Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception

[SithDoughnut]

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html

I'm not entirely sure what to discuss on this, but I thought it was too interesting to not post here. What do you all think?

 

[hikersong]

Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception | Video on TED.com

I'm not entirely sure what to discuss on this, but I thought it was too interesting to not post here. What do you all think?

I'm thinking how many girls does a chimp have to kiss before he finds his princess

A fascinating talk. The fact that we are hard wired to hear the rustle in the grass as a danger reminded me of Pascal's Wager a little bit. Except of course that in the latter case we haven't got the actual experience to show that the "rustle in the grass" (what happens after we die) needs to be acted upon. I would hypothesize that those who practise or preach Pascal's wager are mistakenly projecting a practical, localised benefit/pattern onto a universal canvas.

 

[Penumbra]

Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception | Video on TED.com

I'm not entirely sure what to discuss on this, but I thought it was too interesting to not post here. What do you all think?

It was neat.

I found it amusing that several of his early jokes were not laughed at. It's funny that the audience needs to be warmed up, but then they laugh at everything. Almost like a pattern.

-Lyn

 

[SithDoughnut]

I'm thinking how many girls does a chimp have to kiss before he finds his princess

A fascinating talk. The fact that we are hard wired to hear the rustle in the grass as a danger reminded me of Pascal's Wager a little bit. Except of course that in the latter case we haven't got the actual experience to show that the "rustle in the grass" (what happens after we die) needs to be acted upon. I would hypothesize that those who practise or preach Pascal's wager are mistakenly projecting a practical, localised benefit/pattern onto a universal canvas.

I would agree with you, except that it's not just projection, it's being very selective in the pattern. The 'rustle in the grass' is much simpler - if it's a dangerous predator, run. Pascal's Wager is the equivalent of having thousands of potential predators, each of which require a difference defence. So not only do you have to work out if there is a predator or not, you then have to work out which predator it is and how to deal with it. If you get any of it wrong, you die. Hence why I've never understood why people think that Pascal's Wager is a logical argument.

I did find this talk really interesting though. It's a shame it was so short because Shermer obviously had more to say on the subject. For example, he only briefly mentioned another pattern that humans are predisposed to see, which is the pattern of seeing an intention behind actions. I'll have to see if there is a talk on that anywhere, because I think it explains a lot about the wide range of creation beliefs in the world.

 

[AlexBP]

Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception | Video on TED.com

I'm not entirely sure what to discuss on this, but I thought it was too interesting to not post here. What do you all think?

I've read several of Shermer's books and many of his Skpetic columns in Scientific American. The basic argument that he makes in this video is one he makes frequently: that certain types of thought are "hard-wired" into our brain, determined by our genes, based on the selection pressures that our ancestors faced during caveman times. Oddly enough, while Shermer is big on demanding sources and citations from everyone else, he doesn't provide sources and citations for all of these claims that he makes. The plain fact is, as far as I know, that scientists have not yet located a single one of the genes that he relies on. We've found no "pattern recognition gene", no "agent detection gene", no "facial recognition software gene", etc... Which is not to say that they've been proven to not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that.

Further I think it's a big jump from talking about humans finding an image in a bunch of random shapes to "pattern matching" in social life, conspiracy theories, etc... They're two different things.