Why our brains tend to believe the rumors
Books / / December 19, 2019
Modern man lives in a vast field absolutely useless information. To it can include a variety of superstitions, which are transmitted from generation to generation, the belief in magic and any other information, do not stand the test of accuracy and logic. In his book "Anatomy of human communities" Pascal Boyer calls it "junk culture" and explains why people perceive the questionable information as valid.
Why information? Sanity, weird beliefs and the madness of crowds
Rumors and recognition of danger
Rumors are mainly associated with negative events and their terrible explanations. They report that people are going to harm us, or that he had inflicted. They report on situations that will lead to disasterIf not immediately begin to act. The government is involved in the terrorist attacks on the population, physicians are involved in a conspiracy to to conceal the prevalence of mental disorders in children, the wrong ethnic group and preparing an invasion t. d. Rumors have reported the potential danger and the multitude of situations in which we can be in danger.
Does this mean that the rumors are successful because they are negative? Psychologists have long noticed that many aspects of knowledge accompanied by the so-called bias negative experience (negativity bias). For example, when we read a list of words with a negative value of attracting more attention than words with a neutral or positive.
Negative facts often handled more carefully than the information in a positive staining. Negative impressions about the other person's personality is easier to create and harder to throw than positive.
But to describe this tendency not to explain the phenomenon. As many psychologists, a possible cause of the trend to pay attention to negative stimuli may be that our minds are set on the information about the potential dangers. This is quite obvious in the case of bias attention. For example, our perceptual system allows faster and more reliably detect spider among the flowers than the flower among spiders. danger signal comes to the fore, from which one can conclude that the special system set up to recognize the danger.
How to anticipate potential threats formed in the course of the evolution of the mind? It is often a specialized recognition systems. This evolutionary law, mandatory for all complex organisms, - to monitor potential environmental hazards and take necessary precautions. There is nothing surprising in the fact that our risk prevention system seems set to recognize these constants for human dangers like predators, alien invasion, pollution, contamination, disturbance of public order and harm caused offspring. People sensitive to this kind of information and, on the other hand, tend to neglect other types of threats, even if they represent a greater danger. In the same way predisposed to notice specific threats children. Often they are indifferent to the real danger of sources, such as weapons, electricity, swimming pools, cars and cigarettes, but they are fantasies and dreams full of wolves and carnivorous monsters nonexistent - confirmation that our hazard recognition system focused on the situation plays an important role in evolution. By the way, the danger of detection of pathology (phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress) are also aimed at specific targets, such as dangerous animals, contamination and pollution, predators and aggressive enemies, that is, the threat of survival in the environment, formed in the course of evolution.
In humans and animals the danger recognition system characterized by significant asymmetry between the signals of danger and safety.
In humans, the behavior of which greatly affects the information from the counterparts, this asymmetry between the danger and Safety leads to another important consequence, namely the fact that the warning boards are rarely verification. One of the important advantages of the inheritance cultural features is that it saves us from a systematic survey of the surrounding environment in the search for sources of danger. Here is a simple example: generation after generation of the Amazon Indians passed each other, that the tubers of cassava, cassava varieties are poisonous and become edible only after proper soaking and cooking. The Indians had no desire to experiment with contained in the roots of the cyanide plant. It is clear that to obtain reliable information on the basis of a much wider phenomenon in the transmission of cultural characteristics - most of the technical knowledge passed on from generation to generation, not too exposed to deliberate test. Following a time-tested recipes, the people, so to speak, for free, playing the role of "free riders"Use the knowledge accumulated by previous generations. Warnings have a special status, because if we take them seriously, we have no reason to check them. If you feel that raw cassava is poisonous, then the only thing you remains - is not to check the claim that cassava is poisonous.
This suggests that the information associated with danger, often believed to be accurate, at least temporarily, as a precaution, which is not redundant.
Psychologist Dan Fessler compared the extent to which people trust the assertions set forth in a negative mentions about the dangers of the key ( "10% Patients who underwent a heart attack die within ten years ") or in a positive way (" 90% of patients who underwent myocardial live more than ten years old"). Although these statements are completely equivalent, the test seemed more persuasive negative wording.
All these factors encouraged to participate in the transfer of information about threats, and hence it becomes clear why people are spreading so many rumors about the potential dangers. Even not too serious urban legends follow this pattern, many of them explains what happens to those who disregard the potential threat. Scary stories about a woman who never soap head and her hairstyle bred spiders, a nurse, freeze-wet puppy in a microwave oven, and other characters urban legends warn us: this is what happens if we do not recognize the danger posed by everyday situations and items.
So, we can expect that people are especially eager to obtain information such sense. Naturally, it does not always produce the rumors that taken seriously, otherwise cultural information would consist solely of warning boards. There are several factors that limit the spread of rumors.
Firstly, ceteris paribus plausible warnings take precedence over descriptions of unlikely situations. This seems obvious, but in most cases imposes serious restrictions on the communication. It is much easier to convince the neighbors that the shopkeeper is selling rotten meat, than in the fact that he sometimes turns into a lizard. Note that the likelihood or unlikelihood message listener determines, based on their own criteria. Some people find it easy to convince the most improbable things (such as the existence of the mysterious horsemen, sow disease and death), if they were available before the corresponding representations (for example, about the end of Sveta).
Secondly, in the segment of unverified (and generally incorrect) warning information on precautions costs should be relatively moderate. Take the extreme case is fairly easy to convince people not to get in a circle cow seven times at dawn, because we are not worth anything to follow this advice. And although usually some costs still needed, they should not be too large. This explains why many common taboos and superstitions require minor deviations from normal behavior. Tibetans bypass Chortens (Buddhist stupa) on the right side, representatives of the people in Gabon Fang poured on the ground a few drops of a freshly opened bottle - it is done in both cases, in order not to offend dead. Warning advice, the price of which is high, and carefully check, and because they can be as widespread as these worthless prescription.
Third, the potential costs of ignoring the warning advice, what would happen if we do not take precautions must be sufficiently serious to the listener joined Recognition System danger.
If you were told that, beating the mortar on the left, you sneezes, and it is only a consequence, you may ignore the rule of passage past the stupas. Insult ancestors or deities seem much more serious offense, especially if it is not known exactly how they might react to such behavior.
So, it seems that the recognition of danger - one of the areas in which we can turn off their mechanisms epistemic vigilance and guided by the warning information, especially if this behavior is costing me too much, and averted the danger at the same time serious and unclear.
Why is the danger of moralizing
discussing "trash"Culture, it's easy to get stuck for a long time on the question" Why do people (other people) believe in such things? ". But we can ask no less important question: why do people want to pass this information? Why do they tell each other about the kidnappers of the penis and the role of the secret services in the spread of the HIV epidemic? The issue of convictions and beliefs are very interesting, but the latter do not always play an important role in the inheritance of cultural features. Yes, many people believe the rumors that spread, but this one faith is not enough. It is necessary to take into account more and the desire to pass - not standing, blank information, many would produce nothing without him, but it does not give rise to any rumors, or "junk" culture.
Often low-value transfer of information associated with strong emotions. People consider data about viruses, vaccination and conspiracies authorities is extremely important. Distributors such messages tend not only to convey information, but also to convince.
They watch the reaction of his audience, skepticism is considered offensive and doubt explain malice.
Take, for example, a comprehensive campaign against vaccination of children against measles, mumps and rubella that began in the 1990s. in the UK and the US. People who disseminate information that vaccinations are dangerous because they can cause autism in healthy children, not simply informed about the alleged dangers of vaccination. They also vilify doctors and biologists whose research differed from the anti-vaccination theory. Doctors give injections, were monsters are well aware of the danger they expose children, but prefer to receive money from the pharmaceutical companies. Audience reaction to such messages are also often represented as a moral choice. If you agree with the opinion of the majority of doctors that the collective defense of the price that gives mass vaccination, There may be minor side effects, then you are on the side of the criminals.
Why our beliefs so strongly moralizing? The obvious answer - because the moral value of the spread of the message and its perception is directly related to the transmitted information. If you believe that the government tried to exterminate some ethnic group or helped plan the terrorist attacks against the population or that doctors deliberately poisoned children vaccines, do you try to make it a well-known and to convince the correctness as much as possible people?
But perhaps this is one of those self-evident explanations that raise more questions than they answer. Start with the fact that the connection between the conviction and the need to convince others may not be as straight as usually. Social psychologist Leon Festinger, who became famous for his work on the millenarian cults, noted that in cases where the end of the world so and not advancing at the appointed time, obviously false original conviction does not weaken but strengthens the commitment of the members of the group millenarian cult. But why? Festinger explained this by the fact that people tend to avoid cognitive dissonance, ie voltage, occurring between two incompatible positions - that the prophet was right and that his prophecy is not justified. However, this does not explain one of the main features of millenarian cults - that failed prophecies do not lead only attempts to justify a failure (which would be sufficient to minimize the dissonance), but also to a desire to increase the number of group. This effect is the dissonance is manifested mainly in the interaction with people outside the group, and demands an explanation.
Perhaps we should take a step back and look at it from a functional point of view, based on the fact that the mental system and commitment aimed at solving adaptive problems. With such a position is not clear, why our mind tries to avoid cognitive dissonance, if the difference between the observed reality and someone else's ideas is important information. Then it would be necessary to wonder why the reaction to the apparent failure is the desire to win over as many people as possible.
The phenomenon will become clearer if we look at it from the point of view of the coalition processes and group support, as described in Chapter 1.
People need community support, and they need to involve others in the collective action, without which individual survival impossible.
The most important part of this emerged in the course of evolution of psychological peculiarities make our ability and commitment to the effective management of the coalition. So when people pass informationWhich can convince others to join in any action, it is necessary to try to understand in terms of the involvement of the coalition. That is to be expected that an important part of the motivation just will desire to convince others to join in any concerted action.
That's why many people moralization opinion may seem intuitively acceptable. Indeed, evolutionary psychologists such as Rob Kurtsban DeShioli and Peter and John Tooby and Leda Cosmides It pointed out that in many situations, moral intuitions and feelings are best considered in terms of support and involvement. Prove and watch it difficult, but the main idea is simple and is clearly correlated with the dynamics of the spread of rumors. As pointed Kurtsban DeShioli and, in each case of violation of ethics involves not only the offender and the victim, but also a third party - people, condoning or condemning the behavior of the offender, to protect victims, to impose a fine or penalty, uncooperative and t. d. These people are interested to join the other side, which is more likely to attract other supporters. For example, if someone takes a larger share of the overall food, then a neighbor decision to ignore or punish the violator of the rules affect ideas about how others might respond to that offense. This means that the moral sense, due to the relatively illegitimacy of a particular behavior occurs automatically and is largely taken up by other people. In other words, each intermediary on the basis of their own emotions, can assume another reaction. Because people expect to find agreement, at least in general terms, a description of the situation from the standpoint of morality rather privodet a consensus than to another possible interpretation of what is happening.
People tend to judge the direction, which is considered the offender, and be on the side of the victim in part because it is assumed that all the others will make the same choice.
From this perspective, moralization of behavior of other people is a great tool of social coordination necessary for collective actions. Roughly speaking, a statement that someone's behavior is morally unacceptable, quickly leads to a consensus than a statement that a person behaves ignorantly. The latter may cause a discussion of evidence and committed action and the offender violates the most general agreement than strengthen it.
From this we can conclude that our ordinary notions of so-called moral panic - unjustified outbreaks fear and the desire to eradicate the "evil" - can be false, or at least far from complete. The point is not whether or not only that people are convinced that committed horrible acts, and to decide whether it is necessary to call upon others to stop evil. Perhaps it operates another factor: many intuitive (and, of course, unconsciously) choosing beliefs, potentially attracting others through their moralizing content. Therefore, millenarian cults with their prophecies nesbyvayuschimisya just a special case of a more general phenomenon, where the desire to win over a major role in how people make sense of their convictions. In other words, we pre-select their beliefs intuitive way, and those that are unable to attract others, just do not feel intuitive and attractive.
From this speculative explanation should not in any way that the people spreading rumors, certainly cynical manipulators.
In most cases they are not aware of mental processes, due to which they and other equally sensitive to moralizing descriptions of behavior and are very likely to receive support. Our ancestors evolved as a seeker support of others and, therefore, how to recruit specialists and because we can direct their operations for effective cooperation with other people, not even knowing this. Also, do not think that such appeals to morality invariably successful. Moralization can promote the recruitment of supporters, but does not guarantee its success.
Pascal Boyer - evolutionary psychology and anthropology that deals with the study of human societies. He is confident that our behavior is largely dependent on how our ancestors evolved. Exploring the latest achievements of psychology, biology, economics and other sciences, he explains in his new book, "Anatomy human communities ", as there are religions that is the family, and why people tend to believe in the pessimistic forecasts future.
To buy a book
see also🧐
- 3 books about how to arrange our brain
- How to unravel the mysteries of the brain and learn to manage it: 15 helpful books
- 7 strange things to which our brain is programmed