Would You Rather Be Happy and Wrong or Unhappy and Right?

[rug]

July 29, 2015
Posted by Jack Vance at 5:22 AM

In a recent comment I left at Bitchspot, I suggested that many religious believers would probably prefer to be "happy and stupid" than "sad and smart" in the sense that they are willing to believe things that are probably false as long as such beliefs are perceived to contribute to their feelings of happiness. In this post, I'd like to expand on this possibility a bit and suggest that it might not even be limited to religious believers.

If you have watched any of Anthony Magnabosco's street epistemology videos, you may recall seeing him explain how he wants to believe things that are true and avoid believing things that are false. He sometimes asks his conversation partners if this is true of them as well (i.e., are they interested in trying to maximize true beliefs and minimize false beliefs?). Not surprisingly, most say that they are. My guess is that they probably only do so because they are not making the connection between the pursuit of truth and their emotional state. That is, I'd guess that many are interested in maximizing true beliefs only up to the point where the pursuit of truth might be perceived as jeopardizing their happiness.

I have encountered several Christians who - when the conversation progresses to a deeper level of disclosure - readily admit that they would rather hold on to beliefs which might be false because they are convinced that such beliefs are essential to their happiness. For them, belief in Christian dogma leads to happiness. Because of this, they are not terribly interested in questioning it too closely. They would rather be happy and wrong than risk their unhappiness to get closer to the truth. Some have the insight and openness to admit this to themselves and others.

I used to find this mindset extremely frustrating when I encountered it. I had great difficulty comprehending how anyone could operate this way. It seemed so foreign to me. I have since come to appreciate it as just one more example of human diversity. And I have come to suspect over the years that it is far more common than the alternative position some of us have taken (i.e., freethought). Today, I'd guess that most people - and not just religious people - would prefer to believe things that are likely to be false if they think that such beliefs are part of why they are happy.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2015/07/would-you-rather-be-happy-and-wrong-or.html

A third choice, probably the more common, is to be unhappy and wrong.

[SheilaT]

1. I doubt it's as binary as that.

Most religious people are simply willing to accept their religion's teachings with little or not examination. Either they've been raised from childhood to believe that way, or they embraced the faith as adults. Even people who carefully study the Bible rarely ask truly hard questions about that text.

Religious and spiritual beliefs are grounded in the fact that we know we will die, evidence that we, our consciousness, survives bodily death isn't as strong as we'd like, and so we create a narrative that is comforting.

Personally, I find it quite odd that anyone would admit to holding on to a belief they know is false because it makes them happy.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. "evidence that we, our consciousness, survives bodily death isn't as strong as we'd like"

well that is a massive understatement.

There is zero evidence that consciousness survives death.

[Igel]

2. And somebody else discovers confirmation bias.

At least in others.

And thinks it's necessary to enlighten us that perhaps, just maybe, it might just apply to those that might bear some slight resemblance to himself. Of course, just a slight resemblance.

Why do people insist on publicly humiliating themselves like that?

I'm revising what I think needs to be taught in 9th grade. It used to be Gricean maxims, some basic discourse pragmatics, with a dollop of lexical semantics thrown in. That was pretty much all I thought needed to be added, pretty much at the expense of anything else in the curriculum.

Now I'd include confirmation bias, Kahnemann's distinction between quick and slow thinking, and the role social identity and group bias plays in thinking. I.e., some basic psych.

And for sure a list of the top 3000 (okay, top dozen) fallacies, with lots and lots of examples from current politicians and fads. A bit of logic. If there's time, some basic stats, so that people didn't run around terrorized by something that is highly unlikely to affect them and ignoring pitfalls they're far more likely to suffer or even die from. But I repeat myself.

Then, if you can't pass the standardized test at 75% minimum correct for each of the three areas taken separately, you repeat that 9th grade class. If it means you're 21 and haven't graduated, you're too slow and stupid or biased to merit a HS degree and that should be a truly horrendous social stigma. (With due exceptions for those diagnosed with something that requires mods, but then their diplomas typically aren't the same as for those without mods.)

For admission to college, you need to pass the test at at least 85%.

[rug]

4. A fine example of the maxim of relation.

What do you teach?

[kwassa]

11. 8th grade. 1965. Training in propoganda techniques.

Social studies.

We had to bring in examples from magazine advertising for various products. Easily done.

[Jim__]

3. Do you think this is a serious question?

I don't. The reasons I don't are fairly well summed up in the OP link:

I think this is a huge part of why freethought is so difficult; it requires a willingness to follow the evidence and entails the risk that the evidence will challenge one's cherished beliefs. The freethinker is committed to such a process of inquiry and understands that this often means modifying or even abandoning some of these beliefs.

...

This is about perception, and what I am suggesting is that beliefs we perceive as contributing to our happiness are among the least likely to be questioned, challenged, tested, or made open to modification by evidence. While I have chosen freethought and accepted the risk of unhappiness, I recognize that this choice is not the one everyone will make.

Yes, we can all change our minds about the less important things in our life. It's much harder to change our minds about the things that are critically important to us. I believe that is a human trait. And, as a human trait, it's a trait of the author of the blog. If he were serious about confronting difficult questions, he should easily be able to come up with a question that challenges his complacency. Instead he asks a generic question and finds that, while he is courageously willing to tussle with the question and accept any egregious consequences it might lead to, most people who disagree with him are not. Please.

[hr]

Good to see you back rug!

[rug]

5. Probably, but since no one is actually given that choice it's more a rumination than a question.

I think this is what he's getting at:

I'm not saying that most people run around looking for false beliefs to make them happy, and I'm not claiming that most people would cling to a demonstrably false belief just to experience positive feelings. I see it more as a matter of not questioning the beliefs one has adopted and to which one has become emotionally attached (e.g., religious dogma, political ideology, patriarchy theory, New Age spirituality, assorted paranormal phenomena).

It's akin to changing one's identity.

[LiberalAndProud]

6. It's not a matter of rather, for me.

Having once cast a critical eye on my state of belief, despite fear of the idea of a godless universe,and a desperate desire for my belief to be true, it is simply not possible for me to believe.

If there is God and that God is as Christians profess, it isn't that I've rejected God. God has rejected me.

[rug]

10. It is hard, if even possible, to understand what is not well defined.

It's nearly impossible to believe what can not be understood.

I always go back to Marcs Aurelius:

Since it is possible that you may depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly. But to go away from among men, if there are gods, is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve you in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of Providence?

http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.2.two.html

[LiberalAndProud]

15. It is demonstrably easy to believe what is not true.

[rug]

16. Not if you're honest.

And if you're dishonest, it doesn't matter what you espouse..

[LiberalAndProud]

17. Many have been honestly misled with the best and most devout of intentions on their part.

There is no way to measure the honesty of faith. I'm certain that the Duggars are convinced of the righteousness of their brand of faith and have been as honest in their scriptural interpretations as their experience allows.

I don't even believe you think it's a matter of honesty. More an attempt to paint me as dishonest. You couldn't me more mistaken.

[rug]

18. And that's not easy.

Dishonest belief is a general statement. The only mistake is your reaction.

[TygrBright]

7. Are we using "right" and "wrong" in the sense of moral/ethical?

Because my answer would differ based on whether we're using it that way or in one of the many other ways "right" and "wrong" are often used.

If it's being used that way I'd definitely have to go for unhappy but ethically congruent with my own perceptions of moral rightness.

But if, for example, if you're referring to "right" as "demonstrably accurate or objectively factual in nature," and "wrong" as "subjective in nature or contrary to demonstrated factual information," that's along the lines of saying "would you rather believe water at sea level under otherwise typical atmospheric conditions and with no other stimulus or process than the application of heat, boils at 100 degrees Celsius, and be unhappy, or believe that water at sea level under the specified conditions boils at some other temperature, and be happy?"

In that situation I'd have to say I'll probably go for "happy but hoping that the brain scan and other assessment tools don't reveal anything too painful, anti-social, or potentially tragic in the offing."

If, on the other hand, you're using "right" as "based in the reality that I personally experience and believe to be fact-based," and "wrong" as "based in some other perception of reality that I personally experience as non-fact based," I'm all for happiness for both of us, however that works out.

helpfully,
Bright

[rug]

9. Good distinction. My take is that he's using it as correct, not necessaily proper.

[Lordquinton]

12. What a stupid dicotamy

I'd rather be happy and right, the notion that the two are incompatible is false, and peddled by privileged religious folks to protect their brand.

[rug]

13. You sound very happy.

BTW, the author peddling this is an atheist.

[Lordquinton]

14. Thank you, i am generally happy.

I don't care if he's a 7th day adventist, it's a false quandry rooten in religious privilege.

BTW the thread starter is a Roman Catholic.

[rug]

19. Why then wold he peddle religious privilege?

[Lordquinton]

20. I dunno, seems weird to me too

There are many atheists here that peddle religions privilege, ask them why they do it.