0
Mumbo-jumbo
20 May 2005
We're such superstitious animals. It's difficult to believe we live in the same era when we can put a spaceship on Titan, a billion miles away, and send back photographs of the event, and we still don't build apartments with a 13th floor. We have unparalleled access to information and data through the Internet, yet most newspapers still carry a horoscope - and it remains a popular feature. We can clone a mammal, but we still use our "lucky" numbers to buy lottery tickets. We use the most modern medical technology to determine the cause of death of Tutankhamun, dead more than 3,000 years, but there are people who still assert the validity of a known racist forgery called the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." We have tunnelling electron microscopes that can peer down to the atomic level and orbiting telescopes that can look at quasars billions of light years away... but we still insist that the Biblical creation myth has a literal truth on par with scientific theory.
Black cats, lucky numbers, walking under ladders, saying "Bless you" when someone sneezes, ghastly charms made from the foot of a slaughtered rabbit, tossing spilt salt over the shoulder, creationism, horoscopes, ghosts and spirits, the Bermuda Triangle, UFOS and alien abductions, Friday the 13th, a face on Mars, OUIJA boards, psychics, stepping on spiders brings rain, and broken mirrors bring bad luck, faith healers, Big Foot, palmistry, astrology, scientology, the Loch Ness Monster, tarot cards - for a supposedly advanced and enlightened culture, we still carry an enormous weight of primitive baggage with us.
It's no wonder we're easy prey for the wolves among us: we're sheep. Charlatans like Edgar Cayce and Jean Dixon abound; so do the numerous "faith healers" and televangelists, or the sell-described spiritualists and psychics, or the self-help mavens and and would-be gurus. How can people who believe in ghosts or lucky numbers be expected to discern the truth behind their preposterous but elaborate shams? We're basically gullible.
There's a psychological term for this sort of gullibility, or rather two terms: the Forer effect, also known as the P.T. Barnum effect.
In the late 1940s, psychologist B.R. Forer gave a personality test to his students but no matter what they answered, he gave everyone the same generic evaluation back. Then he asked his students to rate the veracity of his "evaluation" of their personality on a scale of 0 to 5 (5 being the most relevant). That test has been repeated thousands of times since and the average response remains around 4.2 - about 85% approval.
Forer discovered people will accept a generic, even vague, personality description as if it were unique to them. He also found people will accept statements about themselves even when they know they are false, if the statements are presented as positive or flattering. Forer called this the "subjective or personal validation effect." Inother words, it doesn't matter if what I tell you is right or wrong as long as it makes you feel good.
Another psychologist, Paul Meehl, coined the term "Barnum effect" after promoter Phineas T. Barnum, who once said, "A good circus has something for everyone," meaning that a single event could be tailored to attract all walks of life and all ages because each person would find in it something for his or her self. Barnum also made his fortune playing to the gullibility of his audience: he realized quickly people would willingly suspend their critical facilities in exchange for amusement or entertainment.
Newspaper horoscope columns are daily examples of these effects. It's simply absurd to give any heed to a statement that encompasses a twelfth of humanity at any one time, but is intended as a personal message. Why do people give more credence to a horoscope than, say, a comic strip? But by making the messages general, and changing them frequently, eventually what is written will have personal meaning to the reader - who will remember the one relevant message and conveniently forget the hundreds of previous irrelevant messages.
In 2001, a Gallup poll reported 28 percent of Americans believed in astrology. A poll by Yankelovich Partners in 1997 found 37 percent of Americans believed "somewhat" in astrology. Yet there has never been any serious statistical evidence presented to prove astrology's correlation to psychology.
In another 2001 Gallup poll, 45 percent of American respondents agreed with he statement, "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." That's despite more than a century of scientific research backed by considerable evidence, numerous significant and irrefutable fossil finds, genetic analysis, and numerous impeccable dating systems that humans have evolved - like other animals - over the last five million years. Some people, it seems, simply ignore the facts.
These poll results are too surprising, given the generally strong belief in the paranormal, the supernatural and the pseudo-sciences. Americans are not alone in this: its pandemic. But the Internet has helped make the supernatural easily accessible. And for many people, being spoon-fed a answer, no matter how fatuous or illogical is easier and more comfortable than having to take the time and effort to unravel the skeins of data that science often presents. Science demands careful thought, consideration and often argument. How much simpler life is when we take our answers from a horoscope column or from the pulpit.
Carl Sagan had sympathy for the human frailties that underly our need for the supernatural as an answer. But no matter how kindly one looks at the believers of the supernatural, no amount of sympathy can make what they believe become actuality. Things that go bump in the night, demons, ghosts, goblins, phrenology and creationism are still the hobgoblins of a chained mind.
Skepticism is a healthy attribute, a good defence mechanism. Demanding that every statement be proven, that every assertion be explained, that every fact be verified is a very sane and safe approach to life. Taking things simply on authority, on the word of another, or simply because others around you believe in it is, to put it mildly, insane.
Maybe people would become more cautious about what they believe if they were aware of how many of these things are big business for their promoters. Some of the most well-known faith healers, for example, make millions of dollars every year, raking in huge sums from continued donations from the scared, sick and gullible, despite not having any track record of actually healing anyone. But people continue to shell out money to then despite numerous media exposes that bare their frauds.
Astrology is big business, too. Look at the numerous books on the subject, the number of different newspaper columns (and the syndication royalties...), the prices top astrologers charge for speaking tours and personal analyses of your chart... it's not that money defines credibility, but it can certainly colour one's appreciation of it. But all the arguments for synchronicity still can't make astrology into a valid form of psychology. It's just entertainment; like "reality" TV and WWF matches.
Our ancestors might have used astrology to determine their decisions, but we should be sophisticated enought to understand that there is NO predictive mechanism in the position of the planets, and the people who told us they could predict our future were merely doing so to wield power over our ancestors. No one can forecast your future - NO ONE. Back in 702 CE, the Venerable Bede wrote that the stars could not affect humans. Nothing has changed since then, so why aren't some people paying attention?
Besides - how can anyone reconcile the significant differences between Chinese, Native American, Sumerian, Greek, Egyptian, Vedic and other competing forms of astrology? But no one does - they just tell you what you want to hear in whatever system you prefer.
Even popular "miracle" sites like Lourdes have bad track records: of the hundreds of millions (about six million visits every year) who have traipsed through Lourdres praying for a "miracle," the Catholic Church has only recognized 67 "miracles" and about 7,000 "inexplicable" cures since Lourdes was opened as a religious hotspot, in February 1858. That's lower than the rates for spontaneous remission of many serious illnesses, including most cancers. That low record of success hasn't stopped the parade of faithful, however. Faith without skepticism too easily becomes superstition.
I think the only way to keep one's balance in a crazy world is to be infinitely skeptical, to question every source, every statement, every belief, every teaching. We have to work hard to avoid the traps our native gullibility leads us into. One can never be too paranoid in a world where everyone is out to get you! But if we apply judicious skepticism, careful analysis and conscientious thought, we may find there are things worthy of our belief... but they won't be found in horoscope columns or in the words of TV evangelists and faith healers.
Black cats, lucky numbers, walking under ladders, saying "Bless you" when someone sneezes, ghastly charms made from the foot of a slaughtered rabbit, tossing spilt salt over the shoulder, creationism, horoscopes, ghosts and spirits, the Bermuda Triangle, UFOS and alien abductions, Friday the 13th, a face on Mars, OUIJA boards, psychics, stepping on spiders brings rain, and broken mirrors bring bad luck, faith healers, Big Foot, palmistry, astrology, scientology, the Loch Ness Monster, tarot cards - for a supposedly advanced and enlightened culture, we still carry an enormous weight of primitive baggage with us.
It's no wonder we're easy prey for the wolves among us: we're sheep. Charlatans like Edgar Cayce and Jean Dixon abound; so do the numerous "faith healers" and televangelists, or the sell-described spiritualists and psychics, or the self-help mavens and and would-be gurus. How can people who believe in ghosts or lucky numbers be expected to discern the truth behind their preposterous but elaborate shams? We're basically gullible.
Quote
In The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan wrote, "...at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes - an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. The collective enterprise of creative thinking and skeptical thinking, working together, keeps the field on track."
There's a psychological term for this sort of gullibility, or rather two terms: the Forer effect, also known as the P.T. Barnum effect.
In the late 1940s, psychologist B.R. Forer gave a personality test to his students but no matter what they answered, he gave everyone the same generic evaluation back. Then he asked his students to rate the veracity of his "evaluation" of their personality on a scale of 0 to 5 (5 being the most relevant). That test has been repeated thousands of times since and the average response remains around 4.2 - about 85% approval.
Forer discovered people will accept a generic, even vague, personality description as if it were unique to them. He also found people will accept statements about themselves even when they know they are false, if the statements are presented as positive or flattering. Forer called this the "subjective or personal validation effect." Inother words, it doesn't matter if what I tell you is right or wrong as long as it makes you feel good.
Another psychologist, Paul Meehl, coined the term "Barnum effect" after promoter Phineas T. Barnum, who once said, "A good circus has something for everyone," meaning that a single event could be tailored to attract all walks of life and all ages because each person would find in it something for his or her self. Barnum also made his fortune playing to the gullibility of his audience: he realized quickly people would willingly suspend their critical facilities in exchange for amusement or entertainment.
Newspaper horoscope columns are daily examples of these effects. It's simply absurd to give any heed to a statement that encompasses a twelfth of humanity at any one time, but is intended as a personal message. Why do people give more credence to a horoscope than, say, a comic strip? But by making the messages general, and changing them frequently, eventually what is written will have personal meaning to the reader - who will remember the one relevant message and conveniently forget the hundreds of previous irrelevant messages.
In 2001, a Gallup poll reported 28 percent of Americans believed in astrology. A poll by Yankelovich Partners in 1997 found 37 percent of Americans believed "somewhat" in astrology. Yet there has never been any serious statistical evidence presented to prove astrology's correlation to psychology.
In another 2001 Gallup poll, 45 percent of American respondents agreed with he statement, "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." That's despite more than a century of scientific research backed by considerable evidence, numerous significant and irrefutable fossil finds, genetic analysis, and numerous impeccable dating systems that humans have evolved - like other animals - over the last five million years. Some people, it seems, simply ignore the facts.
These poll results are too surprising, given the generally strong belief in the paranormal, the supernatural and the pseudo-sciences. Americans are not alone in this: its pandemic. But the Internet has helped make the supernatural easily accessible. And for many people, being spoon-fed a answer, no matter how fatuous or illogical is easier and more comfortable than having to take the time and effort to unravel the skeins of data that science often presents. Science demands careful thought, consideration and often argument. How much simpler life is when we take our answers from a horoscope column or from the pulpit.
Carl Sagan had sympathy for the human frailties that underly our need for the supernatural as an answer. But no matter how kindly one looks at the believers of the supernatural, no amount of sympathy can make what they believe become actuality. Things that go bump in the night, demons, ghosts, goblins, phrenology and creationism are still the hobgoblins of a chained mind.
Skepticism is a healthy attribute, a good defence mechanism. Demanding that every statement be proven, that every assertion be explained, that every fact be verified is a very sane and safe approach to life. Taking things simply on authority, on the word of another, or simply because others around you believe in it is, to put it mildly, insane.
Quote
The Buddha spoke these words about free inquiry, more than 2,500 years ago:
"Rely not on the teacher or person, but on the teaching.
Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words.
Rely not on theory, but on experience.Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
"Rely not on the teacher or person, but on the teaching.
Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words.
Rely not on theory, but on experience.Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
Maybe people would become more cautious about what they believe if they were aware of how many of these things are big business for their promoters. Some of the most well-known faith healers, for example, make millions of dollars every year, raking in huge sums from continued donations from the scared, sick and gullible, despite not having any track record of actually healing anyone. But people continue to shell out money to then despite numerous media exposes that bare their frauds.
Astrology is big business, too. Look at the numerous books on the subject, the number of different newspaper columns (and the syndication royalties...), the prices top astrologers charge for speaking tours and personal analyses of your chart... it's not that money defines credibility, but it can certainly colour one's appreciation of it. But all the arguments for synchronicity still can't make astrology into a valid form of psychology. It's just entertainment; like "reality" TV and WWF matches.
Our ancestors might have used astrology to determine their decisions, but we should be sophisticated enought to understand that there is NO predictive mechanism in the position of the planets, and the people who told us they could predict our future were merely doing so to wield power over our ancestors. No one can forecast your future - NO ONE. Back in 702 CE, the Venerable Bede wrote that the stars could not affect humans. Nothing has changed since then, so why aren't some people paying attention?
Besides - how can anyone reconcile the significant differences between Chinese, Native American, Sumerian, Greek, Egyptian, Vedic and other competing forms of astrology? But no one does - they just tell you what you want to hear in whatever system you prefer.
Even popular "miracle" sites like Lourdes have bad track records: of the hundreds of millions (about six million visits every year) who have traipsed through Lourdres praying for a "miracle," the Catholic Church has only recognized 67 "miracles" and about 7,000 "inexplicable" cures since Lourdes was opened as a religious hotspot, in February 1858. That's lower than the rates for spontaneous remission of many serious illnesses, including most cancers. That low record of success hasn't stopped the parade of faithful, however. Faith without skepticism too easily becomes superstition.
I think the only way to keep one's balance in a crazy world is to be infinitely skeptical, to question every source, every statement, every belief, every teaching. We have to work hard to avoid the traps our native gullibility leads us into. One can never be too paranoid in a world where everyone is out to get you! But if we apply judicious skepticism, careful analysis and conscientious thought, we may find there are things worthy of our belief... but they won't be found in horoscope columns or in the words of TV evangelists and faith healers.
One area you failed to mention is the whole alternative health treatment industry. For many, some days it seems like most, perhaps an introduction to www.quackwatch.com would be in order. One of Sagan's heroes James Randi is a player here.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it."
George Bernard Shaw