesis. More precisely, it entered this dispensation.
Thing is, it is quite possible to believe that the earth was, before genesis 1:3, wiped clean, as one might paint over a painting on a canvas and then produce an entirely new painting on it. I mean, God destroyed the earth in the flood, which really only wiped out the surface and was sort of a “do over”. And it will happen again at the end of this age, only through fire, which will leave the planet even without any sea.
So, we don’t really know what came before genesis 1:3. We only know that God created the heavens and the earth. And that could have been billions of years (or more) ago.
And not to mess with this too much: Just as with a canvass that has been painted over, and you can peel away the paint and find remnants of the earlier painting(s), maybe that is what happens when we peel away the layers and find things like dinosaurs.
Just thinking out loud. Not saying I believe it or I don’t. But it is an interesting thought exercise. The next step is to find scripture that makes it not a feasible theory about the time before genesis 1:3.
I take God SERIOUSLY. I think the word “literally” is over-used. Some scripture I take literally. the Genealogies of Mary and Joseph would be two examples. Where he was born, his method of death. His resurrection.
I don’t take any of the parables literally. I don’t take the number of times the rooster crows literally. I don’t believe Jesus is literally a lamb.
The new testament is not a book. It is four biographies of the life and times and teachings of Jesus, the son of God, it is a history book (Acts), it is a bunch of letters to individuals and churches with all sorts of text addressing specific issues those people and groups were struggling with, and it is a dream, very much paralleling prophesy from the OT.
It is an excellent source of information to bring us into an understanding of the personality of God. It is very useful in helping us to a stronger and more personal relationship with our creator, and it helps us to learn to deal with our relationships with other people.
Lastly, it helps us to put this age in perspective as it relates to ages to come. i.e. the Millennial age and the age following the GWTJ. I don’t know if there are any ages after that (I assume there are). Sadly, John sealed up what the seven thunders said. We see now as through a glass darkly.
You cut and paste, I now from study.
My words are mine, not from some site that surfed using a phrase on.
Just because there are many different meanings for a word, does not mean they are all used. You must take context, time and understanding of the subject matter. Something you are clueless about.
You obviously get your understanding from others, because you refuse to read it for your self. As you already admitted.
From hence forth, discussing this subject with you is worse than discussing abortion with a radical feminist.
You have no knowledge, thus you could care less about what the Scriptures truly say.
OH, I’m sorry, the Scriptures are useless to you. Go back to the leftists church you attend, if you go at all, and feel comfortable in your trip to oblivion.
Yes. I agree. The question you pose is, what is essential? And the famous quote, most often credited to Augustine, “... in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.”
I strongly believe what is plainly stated in the scripture, on divorce, adultery, homosexuality. If the issue is interpretation, you have to understand the context of the time, and the original meaning of the words in which it was written.
No matter how long we live, or what experiences we’ve had, the meaning and intent of the scriptures do not change.
READ, then interpret. Don’t ACT, and then interpret (justify your actions)
I think the best way to have a well founded belief system is to be your own devil’s advocate and to engage people with opposite point of views.
I’ve found that when I am exposed to a new teaching on the internet, I’ll actually search out those teachers that disagree with it and try to find out which holds the most water. In most cases, it actually becomes pretty obvious, pretty quickly.
Seattle has some of the nations lowest church attendance.
Kentucky some of the highest
Faith is faith not empiricism
If Christianity were simply empirical the entire world would likely follow and easily
But it’s faith more than anything
All that historical explanation stuff is interesting and folks can argue all they wish but it’s almost beside the point.... that
Resolute faith and dogmatic are again two different things
I’ve learned to look at Christianity as unique because to my knowledge it’s the only religion of note whereby the creator sends his duly created son as an extension of himself to earth to live and suffer and die horribly in order to prove or show that he can live and die as you and for you to have faith in accepting that for your everlasting future after death with him and as proof that he loves those which he created and living as us demonstrates the old adage he’s not asking you to do something he has not experienced
Nobody else really does that and it logically makes the most impression on me as understandable and believable.
I’m sure Kentucky has less socially conservative churches like Lutheran or united Methodist if the fundies irritate you
You admit you do not like read the Bible, or you may be believe it?
That statement is false.
I cut and pasted from a lexicon. If I type it in, does that make it somehow more “valuable”?
Most of what I post is my own words, but when something needed to make the point is easily out there, id would be literally STOOOOPID to NOT cut and paste it.
Like all tools, cut and paste is very useful when used properly. ;)
Just because there are many different meanings for a word, does not mean they are all used. You must take context, time and understanding of the subject matter. Something you are clueless about.
You have no knowledge, thus you could care less about what the Scriptures truly say.
You obviously get your understanding from others, because you refuse to read it for your self. As you already admitted.
OH, I’m sorry, the Scriptures are useless to you.
Your reply has such a wide scope (are you sure that you wanted to reply to me?) that I can scarce respond in kind. In any event: A well thought-out posting!
Regards,
Seattle has some of the nations lowest church attendance.
Kentucky some of the highest
In rural KY, you go to church because that is what everyone does. You go to potlucks, listen to poorly prepared or unprepared sermons (and some good ones), and do social events.
This is an overgeneralization, but it makes the point: For people in rural KY, church is very much a cultural thing and also religious for many of them. In Seattle church is a religious thing and also a cultural thing for many of them.
FWIW, I get this from talking with people about their beliefs and getting to know them and what they have to say about their relationship with God. There are some quite devout believers here in KY, but many of them can’t really back up their beliefs. Christianity is very much a cultural thing here, though there are those who can very much defend their viewpoint.
Yours was the post that talked of argument best, so I landed there. I believe...the article mixed fact and belief as did the research without any competent discussion of the two. Research based on garbage will output...
Thanks for hook to post!
DK
I’ve learned to look at Christianity as unique because to my knowledge it’s the only religion of note whereby the creator sends his duly created son as an extension of himself to earth to live and suffer and die horribly in order to prove or show that he can live and die as you and for you to have faith in accepting that for your everlasting future after death with him and as proof that he loves those which he created and living as us demonstrates the old adage he’s not asking you to do something he has not experienced
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.