We often wonder why Mormons (and other types of true believers) are so hard to reach with facts and logic. The various reasons we offer up cover part of what might be going on in their minds, but there are probably more things at play, and they’re interconnected and feeding each other.

We all have cognitive biases. They’re a product of the way our brains work and process information and the limitations to how we humans can perceive the world around us. So when dealing with people who have intransigent beliefs,I think it’s more about the degree of their cognitive biases and what they’re centered around. (But I could have cognitive biases about what I just wrote.)

I recently came across the Cognitive Bias Codex. It’s a circular interactive chart laying out different types of cognitive bias and their relationships to each other. The larger groupings are about how we remember things, having too much information, having too little meaning, and the need to take action. The subgrouping below that is broken into the following:

-We store memories differently based on how they were experienced

-We reduce events and lists to their key elements

-We discard specifics to form generalities

-We edit and reinforce some memories after the fact

-We notice things already primed in memory or repeated often

-Bizarre, funny, visually striking, or anthropomorphic things stick out more than non-bizarre/unfunny things

-We notice when something has changed

-We are drawn to details that confirm our own existing beliefs

-We notice flaws in others more easily than we notice flaws in ourselves

-We tend to find stories and patterns even when looking at sparse data

-We fill in characteristics from stereotypes, generalities, and prior histories

-We imagine things and people we're familiar with or fond of as better

-We simplify probabilities and numbers to make them easier to think about

-We think we know what other people are thinking

-We project our current mindset and assumptions onto the past and future

-To act, we must be confident we can make an impact and feel what we do is important

-To stay focused, we favor the immediate, relatable thing in front of us

-To get things done, we tend to complete things we've invested time and energy in

-To avoid mistakes, we aim to preserve autonomy and group status, and avoid irreversible decisions

-We favor simple–looking options and complete information over complex, ambiguous options


The next level down lists many many individual characteristics, like misattribution of memory, observer-expectancy effect, authority bias, not-invented-here-ism, illusory superiority, and so on. What makes the chart cool and useful is that each of those biases is linked to Wikipedia articles explaining them.

So when we’re dealing with TBMs, we’re dealing with the sub-optimal functionings of the human meat-based thinking machine. Add cultural shaping, indoctrination, fear, and a pile of other crap, and… well… I stopped trying to change Mormons.

Here's the link to the chart:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Cognitive_bias_codex_en.svg?ref=insanelyusefulwebsites

They follow a profit who openly tells members that anyone trying to steer them away from the church is the adversary. Pretty hard to present evidence when they have been conditioned to stick to their "I know the church is true" mantra.

That's quite a chart. Good find.

The neuron networks in the brain seem to have "rules" like those to efficiently associate all the bits of input.

A lot of the neural roadwork is laid down genetically and early in life. This also forms the foundation for how we think and our biases.

Human meat-based thinking machines indeed.

The neuron networks in the brain seem to have "rules" like those to efficiently associate all the bits of input.

COMMENT: Rules? What kind of rules? Logical rules? Computational rules? Where did these rules come from? Genes? Evolution? What is your 'just-so' story about these rules? It is well known that the associations of neurons in neural networks are inadequate to explain human cognition. So, what other rules do you suggest, and what is their source?

Moreover, how do these neurological rules relate to conscious deliberation and thought? What is the connecting correspondence? When you left Mormonism, is it because your brain was following 'association rules' (and perhaps other rules) that other (less neurological gifted) Mormons did not have? Did your brain simply direct and determine this result without YOUR involvement and free choice?
_________________________________________

A lot of the neural roadwork is laid down genetically and early in life. This also forms the foundation for how we think and our biases.

COMMENT: First sentence true. Second sentence is only an assumption, and probably false in that it is not born out by any evidence. Moreover, human cognition far exceeds anything that can be explained by any early neural "roadwork."
_________________________________________

Human meat-based thinking machines indeed.

COMMENT: Remember that assessment the next time you post something expressing your human values and value judgments. Thinking machines (e.g. computers) don't make value judgments. They just do whatever their software and operators demand.

(If you want sources for any of the above, I would be happy to provide them.)

COMMENT: Where is the science behind all of this psychobabble?
The short answer is that there is none. It's all made up from arm-chair theorizing from some set of so-called 'psychological studies.' There are no neurological facts, or neurological studies, that support any of this nonsense!
___________________________________________

"We often wonder why Mormons (and other types of true believers) are so hard to reach with facts and logic. The various reasons we offer up cover part of what might be going on in their minds, but there are probably more things at play, and they’re interconnected and feeding each other."

COMMENT: Why is *anybody* so hard to reach with facts and logic--including participants on RfM? The bottom line is that people *choose* what they believe and don't believe, including the input they are willing to consider (if any) when assessing their worldview. Notice that many of us here on RfM found our way out of Mormonism by conscious, deliberate effort, and free choice, often with difficult consequences. Where is that on this chart?
_____________________________________________

"We all have cognitive biases. They’re a product of the way our brains work and process information and the limitations to how we humans can perceive the world around us. So when dealing with people who have intransigent beliefs,I think it’s more about the degree of their cognitive biases and what they’re centered around. (But I could have cognitive biases about what I just wrote.)"

COMMENT: We are not ruled by a plethora of 'cognitive biases' or rote brain processes. Otherwise, we would never be able to break out of such biases. The fact that we can, and often do, is an indication that we are not merely "a product of the way our brains work and process information." We are the product of our choices--just as it intuitively seems is the case.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> COMMENT: Why is *anybody* so hard to reach with
> facts and logic--including participants on RfM?
> The bottom line is that people *choose* what they
> believe and don't believe, including the input
> they are willing to consider (if any) when
> assessing their worldview. Notice that many of us
> here on RfM found our way out of Mormonism by
> conscious, deliberate effort, and free choice,
> often with difficult consequences. Where is that
> on this chart?
> _____________________________________________
>


What’s the source of your Doxastic voluntarism, a position often associated with theists? I’ve seen you self identify as an atheist. Do you really think you could simply choose to be a theist tomorrow if you wanted to? Of course we can choose to take a line of action that *may* lead to a change of belief, but that’s something different. The bottom line: I could no more choose to believe that stealing, rape and murder are good than I could choose to disbelieve that Homer was worthwhile reading for me.

On the other note, I TRIED HARD to believe in Mormonism. I didn’t want to leave. I had three small kids, a Mormon wife, a large extended Mormon family that I fit in with very well; I also was young and just getting started and had some financial considerations to factor in. I did not want to apostatize. I tried to choose belief, but I just couldn’t believe. It wasn’t subject to my will. Of course I could have chosen to dissemble, to fake it, was even in the last moments counselled to do so. But actual belief I could not choose, anymore than I could choose to believe in Santa Claus.

“What’s the source of your Doxastic voluntarism, a position often associated with theists? I’ve seen you self identify as an atheist. Do you really think you could simply choose to be a theist tomorrow if you wanted to?”

COMMENT: First a bit of introduction for the uninitiated. Doxastic voluntarism (the philosophical position that we can control our beliefs by our will) comes in two flavors, direct and indirect. Essentially, direct Doxastic voluntarism (DDV) is the claim that we can 'decide' what we want to believe, even if we otherwise know, or have reason to believe, that it is false. This is like Pascal's wager, where we are instructed to will a belief in God, regardless of our mental inclinations as to the falsity of such a belief. Indirect Doxastic voluntarism (IDV) claims that although we may not be able to will our beliefs directly, we can will our direction, focus, and/or attention toward facts that support a given belief, while avoiding facts that undermine such a belief. In that indirect sense, we can will our beliefs. Thus, a Mormon can indirectly will belief in Mormonism despite doubts, by focusing on facts that support such a belief while avoiding facts that do not. In either case, DDV or IDV, the will instantiates a given belief. Here is a good summary:

https://iep.utm.edu/doxastic-voluntarism/

Now, my response to your objections. This response is based upon my metaphysical commitment to human beings as autonomous agents having free will. I will not argue that point here.

First, whether DDV or IDV is possible, or applicable, depends crucially on the contest. Moreover, we have to know or assume something about human nature; namely that humans are truth-interested and fact-interested creatures. Facts and truth matters. Moreover, we must assume that there are such facts and there are such truths as related to the world and reality generally.

We are constantly bombarded with ‘facts’ in the form personal experience, as well as in the form of ‘truth-claims’ from a wide variety of sources and as related to a wide variety of subjects. As truth-interested and fact-interested organisms, we assess such claims, and decide whether they are to be believed or disbelieved. Now, here is the important point: With all such facts there are degrees of psychological certainty and uncertainty which weigh in that decision. Some facts, for example, our subjective experience of our existence, are certain (I think, therefore I am!) These kind of facts are ‘forced upon us’ by their high degree of certainty. As such we are often ‘compelled’ to believe them. In such cases contrary beliefs as formed through DDV or IDV are difficult, if not impossible.

In other cases, however, windows of uncertainty (however wide or narrow) create an opportunity for the operation of the will as to the fixation of such beliefs (or disbeliefs). It is here that both DDV and IDV play important roles. To illustrate, there is no doubt that many believing Mormons know as much about the adverse facts of Mormonism as we do. Moreover, such people are equally competent at cognitive reasoning and critical thinking. What has happened is that they have focused on a sliver of uncertainty and thereby willed to believe in Mormonism in spite of such facts. Thus, where you have been ‘compelled’ to disbelieve, they have not. Why? because of DDV or IDV. Thus, in that sense, “People choose what to believe and not believe.” It does not mean that facts and truth are irrelevant to such choices, or that high degrees of certainty do not in some important sense ‘compel’ belief formation.
_________________________________________________________________

“Of course we can choose to take a line of action that *may* lead to a change of belief, but that’s something different. The bottom line: I could no more choose to believe that stealing, rape and murder are good than I could choose to disbelieve that Homer was worthwhile reading for me.”

COMMENT: See above. “Taking a line of action that ‘may’ lead to a change of belief’ is by definition IDV. As such, your will remains in tact. Moral facts operation in the same way. In some contexts they seem certain, and thus seem to compel a certain action or inaction. In other cases, it is more ambiguous, and we have to choose where the moral line lies.
__________________________________________________________________

“On the other note, I TRIED HARD to believe in Mormonism. I didn’t want to leave. I had three small kids, a Mormon wife, a large extended Mormon family that I fit in with very well; I also was young and just getting started and had some financial considerations to factor in. I did not want to apostatize. I tried to choose belief, but I just couldn’t believe. It wasn’t subject to my will. Of course I could have chosen to dissemble, to fake it, was even in the last moments counselled to do so. But actual belief I could not choose, anymore than I could choose to believe in Santa Claus.”

COMMENT: This, of course, is a common story. It points to your commitment to facts and truth, and in the present context, an unwillingness to amplify the small degree of uncertainty that might remain and desperately jump through it. For me that is character! Whether by deliberate, willed action, you (or I) could have changed our course and ‘willed’ (IDV) belief back again, is perhaps an open question, but for me, I doubt it. I feel just like you, that the facts and truth were sufficiently certain that I felt compelled to disbelieve. But that is not an abrogation of free will.

"In other cases, however, windows of uncertainty (however wide or narrow) create an opportunity for the operation of the will as to the fixation of such beliefs (or disbeliefs)."

Does belief create free will? Considering a newborn, it has little in the way of beliefs and personal identity, therefore little free will.

Maybe belief and free will develop together. It could be that free will is a belief, a kind of illusion that is real by virtue of the process of mortality. It is real because we believe it, which hits uncomfortably close to Mormonism.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Notice that many of us
> here on RfM found our way out of Mormonism by
> conscious, deliberate effort, and free choice,
> often with difficult consequences. Where is that
> on this chart?

That's a little like asking where, on a chart of mistakes, are the non-mistakes? Where, on a chart of diseases are the non-diseases?

Besides, I only said it was difficult to change TBMs, not impossible.

“That's a little like asking where, on a chart of mistakes, are the non-mistakes? Where, on a chart of diseases are the non-diseases?”

COMMENT: When your ‘chart of mistakes’ is so overwhelmingly extensive as to drown out free will, it becomes a bit meaningless to talk about what willed, unadulterated, decision-making might be left. That seems to me to be the case here.

Here is a parable:

Suppose there was a world renown piano virtuoso famous for his rendition of Beethoven’s Moonlight sonata who becomes deaf toward the end of his life. Nonetheless, he is often called upon to play this famous piece, and he graciously obliges, even though he can't hear a thing.

Now, suppose on one occasion he is asked to play the sonata in concert on an electronic piano. However, this piano is notoriously unreliable, such that sometimes the keys play the ‘right’ notes, but more often than not they randomly play some other note. Of course, our virtuoso does not know this, and proceeds to play the sonata just as he always has, trusting that it is all coming out just as he intended. Unfortunately, however, it all comes out in random chaos, with little audible trace of the Moonlight. The audience is aghast at this turn of events, much to the surprise of the pianist. From his perspective, everything went fine.

Thereafter, a group of experts are called upon to analyze just what went wrong. Note by note they determine what note should have been played as opposed to what note was played, with very few notes actually being ‘right’ in accordance with Beethoven’s and the pianist’s intentions. Our experts then prepare a chart and call it “The Moonlight Mistake Codex” putting a piano in the center and drawing full explanations as to what went wrong with the performance. Then some wise guy like me says, “Well where is the Moonlight sonata in all of this?” You answer, “This is only a chart of mistakes, not non-mistakes.” But then, I say, “Well, that may very well be, but the music has been entirely lost in this analysis, which, of course, was the central point of the concert. Without the legitimacy of the music, the mistakes have no meaning!”

Similarly, when cognitive biases overwhelm cognitive decision-making, free will, which is the point of decision-making, is lost.
__________________________________________________________

“Besides, I only said it was difficult to change TBMs, not impossible.”

COMMENT: Well, O.K. But the mere possibility of free deliberate, rational, thinking, in the face of overwhelming inherent biases, is a pretty weak ground upon which to base the functional requirements of human cognition.

When you don't know who you are it's hard to change

It’s like drug addiction. They aren’t going to change until they themselves decide to change.

Please stop!

Thanks for the link. I'll leave it at that.

olderelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We often wonder why Mormons (and other types of
> true believers) are so hard to reach with facts
> and logic.
===============================

Data and reason are of value only to the empiricist.
For the believer, these are entities to be feared and assiduously attacked or avoided; for these threaten belief.

This is why books are banned, centers of learning and intellect condemned.


For the empiricist this distillation is self-evident.

In contrast the believer will not comprehend this, yet be irritated -- not of obstinacy, but of incapacity.
It is a tool un-necessary, so un-utilized, so undeveloped.

This may be off-topic, but right now I'm reading a story about 'Panfilov's 28', a heroic WWII account of a small detachment of Soviet troops who held up an entire German advance and destroyed 18 panzers ouside of Moscow; there is a massive monument to them with statues nearly 40 feet high. Problem is, IT'S ALL MADE UP: it was fabricated by a military newspaper reporter to boost morale and pump up the heroism of the Russian soldier. There certainly were amazing heroics displayed fighting the Nazi advance, but nothing that drastically slowed down the Wermacht.
The point is, when research proved that little bits and pieces were combined with complete fiction to make a dramatic but false narrative, people involved were fired or discredited, even Vladimir Putin rebuffed the idea that it was a myth and backed a (actually, really cool) 2016 movie that dramatizes the so-called battle.
And here's the kicker, which sounds like it could have come staright from someone like JR Holland: the Russian Culture Minister said "It is my deep conviction that even if this story was invented from the start to the finish ..., it is a sacred legend which it's simply impossible to besmirch. And people who try to do that are total scumbags."

Sound like Mormon history to hard-to-change TBM's?

confuse the mind control with facts!!!!!

to me, it's a tad bit like an individual's sexuality / sexual preferences...

A person might think they're 100% straight, gay, queer, lesbian, or (X), but isn't it very common to have a bit of doubt, sorta like... 'what if I was (Y) instead of what I am now?

Is this a valid perspective?

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink