Tag: Beliefs

Categories
12. Belief Formation: The interaction of Spinoza and Bartlett's Models

Belief Formation: The Interaction of Spinoza and Bartlett’s Models

This article introduces the Spinozan Model of belief formation and Bartlett’s Theory of Effort After Meaning. The interaction between them at different stages in our lives offers valuable insights into how we can better educate, protect against misinformation, and cultivate adaptability in belief systems.

The article can be downloaded free of charge in pdf form at https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#belief-formation

Imagine a scenario where a false claim, such as the notion that certain foods can cure chronic diseases, spreads widely on social media. Many people, overwhelmed by the volume of information and lacking the time to scrutinise sources, may accept this claim as true. This automatic acceptance highlights the vulnerabilities described in the Spinozan model of belief formation. Furthermore, even when credible evidence debunks the claim, entrenched beliefs shaped by existing mental frameworks, as explained by Bartlett’s theory, make it difficult for individuals to revise their understanding.

By studying how beliefs are formed and altered and addressing the vulnerabilities in these processes, we can better equip individuals to critically evaluate information, resist misinformation, and adapt to an ever-changing informational landscape.

Categories
11. A Deep Dive into Beliefs Schemata Tropes and Culture

A Deep Dive into Beliefs, Schemata, Tropes, and Culture

In today’s interconnected world, understanding how our beliefs, cultural frameworks, and social structures interact is more crucial than ever. In my latest article, A Deep Dive into Beliefs, Schemata, Tropes, and Culture, I explore these foundational elements of human cognition and culture, offering insights into how they shape individual behaviour, societal norms, and cultural evolution.

At its heart, the article examines the Modified Morphogenetic Cycle, an original extension of Margaret Archer’s framework, which includes the often-overlooked interplay between human cognition and the natural environment. This innovation provides a comprehensive model to understand how individual schemata, shared tropes, and societal culture influence, and are influenced by, our surroundings.

Key highlights include:

  • Schemata as Cognitive Foundations: How individual mental frameworks shape beliefs and behaviour.
  • Tropes and Cultural Patterns: The emergent collective structures that guide societal values and norms.
  • Dynamic Interactions: How culture and societal structures evolve through individual agency and collective action.
  • Implications for Change: Practical applications for interdisciplinary collaboration, problem-solving, and fostering innovation in an ever-changing world.

This article not only explains these concepts but demonstrates their application to real-world challenges, from gender equality to environmental sustainability. Whether you’re a researcher, educator, or curious thinker, this exploration offers tools to bridge divides and create meaningful change. For the full article, please visit https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#a-deep-dive or https://www.academia.edu/126718325/A_Deep_Dive_into_Beliefs_Schemata_Tropes_and_Culture

Categories
10. Motivational Reflexivity: An Enjoyable Practice

Motivational Reflexivity: An Enjoyable Practice

Introduction

Motivational Reflexivity is a process of self-reflection aimed at understanding and aligning beliefs with reality and ethical values, ultimately enhancing personal well-being. This guide presents a step-by-step method tailored to your interests or relaxation activities to make the practice more engaging and enjoyable. Additionally, this guide can be used to address internal obstacles to achieving specific life goals, such as career success, academic recognition, or improved relationships.

A downloadable pdf and a set of Powerpoint slides are also available at https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#enjoyable-practice

Preparation

Before starting, choose a quiet, comfortable environment. Have a notebook or digital tool ready to record your reflections.

Step 1: Chose your Goal and Theme

Consider a specific practical goal you would like to achieve in life. For example:

  • Recognition for academic efforts.
  • Securing a better job.
  • Building a happier family life.

Frame your reflexivity practice around a favourite pastime or relaxation activity. For example:

  • Gardening: Imagine tending a mental garden.
  • Sports: Treat this as a mental training session.
  • Art: Visualize sketching or sculpting your thoughts.
  • Cooking: Think of preparing a recipe for personal growth.

Step 2: Identify a Belief

Reflect on a belief that has been influencing your ability to achieve your goal.

Use a metaphor from your theme to visualize this belief:

  • Gardening: Is this a beautiful shrub or bindweed in your mental garden?
  • Sports: Is this belief helping or hindering your performance?
  • Art: Is this a master stroke or a disaster in progress?
  • Cooking: Is this ingredient enhancing or spoiling the dish?

Write down the belief and its potential impact on your well-being or your progress toward the goal.

Step 3: Understand the Origins

Explore where this belief came from. Is it self-formed or influenced by external factors, such as family, peers, or societal expectations?

  • Gardening: What is the root of this belief?
  • Sports: Who coached or introduced this mindset to you?
  • Art: What inspired this vision or theme?
  • Cooking: Where did this recipe or ingredient originate?

Note whether the belief is self-formed or adopted from external influences.

Step 4: Evaluate Its Impact

Assess how this belief affects your life or your progress toward the goal:

  • Gardening: Is this plant thriving or choking other growth?
  • Sports: Is this strategy scoring points or causing fouls?
  • Art: Does this piece fit the final vision or clash with the theme?
  • Cooking: Does this ingredient balance or overwhelm the dish?

Rate the belief as:

  • Positive: Contributes to well-being or goal achievement.
  • Neutral: Has little effect.
  • Negative: Detracts from well-being or progress.

Step 5: Challenge and Refine

For your goal, ask:

  • Is this belief consistent with reality?
  • What evidence supports or contradicts it?
  • How might I satisfy the need driving this belief in a healthier way?
  • How does this belief directly impact my progress toward the goal?

If the belief is negative or unhelpful:

  • Gardening: Remove or prune the weed and consider planting something more beneficial.
  • Sports: Reassess the play and adopt a better strategy.
  • Art: Revise the sketch or try a different medium.
  • Cooking: Adjust the recipe or replace the ingredient.

Step 6: Integrate New Insights

Adopt a revised belief or strategy that aligns better with reality, your values, and practical goal:

  • Gardening: Nurture your new plant and ensure it thrives.
  • Sports: Practice the improved play until it becomes second nature.
  • Art: Add details to complete the new piece.
  • Cooking: Savor the updated dish and make it a staple in your repertoire.

For your practical goal, identify actionable steps that incorporate your new belief. For example:

  • Apply for a job using a revised, confident mindset.
  • Approach family interactions with a belief in mutual understanding and patience.

Write down the new belief and how you plan to reinforce it in daily life or goal pursuit.

Step 7: Reflect and Celebrate

Take a moment to reflect on what you’ve learned and accomplished:

  • Gardening: Enjoy the beauty of your flourishing garden.
  • Sports: Celebrate the progress in your mental conditioning.
  • Art: Step back and admire your work.
  • Cooking: Share your dish with others or savour it alone.

For your practical goal, reflect on:

  • How has this process brought you closer to your goal?
  • What tangible steps have you taken or plan to take?

Consider setting a schedule to revisit and refine your practice regularly.

Additional Suggestions for Practitioners

Practitioners can further enhance their experience by implementing the following ideas:

  • Journaling Prompts: Use reflective prompts to explore beliefs more deeply, such as “What do I truly value?” or “What holds me back from achieving my goals?”
  • Visualization Exercises: Imagine your life after achieving your goal, and identify which beliefs are stepping stones or obstacles.
  • Mindfulness Techniques: Pair reflection with mindfulness practices like breathwork or walking meditation to stay grounded.
  • Celebrate Small Wins: After each session, reward yourself with a small treat or relaxing activity to acknowledge your efforts.
  • Incorporate Music or Ambiance: Play background music or use soothing lighting to make your environment more inviting.
  • Habit Stacking: Integrate reflexivity into your routine by pairing it with existing habits, such as journaling after morning coffee or reflecting during an evening walk.

Closing Notes

Motivational Reflexivity is a journey, not a one-time task. By integrating it with a relaxing and familiar activity and using it to overcome obstacles to a specific goal, you can make the process enjoyable and enriching. Remember, growth takes time, so be patient and kind to yourself.

Categories
08. The Illusion of Autonomy in Belief Formation

The Illusion of Autonomy in Belief Formation

Introduction

We often like to think of ourselves as independent thinkers, masters of our own beliefs, immune to the influences of social pressures, peer groups, advertising, and political spin. Yet, beneath this comforting illusion of autonomy lies a complex web of external forces that shape our beliefs, often without our conscious awareness. Recognising these influences is not a concession to vulnerability but a step toward deeper understanding and authentic belief alignment.

Why We Believe We Are Autonomous

The perception of autonomy is deeply tied to our sense of identity. Western cultural narratives emphasise personal freedom and self-determination, encouraging the belief that our thoughts and values are self-generated. This illusion is bolstered by cognitive biases, such as the self-attribution bias (crediting ourselves for successes, including our “correct” beliefs) and confirmation bias (seeking evidence that reinforces what we already think).

Emotions also play a central role in fostering this illusion. Beliefs often serve to satisfy emotional needs, such as the need for security, belonging, or self-esteem. For instance, fear and anxiety might push someone toward beliefs that feel comforting, even if they diverge from reality.

What we often fail to acknowledge is that many influences operate unconsciously. Early childhood socialisation, media messaging, and peer group pressures become embedded in our thought processes, shaping beliefs that we feel are entirely our own. Moreover, in today’s world, technology, especially social media algorithms, amplifies this issue by creating echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs while suppressing dissenting views.

Examples of Hidden Influences

  • Childhood Socialisation: Imagine someone raised in a community with strong traditional values. As an adult, they may staunchly defend these values, believing they arrived at them independently. Yet, these beliefs were likely instilled in childhood and reinforced through familial and cultural norms.
  • Peer Pressure in Adolescence: A teenager might adopt certain fashion trends or political opinions to fit in with their social group, believing their choices to be personal. In reality, the need for acceptance and belonging often overrides independent thought during this stage.
  • The Power of Advertising: Consider the individual who buys a luxury car, claiming it reflects their unique taste and personality. Advertising campaigns often link products to our need for status or individuality, subtly shaping consumer choices.
  • Political Spin: Political campaigns frequently use emotionally charged language to frame issues. A voter might adopt a belief based on a politician’s rhetoric, convinced they’ve arrived at their stance through careful reasoning when, in fact, emotional appeals have played a significant role.
  • Social Media Echo Chambers: Algorithms curate content that aligns with a user’s past behaviour, creating a feedback loop that reinforces existing beliefs. Someone who frequently interacts with conspiracy theories might find their feed saturated with similar content, further entrenching those views.

Why This Matters

Believing we are immune to external pressures makes us more susceptible to them. If we fail to recognise how socialisation, media, and cultural norms shape our beliefs, we risk being manipulated by persuasive forces. Moreover, this misconception can hinder personal growth, as we resist questioning long-held beliefs out of fear of losing our sense of self. Recognising the impact of cultural contexts is also essential. In individualistic societies, autonomy is emphasised, but in collectivist cultures, beliefs are often shaped by group harmony and social roles. Understanding these variations helps foster empathy and nuance in assessing belief formation.

How to Break the Illusion

To reclaim genuine autonomy, we must engage in practices like Motivational Reflexivity. This reflective process involves questioning the beliefs that motivate us and identifying the external factors that lead to those beliefs. Here’s how it works:

  • Ask Reflective Questions:
    • Why do I hold this belief?
    • Who or what might have influenced it?
    • Does this belief align with observable evidence or fulfil an emotional need?
  • Identify Patterns:
    • Look for recurring themes in the sources of your beliefs, such as media messaging, peer group norms, or early childhood teachings.
  • Seek Diverse Perspectives:
    • Expose yourself to alternative viewpoints to challenge biases and broaden your understanding.
  • Test Beliefs Against Reality:
    • Compare your beliefs with objective evidence and evaluate their validity.

For example, someone reflecting on their belief in a brand’s superiority might trace it back to advertising that equates the product with social status. By critically examining this influence, they can decide whether the belief truly aligns with their needs or values.

Moving Forward

Acknowledging the interplay between external influences and personal beliefs isn’t about relinquishing control; it’s about gaining clarity. By embracing tools like Motivational Reflexivity, we can align our beliefs with objective reality while fostering a deeper connection to our authentic values. Beyond individual growth, this practice can contribute to societal progress by promoting media literacy, critical education, and resistance to manipulation.

By understanding and challenging the illusion of autonomy, we empower ourselves to make more informed, authentic, and pro-social choices. The journey toward genuine autonomy begins with self-awareness and the courage to question what we hold as true.

Further Reading

  • “The Case for Motivated Reasoning” by Ziva Kunda (1990): Explores how psychological needs shape reasoning processes.
  • “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance” by Leon Festinger (1957): Examines how individuals reconcile conflicting beliefs and behaviours.
  • “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman (2011): Provides insights into automaticity and how unconscious biases influence decisions.
  • “Structure, Agency, and the Internal Conversation” by Margaret S. Archer (2003): Discusses reflexivity and its role in shaping beliefs and behaviours.
  • “Propaganda and the Public Mind” by Noam Chomsky (2001): Analyses the influence of media and political messaging on public opinion.
  • “Human Scale Development” by Manfred Max-Neef (1991): Offers insights into needs, satisfiers, and the alignment of beliefs with well-being.
  • “The Elephant in the Room. Silence and Denial in Everyday Life” by Eviatar Zerubavel (2006): Explains how psychological defence mechanisms can become cultural norms and how denial can itself become the subject of denial.
Categories
07. Preventing the Leveraging of Religious and Ideological Beliefs

Preventing the Leveraging of Religious and Ideological Beliefs

Religion is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can assuage our otherwise unsatisfiable existential needs, i.e., the need to escape death, the need for meaning and guidance, and the need to escape our ultimate state of isolation. On the other hand, autocrats can gain and retain wealth, power and influence by leveraging our religious beliefs. This is particularly the case for religions that emphasise obedience to the will of God. Throughout history autocrats have claimed to be a conduit for the will of God, from Egyptian Pharoahs and Incas, through popes and kings, to those of the present day.

The current rise of humanism/secularism in the West and its global expansion poses a threat to autocrats who rely on religious obedience by the population for their status. This results in internal stresses within nations where beliefs are divided. It also results in stresses between nations.

Ideologies such as communism, capitalism and nationalism, also inculcate beliefs. Nationalism, for example, often posits that members of the population owe allegiance only to fellow nationals and not to citizens of other nations. Leaders can also leverage ideological beliefs in their own interest. The rise of liberal democracy poses a threat to their status and similar internal and international tensions can arise as a result.

Frequently, a combination of both religious and ideological beliefs are leveraged. The checklists that can be downloaded here will enable you to assess the likelihood of such leverage by aspiring leaders, and its existence in organisations, political parties, and nations. The fewer safeguards there are the more likely it is that the leverage of our beliefs is occurring or will occur. In the case of aspiring leaders, it is the extent to which they value these safeguards that should be considered.

Categories
40. Harmful Beliefs about Truth and Agency

Harmful Beliefs about Truth and Agency

I do worry about some of the opinions that have been coming out of the academic establishment recently. Unfortunately, they appear to be caused by cultural manipulation. That is, the fostering of cultural beliefs by minority vested interests, which can influence academia in the same way as everyone else. Some of these opinions can be extremely harmful to society. Consider for example, the popular view that we lack free will, and that everything is preordained. The justification for this view appears to come from a simplistic assumption about space-time and causality which, although commonly held, lacks empirical evidence. If we were to accept this opinion, then it would completely undermine our sense of agency, i.e., our ability to make decisions and act accordingly. This, in turn, would have an adverse impact on both our psychological wellbeing and our ability to deal with social and environmental problems.

Recently, I had a conversation with an influential academic who expressed the following opinion. “My issue with the concept of truth is that its temporariness tends to get lost as we speak of beliefs, reality and objectivity. … It is not a question of being agnostic (or not) about the knowability of an external, objective world; the question is irrelevant. … I worry that acceptance of an external, objective reality privileges those [who] can claim, based on their authority, to know that reality and dismiss those who do not. This then leads to a justification of oppression and violence.”

Personally, I do think that there is a reality, that we are a part of it, and that it defines what is true and what is not. I have also come to the conclusion that we interact differently with our natural and social environments. The former has no agency and hits us randomly with threats and opportunities that we have evolved to navigate. We do so quite well, in my view, and our success as a species is largely down to this. So, objective truth is important when dealing with the natural environment and this is reflected in our approach to the natural sciences.

On the other hand, our social environment does have agency, and we regard objective truth as being less important. So, we often engage in psychological defence mechanisms such as denial. We also often accept, form, and propagate beliefs that are not necessarily true, but rather ones that we feel are likely to satisfy our needs. So, interaction with our social environment can be very complex indeed. Nevertheless, we are a part of reality, governed by its rules, and there are techniques for identifying those rules, or something close to them, even though the endeavour is far more difficult than in the natural sciences.

However, the endeavour is worth pursuing. We now have a population of 8 billion and this, along with some of our behaviour, is unsustainable. So, if we are to have any hope of altering that situation, then we need to know the objective truth about human nature and our behaviour.

In view of the chaos of conflicting beliefs that we are currently presented with, we do need to find ways of coping. The strategy adopted by the academic referred to above is a good one, so long as it remains entirely personal. However, he is influential, and suggesting to others that  there is no objective truth or that it is irrelevant is not a good idea. If there is no objective truth, then all ideas, views, opinions, morals, ethics, etc. are equally valid, or should I say invalid? Because culture relies on shared values, norms, and beliefs, this can undermine the cultural consensus, leading to cultural disintegration.

Approximately 13% of the population are estimated to have dark personality traits such as narcissism, psychopathy or Machiavellianism. I should emphasise that these are personality traits rather than pathologies, and that the behaviour of people with these traits is otherwise normal. However, by virtue of reduced moral and ethical standards, those with such traits are more likely to ascend to positions of power than others. Unfortunately therefore, many of our leaders have these traits. We rarely oppose those with greater power for fear of reprisal. So, our response can be to support them in our personal interest, flight to other organisations or nations, but, in most cases, it is denial. That is, we do not consciously acknowledge the existence of dark leaders until, for example, such time as war breaks out. Such leaders do often falsely claim the truth and it is sensible to point this out. Personally, I would never knowingly follow one, but unfortunately, many do.

However, as well as engaging in other forms of cultural manipulation, it is possible for dark leaders to undermine a belief in objective truth and, for the reasons given above, this is dangerous too. The argument that a belief in the existence of truth empowers dark leaders is incorrect. Rather, a disbelief in objective truth makes their lies much easier to follow.

In summary, people do have a problem with discovering and expressing the truth, particularly in the context of society, and it’s fair for academia to say that. However, academia should also point out that reality defines the truth, and that some human beliefs are closer to it than others.

These are difficult concepts to accept, can undermine our self-image, and this in itself can lead to denial. However, once we are aware of the problem there are techniques that we can use to bring our beliefs closer to the truth than they might otherwise have been. The Buddha even taught this 2500 years ago. Ones worth mentioning are the sociologist Margaret Archer’s meta-reflexivity. This involves reflecting on decisions that we have previously made and beliefs that we already hold to ascertain whether they are associated with our needs. If so, we can make a conscious effort to disassociate and revise them. Then there is the consistency of reality. If two ideas contradict one another, one must be false. Another important technique is empirical evidence gained from observation. Academic, political or other authority is no guarantee of the truth. Psychological defence mechanisms, satisfying beliefs, and vested interests operate in those arenas too. All opinions should be questioned no matter what the source.

Finally, you may also find this entertaining “Beginners Guide to Critical Realism” by Tom Fryer helpful. https://tfryer.com/ontology-guide/

Categories
08. Belief System Emergence - Culture

Belief System Emergence – Culture

Worldviews were discussed in a previous article and tend to be a form of personal, rather than communal, belief system. I will now move on to discuss the latter, i.e., culture, therefore.

Community, whether it be a family, clan, organisation, or nation, is based on the economics of needs. It allows individuals to specialise and to create satisfiers more efficiently by developing specific tools, knowledge, and skills. In turn, this benefits all members of the community through the process of trading. One individual or group of individuals will provide a satisfier to address the needs of another, and in return, reasonable reciprocation is expected. The community can also satisfy the social needs of an individual member, and in return, that member is expected to contribute to the group. Community relies on the reciprocal satisfaction of one another’s needs and this reciprocation relies on trading in the social sense and not necessarily the commercial sense.

The majority but not all of us have an inherited predisposition to create and abide by the cultures which bind us together into co-operative groups. A culture comprises: norms or acceptable forms of behaviour; values or things held good by the community; beliefs or those things that the community holds true; and symbols, i.e., modes of dress, logos, rituals, and other physical things with a shared meaning which identify individuals as being members the community.

Norms and values are developed to ensure that satisfiers and resources are equitably traded and do, of course, include morality and ethics. They can be described as good or bad. For example, it is usually held bad simply to take or steal from others. Thus, what we sometimes refer to as the ethics and morals of a community do not have a religious source, but rather a practical secular one.

The norms, values, beliefs, and symbols of a community are initially of a pragmatic nature and are enforced through the process of socialisation. That is, members are rewarded for correct behaviour and receive disapproval for incorrect behaviour. However, with time, these norms may become formally established as laws.

The detail of a culture is not genetically inherited. The diversity of cultures across the world and the manner in which they can rapidly change from generation to generation suggest that cultures, and hence our morals and ethics, are acquired, respond to circumstances and are passed on via socialisation. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, for a culture to be hereditary and change at the rate at which it does, it would be necessary for those who participate in it to breed far more rapidly and successfully than those who do not. This is clearly not the case. However, cultures do form memes, and there is a degree of competition for acceptance between them. This is more so in a global economy where contact between different cultures is greater than it has ever been.

In response to globalisation of the economy, culture in the West is currently moving from a more national/tribal one to a more global one. Many see the global economy as group co-operation on a grand scale, and as bringing great benefits to humanity. We are learning that it requires a more tolerant and inclusive attitude to enable us to co-operate successfully at that scale. However, this change is not without resistance from ideological and other interest groups concerned that they may lose what they currently hold. Difficulties have also been caused by the transfer of consumerism to nations without the infrastructure to support it.

Humanity also faces great risks at the global scale and the move from national/tribal to global morals and ethics needs to be encouraged so that we can better co-operate in tackling these risks.

The political scientist, Ronald Inglehart, using the extensive research of the World Values Survey, identified two key independent dimensions in national culture. These are:

  1. Traditional vs. Secular-rational values. The World Values Survey describes these values as follows. “Traditional values emphasize the importance of religion, parent-child ties, deference to authority and traditional family values. People who embrace these values also reject divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide. These societies have high levels of national pride and a nationalistic outlook.”. On the other hand, “Secular-rational values have the opposite preferences to the traditional values. These societies place less emphasis on religion, traditional family values and authority. Divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide are seen as relatively acceptable. (Suicide is not necessarily more common.)”
  2. Survival vs. Self Expression Values. Again, these are described by the World Values Survey as follows. “Survival values place emphasis on economic and physical security. It is linked with a relatively ethnocentric outlook and low levels of trust and tolerance.”. On the other hand, “Self-expression values give high priority to environmental protection, growing tolerance of foreigners, gays and lesbians and gender equality, and rising demands for participation in decision-making in economic and political life.”

It is argued that a national culture can be measured by assessing where it sits between the two extremes on the two dimensions. More details, including a fascinating map of where each nation currently sits on these two dimensions can be found at: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp.

Categories
07. Belief System Emergence - Introduction

Belief System Emergence – Introduction

Belief systems include cultures, ideologies, and individual worldviews. The latter was discussed in a previous article. The former apply to organisations of all scales, including small clubs and nations. There are differences between cultures and ideologies, however. The former is normally established and voluntarily accepted by its members. The latter, through its historical association with political movements, is now regarded as a more authoritarian belief system with expansionist tendencies.

One of our growth needs in Maslow’s hierarchy is the need to make sense of the world. If we can do so, then it enables us to make successful decisions when faced with a threat or opportunity. On the other hand, if we are unable to make sense of the world then this increases our vulnerability. It seems likely, therefore, that this need has an evolutionary basis. To make sense of the world we create a schema which models the world as we understand it. This is our personal worldview.

Unsurprisingly, an inability to make sense of the world causes distress, a search for explanations and a readiness to accept those which appear to fit the facts, even incorrectly. This need can, in itself, be a motivator, therefore.

Every organisation develops a system of beliefs which, ostensibly at least, is shared by its individual members. These beliefs cover the purpose of the organisation, how it should function, how interactions should take place internally and externally, the nature and cause of its motivators, and how it should address them.

Belief systems can emerge through a process of negotiation between individuals, and via a process of feedback between individual worldviews and emerging shared views. Individuals contribute their worldviews to the organisations common belief system, but as the latter emerges, a process of socialisation causes them to adopt it. They may, however, only adopt it in their organisational role. In other roles, they may retain their general worldview, or hold other belief systems more appropriate to those roles. This can, of course, lead to contradictions and distress.

Often however, a belief system is formulated by an individual, particularly one with charisma or high status, and is based on his worldview. Due to the lack of debate and consultation such belief systems tend to provide a simplistic explanation, which can neglect the true complexity of a situation.

Belief systems can also be affected by external factors, such as prevailing culture, law, fake news, media interests, social media, and influential individuals, e.g., politicians, celebrities, scientists, or role models. In some cases, the belief system can be in the interests of the general population, i.e., pro-social. In other cases, it can be in the interests of the organisation only, i.e., selfish. In the latter case, the belief system can, for example, either correctly or incorrectly, place blame on an out-group. Also coming into play can be a “Just World Hypothesis”, in which the fortunate and unfortunate are thought to have brought their situation upon themselves by their own actions.

Finally, if opposition to the purpose of an organisation is encountered, its belief system can harden, become more selfish, and more extreme.

Categories
04. The Acquisition of Knowledge

The Acquisition of Knowledge

The French philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533 – 1592) remarked on our inability to find a satisfactory criterion for knowledge. I will, therefore, define it as information held in peoples’ minds, which may be considered true or false, and which includes our beliefs and attitudes. “Knowledge”, “beliefs” and “attitudes” are essentially different words used to describe mental information in different contexts. This information, in combination with our reasoning processes and our needs, determines our behaviour.

Nurture

The knowledge of an individual is acquired in two main ways: from observation of the world around us and by receipt from others. All children are born with inherited predispositions but no knowledge. If a child had to work out for itself how to survive in its environment, then it would frequently make mistakes and might come to an unhappy end. Parents and other members of a child’s community will therefore provide an initial education which gives the child a working understanding of its environment.

Our early schemata are established in this way. However, as explained in the previous blog, information provided by others may have been distorted by their “effort after meaning”, contain errors of reasoning, and may even be lies. We accept as true any information which does not contradict our existing schemata. Failing that, we would acquire no new knowledge. Much of the information that young children receive from others falls into that category. Once established, the early schemata of the child will be resistant to change. As Aristotle famously said, “Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man”. Change can occur, however, if sufficient contradictions accumulate. Thus, our schemata alter in fits and starts. There is a period of rapid change followed by a period of quiescence in which the schema is resistant to change. In cases involving a significant change of worldview, this can be accompanied by an emotional crisis similar to grief at the loss of a loved one. Such crises can last for several years while the young adult goes through the stages of denial/isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. The importance of providing children with reliable knowledge cannot be understated, therefore.

Socialisation and Social Learning

Social rules are necessary if society is to co-operate successfully for the benefit of its members. If we follow them then we will function successfully in our society, contribute to its success and, thus, prosper personally. Again, it is difficult for the child to work out these social rules for itself and, thus, parents and other teachers will provide an initial working education based on the culture of the society, i.e., its norms, values, beliefs and symbols.

Socialisation is the process whereby others reward us for compliance with their culture and punish us for non-compliance.

During the 1950s psychologists developed the theory that we now know as Social Learning Theory. In summary, this theory states that some beliefs and strategies are formed in the following way:

  1. Identification with role models. Role models are usually parents, teachers, peers or people like oneself, and people seen as having advantages such as popularity, wealth, or fame.
  2. This identification leads to imitation behaviour and/or learning through observation. In the latter, behaviours may not necessarily be imitated immediately but may simply be remembered as strategies which can be used in later life. Seeing that a strategy adopted by another person successfully satisfies their needs will provide what is known as vicarious reinforcement and will condition a strategy even when it is not being performed by the person learning it. For example, if a colleague at the office always works through their lunch break and ultimately receives a promotion, then you may unconsciously adopt the same strategy in your next job.
  3. Imitation behaviour is either positively or negatively reinforced by other members of society depending on their beliefs about what is acceptable or unacceptable. These beliefs about social behaviour are referred to as norms. It may, for example, be the norm in your office to work through the lunch break. Through conditioning, norms become internalised or accepted as one’s own, and can be held unconsciously. Thus, the strategies underlying behaviour become conditioned or extinguished through social reinforcement. Highly conditioned beliefs about social behaviour form the conscience, a set of beliefs governing behaviour which cause psychological distress when our behaviour is contrary to them. For example, a socialised person will feel guilty if he steals.

In my next post, I will return to schemata, paradigms, and memes and describe the features that they have in common.