The Psychology of belief?

fathersymes

I'm currently working on an article which will attempt to explain the growing belief in pseudoscience with particular reference to Reiki, Homeopathy and Crystals.

Why is it that when challenged to provide evidence the believers in these pseudosciences become very emotional and insist that science will eventually prove they work or have effect?

Is there a particular profile of person who will fervently believe in the esotheric?

Odysseus

fathersymes wrote: »

I'm currently working on an article which will attempt to explain the growing belief in pseudoscience with particular reference to Reiki, Homeopathy and Crystals.

Why is it that when challenged to provide evidence the believers in these pseudosciences become very emotional and insist that science will eventually prove they work or have effect?

Is there a particular profile of person who will fervently believe in the esotheric?

Are you talking about groups of them or individuals. I have never really thought that way about it, like most people I did some research about those practices, enough to dispove them to me inanyway.

The thing that always come across to me with a significant amount of the peolpe who believe in such stuff are generally they are quite aggressive in a way that is hidden as such under a very thin vaneer of asertive behaviour. I often find this comes across most so with clients, than with staff.

I often find that they will have a significant relationship with a client often until it comes to a point where something happens, this can often be the client starting to made their own decisions, and then they just drop the client. I have seen this a number of times in various setting.

It goes from a very intense "therapeutic relationship" to a zero contact, something is not right with that. My office is spartan excet for my bike kit and my working Freud collection that is it, no candles, oil burners, bean bag, essential angel statue. In one clinic a team member have this bolw filled with "postive thought" cards, with angles on each side and a sign on top stating pick a card, take on the thought and replace the card:eek: Come on, I know psychoanalysis is offend not rated by various schools of psychology, but that stuff makes a mockery of therapy. At the end of the day, if you look at it in any way, a lot of this is objectively quite delusional.

I remember a programme I used to work in occassionally had someone in doing Reki a few times, out of interest I tried it a few times, I do not wish to mock anybody's belife system but it appears a very delusional system to me personally.

What would be interesting would be finding out the psychological processes involved when one of them appears to have had a positive result.


I have to say not I haven't encountered any fundamental homopath's yet.

What way are you tackling it from, if I may ask

hotspur

I think it often comes down to the mundane reality that without some kind of basic training in science or exposure to critical thinking skills then it can be difficult to get a good handle on the nature of things such as what constitutes evidence and other epistemological issues.

I think if people who were into pseudoscience received some training in the methodology of science then many of them would think differently. Complementary therapists are usually sincerely naive. Their belief that something works because their clients say they feel better is quite understandable I think.

If you start lecturing them about double blind randomised control experiments versus placebo, the nature of variance, and statistical tests then they are likely to get confused and annoyed at you.

Then there are the ones who are just plain nuts

JuliusCaesar

Here you go!
(thank heavens for TED!)

and here

fathersymes

Odysseus wrote: »

Are you talking about groups of them or individuals.

The impetus to research this area has been initially prompted by talking to various individuals throughout the past few years, hence I've identified a common trait of belief and reaction, so therefore I am approaching this from the collective.

Odysseus wrote: »

The thing that always come across to me with a significant amount of the peolpe who believe in such stuff are generally they are quite aggressive in a way that is hidden as such under a very thin vaneer of asertive behaviour. I often find this comes across most so with clients, than with staff.

Yes, this is the reaction (aggressive) I have always received when attempting to discuss the claims made by those who either practice or receive alternative therapy. This would suggest that, they need to have a sense of control over outcomes, to belong and to maintain ones self-esteem which are more easily fulfilled by pseudoscience than by logic.

I'm not a psychologist but would appreciate some pointers to possible underlying disorders such as a delusional disorder.

Odysseus wrote: »

What way are you tackling it from, if I may ask

The premise is that New Age, pseudoscience and alternative practices are inherently flawed and perhaps even dangerous. My personal opinion would be that these belief systems are actually bringing humankind to a state of regression akin to creationism.

Waking-Dreams

Shermer's book, why people believe weird things, is worth getting though try and pick up the 2009 updated version, as it contains new sections, such as, why do smart people believe weird things.

Also, have a search for James Randi's videos on the same topic. A brilliant speaker.

There ya go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

JuliusCaesar

fathersymes wrote: »

I'm not a psychologist but would appreciate some pointers to possible underlying disorders such as a delusional disorder.

LOL. What's the difference between a delusional belief and a weird but culturally acceptable belief? Discuss in less than 2000 words.

(I'm not making fun of you fathersymes, this comes up regularly with psych students - and any other students!)

Come on lads! Answers below please, with reference to relevant literature.

(Don't forget to reference cognitive biases too!)

SugarHigh

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

LOL. What's the difference between a delusional belief and a weird but culturally acceptable belief? Discuss in less than 2000 words.

(I'm not making fun of you fathersymes, this comes up regularly with psych students - and any other students!)

Come on lads! Answers below please, with reference to relevant literature.

(Don't forget to reference cognitive biases too!)

I think as a mod you should try to be less patronising. It hardly encourages discussion if you mock people.

JuliusCaesar

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think as a mod you should try to be less patronising. It hardly encourages discussion if you mock people.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

(I'm not making fun of you fathersymes, this comes up regularly with psych students - and any other students!)

Didn't mean to be patronising - it's a GREAT discussion! I love it! I'll discuss it often - and so will most people here.

Valmont

You would want to be careful in trying to categorise people who believe in such therapies. Is there evidence to suggest that belief in these therapies is, in fact, growing? How do you know that all of the proponents get emotional and say that eventually they will be proved right? You can't generalise vague statements to a group of people and then expect to extract any meaningful information. You need to specify and clarify your questions further before you can begin to extrapolate common characteristics from a group. Are you doing any experiments?

hotspur

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think as a mod you should try to be less patronising. It hardly encourages discussion if you mock people.

Mods are allowed to have a few drinks though

looksee

My (lay-person's) interpretation. Many people want to believe something as a kind of security blanket, it is easier than continually having to work things out. Also if you believe something it can have a significant physical effect, so allowing someone to tell you that you are relaxed and your aura has been cleaned (or whatever) will actually make you feel better. As will a cup of tea and a chat. Or a beer. Or going to a religious service/praying.

Most people (often unconsicously) make up a set of rules to live by, its a belief system and can be based on anything or nothing. Often it is based on someone else's ideas, again, its easier than working it out for yourself and taking responsibility for the results.

People get aggressive because you are undermining their beliefs (or beliefs that are making them a living). Why do people get aggressive about football teams? Its totally illogical but supporters want to believe their team is best because they identify with it, and if you challenge them you are challenging their opinion/belief.

Provided these beliefs keep within social bounds I think they are harmless - after all, in comparison, some of the major belief systems have done untold damage and harm down the centuries, but people still go along with them.

If someone believes that a piece of crystal can help them, how is it worse than buying alcohol to help them cope with life?

Placebo drugs have been shown to have a positive effect in some conditions, why should belief in a crystal/massage/angel etc not have the same effect.

joseywhales

It happens in science a lot, people have invested in their beliefs, they won't just give them up. However these people just aren't trained to make decent argument and are overtly emotional sometimes or else have difficultly sustaining a prolonged argument and particularly find it hard to concede without attaching a sense of failure.

Someting that is interesting(to me at least) is divining of underground water, I'm convinced that it works, just because it almost always works, I asked a physics professor about it, he said there was no physical explanation for it which is what I thought. But it does work. So I thought perhaps there is undergrounds streams of water everywhere but there's not. So how do they do it???????


Well thats a bit of a tangent but anyway.

Cinful

Civil religion literature indirectly of interest? Review Robert N. Bellah, Beyond Belief: Essays on Religion in a Post-Traditionalist World.
Link: http://www.robertbellah.com/articles_5.htm

Valmont

Cinful, where on earth to you find the time to read up on all of this research you're always posting links to? Or are you the artificial intelligence of Science direct?