[ RANT ] People Are Irrational.

Post Reply New Topic

This is a long one, so if you would rather watch cat videos instead, then go right ahead; it won't bother me.

I've met literally hundreds of actual doctors, engineers, and scientists -- but not anybody who could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that extraterrestrial aliens exist, or that they were themselves extraterrestrial aliens.

I've met uncounted numbers of con-men, fortune-tellers, and schizophrenics -- but not one person who could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that psychic abilities exist, or that they had any real psychic abilities.

I've seen real-life demonstrations of holography, blue-screen videography, and life-like CGI products that seem to place a physical object where no such object ever was -- but I've not met even one person who could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that disembodied intelligent entities (e.g., "Ghosts") exist, or that they were themselves a "ghost".

Our technological civilization is based on real, verifiable physical principles like electro-magnetism, gravity, thermodynamics, and the speed of light, all of which can be measured quantitatively -- but there is not even one person who has demonstrated telepathy, telekinesis, or any form of extra-sensory perception to me without resorting to some kind of fraud, trickery, or esoteric double-talk.

I've learned that absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt; that any claim relying solely on validation by popularity can be completely disregarded; that common sense isn't nearly as common as common folks would like to believe; and that belief is no substitute for evidence -- belief by itself proves nothing.

So why is it a terrible thing to declare a reasonable level of doubt for the existence of E.T.s, Psychics, Ghosts, or any other concepts that are generally regarded as "para-normal"?

Why is it offensive to even suggest that it is reasonable to believe in only those things that are measurable and for which there is abundantly valid physical evidence?

Why does it seem that science itself -- which relies heavily on physical evidence, demonstration of claim, peer-group review, and empirical validation -- is generally treated with derision, if not open hostility?

First, it is hard to lie to and manipulate those people who base their beliefs solely on observable actions, measurable results, and scientific principles.  Think about it.  If you want to convince someone that a deck of cards can tell you more about their state of health than a blood test, then you pick someone who dropped out of high school, and not a someone who graduated college with a degree in biology.  The former will likely pony up twenty dollars for a Tarot reading, while the latter will likely laugh in your face and call you a fraud.

Second, it is easier to believe a pleasant lie than it is to accept an unpleasant truth.  We all want to feel good, and if believing that the spirits of our deceased relatives are still hanging around -- loving us and guiding us through all of our troubles -- makes us feel better about our lives, then we're going to at least entertain the thought.

Third, it is easier to believe a simple lie than it is to understand a complex truth.  Why did you get sick?  Because you think bad thoughts.  Simple, right?  It's also a lie.  The truth has more to do with the complex interactions between tiny bits of virulent DNA and the DNA of your own body.

Fourth, humans seem to be 'wired' for cognitive dissonance -- this is when an otherwise rational person holds an irrational belief in the face of significant evidence against it.  We see this at work in everyday life: A parent who believes her child to be brilliant believes the test he failed was poorly written, even though the rest of the class did fine on it; a man who catches his disheveled wife leaving a hotel with another man believes nothing happened, they just talked; an infatuated teen-ager who believes that her boyfriend is really a nice guy, despite his having been in and out of juvenile hall multiple times on drug, burglary, and assault charges.

Fifth, people will reinterpret valid evidence as propaganda designed to fool them into doing something that they just don't want to do.  Take vaccines, for instance; some parents may feeel guilty about putting their kids through the schedule of childhood vaccinations.  Rather than admit their feelings, they will assert that vaccines are either worthless and ineffective (being essentially ordinary water), or too dangerous and harmful (causing all kinds of medical problems).

Sixth, people will go on and on about how awful conditions are in other nations while completely ignoring the atrocities their own governments commit or allow to be committed within their own borders; and even if they are forced to acknowledge those atrocities, they will blame other nations for creating the conditions -- or even just setting a bad example -- that encourages those atrocities to be committed in the first place.

Seventh, people believe that intelligent, educated and competent officials acting in the public interest are oppressive tyrants, while incompetent authoritarian plutocrats acting in their own self-interest are benevolent and compassionate.  They cry "Nanny State!" when told that a simple procedure would save themselves, their families, their jobs, or even the environment; yet, when an indigenous tribe is uprooted from their ancestral lands to provide easement for a leaky oil pipeline, those same people will instead cry, "Progress!"

Ninth, people would rather wallow in misery for years rather than put forth any effort to make their own lives better.  People would rather complain about their problems than do anything about them.  People would rather blame their families, their teachers, their employers, society, or even the random arrangement of the stars on the day they were born for being lonely and miserable than work on improving themselves whenever they can.

Finally, people will break rules and laws that everyone should know and understand, and then claim ignorance.  Someone grabs an attractive stranger: "I didn't know it was assault!  Someone takes office supplies (and toilet paper) home from work: "I didn't know it was stealing!"  Someone rolls through an intersection without even tapping the breaks: "I didn't know I was supposed to stop!"  Ignorance of the law is no excuse; if you could have known, then you should have known.

Nothing people do surprises me any more, even when what they do makes no sense at all.

I mostly agree with you on every point. I'm a gotta see it to believe it kind of person. But at the same time I want to contradict most of what you say. It is very black and white and I like to believe in gray zones. In your world we would become stagnant. Many branches of science are based in theory. I like to believe (even when unlikely) that some of the sci-fi weird s**t may be possible in future. I would hate to lose my curiosity about things - change, disagreements, different ways of life and thinking all lead to progress in my book. It's harder on some than others but necessary. I love the diversity and conflict going on around us that allows you to have your opinion about what works and what doesn't. And people lie to themselves all the time to get them through the sucky parts.
Not eloquent, I know. But in principle you are correct on most counts. And if an alien ever landed I would be terrified but be the first one there to see it even if it meant certain death. I would die happy. It would signal the next stage of things as we know it .

I did not know I believed in Tarot readings until I read your post. I left school at 17 which means you're better educated than me so you must be right.


Here is my answer as to why I sometimes do not believe/follow what some may consider the sensible/logical/expert view.

First, I don't argue with science, I question the conclusions others make from that science because I know how much people hate to admit they don't know something, and because I know how reluctant people are to admit they've made a mistake once they have become invested in it.

Second, I know that experts do not give information in a vacuum, they make assumptions eg guv advice on nutrition has been 'adapted' to take account of how people are likely to react (not try if it looks too difficult) and is based on how most people behave. Everyone told to wear sun protection because most people sunbath. Even individual advice is influenced by how we are perceived by others. Experts are still human and have the prejudices too.

Third, I get patronised a lot. Seriously, A LOT. When anyone does it (and nearly everyone does it) it's annoying, but when I've gone to someone such as a doctor and explained the problem inc. what I've already tried and their advice is what I've already tried because 'it will work' If in desperation I go online and try some quack thing suggested by some stranger and it works my view is that believing the thing that doesn't work over the thing that does would be the very worst science of all.

I don't believe in the supernatural (or Tarots) but not 100%. I'd find the complete conviction of something not existing, irrational in itself. I believe in God (both parents atheists) no explanation or rational, I just do, but I question everything connected. Eg Virgin birth and God writing the ten commandments.

In conclusion I agree people are irrational but that is without exception, ALL people, experts, doctors, scientists, even we, are irrational.

Most people hold on to some irrational beliefs. Occam's razor also doesn't deal with reality. It's an assumption that helps people conduct experiments and test things. It's not meant to tell you what to believe outside of the realm of testable hypotheses.

wheres the cat videos at

No. I don’t believe in the “supernatural.”

If somebody else does, then I might assume they’ve experienced the evidence, while I have not.

I don’t have much particular interest in listening to the stories which lay out this “evidence”—but I would try if it’s coming from a close friend of mine.

There are times when I wished I had these sorts of beliefs; this would enabled a close relationship with my mother. And could have enabled greater success in making friends in general.

But I just don’t believe in the “supernatural.”

The Scientific Method leaves lots of room for the debunking of hypotheses.

I am a firm believer in it.

But the results of peer-reviewed, etc research does not always yield what is actually “true”—whereas anecdote could very well create a quicker path towards that “truth.”

Just ask any experienced detective.

None of those other items had undergone the rigorous processes of the Scientific Method.