How to Know What You Actually Believe

Every now and so, I'll do something that's particularly unwise. I'll hop on Twitter, and check out what's going on in the world of politics.

I'm still not sure why I occasionally venture out at that place, as I'm 100% convinced that paying attention to politics leads to unclear thinking. Peradventure it's my little style of going on a thrilling, irrational adventure no one asked for, or perchance it's just the intellectual version of picking at a scab – you know you shouldn't do it, it hurts when you actually do do it, but you find yourself doing it anyway.

Needless to say, every time I venture out into this realm, I come across all sorts of weird human behaviors – behaviors that prove the beingness of an alternate dimension that's been made possible by the internet.

I run into people saying things that they'd never say to others in existent life…

…people making ridiculous claims, which are farther amplified by others…

…and of course, let'southward not forget almost the wonderful things politicians say.

More often than not, when I come up across a controversial prune of some politician talking, the sentences coming out of his or her mouth announced nonsensical and outlandish. It doesn't matter what colour tie the politician is wearing, or what topic is existence discussed. There is an interesting blend of confidence and closed-mindedness constructing this person'southward position, and I find myself wondering the same thing whenever I sentinel one of these clips:

Sadly, this question is all-too-common, only an all-too-important one to consider.

We live in an era where every person with an internet connection has a vocalism, and the book of that voice can be amplified at any moment. What is spoken or stated is the simply way to estimate someone'south stance on an issue, but it's impossible to know what the person really thinks about information technology. Are the private'south words a true representation of his beliefs, or are they only a point existence used to direct people to a personally useful, but knowingly imitation position?

We can't worm our fashion into the heads of people to become a concrete respond, but we tin endeavour to model this out to get closer to what'southward really going on.

Let'southward accept the case of the heated politician, who claimed that the Us' economy will crumble in mere days if his fiscal policy doesn't pass.

Nosotros volition illustrate this conventionalities with this green stone:

We desire to determine if the politician really does believe this, and will go through some methods of conventionalities-testing to meet if this is the case. Almost of the time, however, all we take are his words, which are supposed to reverberate and connect with his belief.

Words are a crude representation of someone's thoughts, and there's actually only one way to test if they accurately depict a belief. This is done largely through the tool of questioning (made popular by Socrates), which forces the individual to articulate his or her position in a mode that aligns with the stated belief.

In the instance of our politico, we tin ask him why he believes that the economy will crumble if his policy isn't passed, and how he gathered the testify behind the claim. In an exceptionally rare case, the political leader may suspension while answering a question, and simply admit that he doesn't really believe what he said. If this happens, so the case is closed; the belief doesn't hold.

All the same, both you and I know that this isn't going to happen.

Words are cheap however defensible; they're uttered at no cost, but concord immense ability. It'due south effortless to tell a lie, but devastating to reveal that you are a liar. Sadly, the incentives are such that it'due south rational to defend your position with words, given their ease of use and weight they concord. So we demand a better mechanism to test belief that has a higher price of admission.

This is where one's actions come up into the motion-picture show.

Actions are the college resolution images of conventionalities. They provide a more detailed expect into i'due south belief systems considering they require investments of energy, resources, and time, making them much better indicators of truth than words. The incentives are aligned because your reputation and personal gains are fastened to what yous do, and what you do is expected to be linked to what you believe.

This expectation, however, cannot only be assumed. It must be rigorously tested, just like words are tested with questions. And the simply way to validate ane'southward deportment is through the tool of ascertainment.

Observing one's patterns of behavior is an effective way to see if their stated beliefs agree. In politics, this is why good journalism is so important. The public merely sees and hears what the politician says, but since talk is cheap, it's an unreliable window into the politico'southward actual thoughts. What journalists do is observe the politician's actions – from who they are in touch with to what type of financial dealings they're a role of – and convey a ameliorate understanding of the politician's truthful belief systems to the public.

For instance, if journalists discovered that our "economy-volition-exist-ruined-in-a-matter-of-days" politician was aggressively shorting the market,1To put it simply, shorting is a bet 1 makes that the value or cost of something will go downwards. that may suggest a deceptive motive for his fear-mongering. Information technology'south not that he actually believes that the economy volition collapse in a few days, he just has a lot to gain if others believed that it did.

Of course, the link between action and conventionalities extends well beyond politics, and into all facets of everyday life. It'south one of the most reliable ways to determine who we keep equally friends, who nosotros exercise business organization with, and who we choose to read or listen to. Whether we realize information technology or not, nosotros are in a perpetual country of observation, fine-tuning our intuitions and then they better reverberate who is trustworthy, and who is to be avoided.

Evaluating ane's words and actions go us shut to what 1 truly believes, but it'south unclear if this completes the picture.

Allow's say our politico ardently sticks to his claim, both in what he says and what he does. All that is well, but…

…information technology's just hard to deny that in that location's yet something actually off about his belief. How can he actually believe that the U.S. economic system – an incomprehensibly massive engine of systems and behaviors – will exist wiped out if his little policy proposal isn't passed? How can he perhaps think that he would have that much influence? Does he even realize how implausible this sounds to others?

This is where the about interesting part of belief comes in. The politician may speak, act, and even think in a way that'southward fully aligned with his merits, but he can really practice this while simultaneously knowing that the belief is false. In other words, it's possible that the politician knows the claim is non truthful, but he thinks that he is supposed to believe it regardless.

This feeling of assertive that you should believe something – despite realizing its falsity – is what philosopher Daniel Dennett calls "belief in belief." Information technology's a shield that can exist used to protect a belief from further scrutiny, as it prioritizes the benefits of a conventionalities over the truth of it.

This can all audio a bit abstract, then allow'due south go concrete for a moment, using an instance that is sure to exist void of any controversy.

Let's all say hi to Tom.

Tom is a human that believes in God.

Tom says that he believes in God every time someone asks him nearly information technology, so his words are aligned with his belief.

Additionally, he goes to church every Sunday with his wife and kids, tithes x% of his income, sings all the praise songs, prays earlier every meal, and attends bible studies every other week.2Tom believes in the Christian God, merely you tin substitute this with your deity of choice. His actions seem to align with his conventionalities in God as well.

It appears that Tom has satisfied the necessary conditions for belief, but the tools of questioning and observation can just be validated externally (from an outsider's perspective). So what is going on with Tom internally, or more specifically, what are his ain thoughts about his belief in God?

Well, information technology turns out that Tom has been wrestling with that a lot lately. He's a large proponent of science, loves reading philosophy, and has questioned many of the things that his religion embodies. He thinks that evolution is the existent nature of our species, and that creationism is a myth. He also doesn't quite sympathize how an all-compassionate God could bring about so much evil in the earth,3This is known every bit the trouble of theodicy. which has made him doubt God's very existence besides.

Despite these serious doubts, however, Tom believes that he should live as if he believed in God'south existence . Fifty-fifty though he questions it, he thinks that it is a virtuous, proper, and benign thing to deport onward anyhow. After all, it'll be expert for his children to go to church building, be a office of a customs, and have the opportunity to be around good people. He tells himself that information technology doesn't really matter if he really believes in God, it just matters that he believes the belief is truthful.

From the LessWrong weblog:

As Daniel Dennett observes, where information technology is difficult to believe a thing, information technology is oftentimes much easier to believe that yous ought to believe information technology.

This type of self-convincing behavior in the face of contradictory truth is what is meant by "belief in belief." It is a powerful force that evades rationality, and it extends well across religion.

For our wonderful politician, he probably doesn't really think that the economy will crumble in days, but believes that he ought to believe information technology. Perhaps getting his policy passed ways that he'll finally be accepted as a member of his party'due south aristocracy, and that will lead to a improve life for him and his family. Peradventure he believes that his false message to the people will go them to react swiftly, and that will ultimately be a skilful thing for the management of the country. It feels of import for him to believe every bit if his belief were truthful, considering doing so would benefit him profoundly.

What this confirms is that i's thoughts are the closest representations of belief nosotros have. Words and actions are mere signals of a conventionalities, simply only thoughts reveal true intentions. Nosotros can say things we don't believe, we tin practise things we don't believe, but we cannot recall things we don't believe. If yous call back yous can, so yous are just doing that "belief in belief" thing, deceiving yourself in the process.

The problem with thoughts, however, is that we can't validate what they are in others. This is frustrating, given that nosotros started this post trying to figure out if nosotros could make up one's mind if someone actually believed what they said. Unfortunately, this is largely a futile practise – people won't acknowledge that they believe in belief unless they're unusually aware of their own lack of honesty.

And so when it comes to others, behavior can just be tested externally. The conventionalities-testing structure is linear, with the questioning of words on ane side, and the observation of actions on the other:

Even so, when information technology comes to ourselves, the construction changes.

We have direct admission to our thoughts, and we can examination our beliefs internally through personal experience and knowledge. We can be honest about whether we really think a conventionalities is true, or if nosotros're only believing equally if it is. And the only way to test this link between our thoughts and belief is through the tool of introspection.

This complete model is what I call the Belief Triangle, and is what I utilise when surveying my views of myself and the world. This framework determines whether or not my words, actions, and thoughts are aligned with what I think I believe. If they are, so this is a conventionalities that represents my honest view of reality.

However, if I notice that any one of the points aren't satisfied, the triangle must break. Introspection is the primal ingredient to make up one's mind if a belief holds, and information technology must be used frequently.4Belief Triangles are paradoxical in that they're both valuable and disposable. They represent everything we hold dear to u.s.a., but if the triangles don't stand up upward to questioning, observation, and introspection, they must be discarded. Wisdom is about knowing which side of the paradox to accept at any given moment.

We've already explored the words and actions areas, but I want to linger on the endpoint of thought for a moment. I observe that in that location are and then many parts of our lives where nosotros believe things just because we feel that we ought to believe in them. Nosotros get against our ain rational judgments all the time, only considering the invisible forcefulness of obligation lurks in the background.

Hither's a common case. If you hate your job, yous may deceive yourself into thinking that the job is okay so that you stay. Of class, you don't really believe that the job is good for your personal development, just it's certainly useful to believe that belief then you lot could bear on. After all, isn't this what you should believe? Your family and friends (and maybe fifty-fifty yourself) would think you lot're crazy if you quit, given the stability the job provides.

So rather than immerse yourself in a side project or find a more stimulating job, you remain in stasis, growing older in listen and torso simply not in skills or experience. This is how "belief in belief" works: It breaks the connection between your true thoughts and your stated behavior, which cripples your judgment in the long-run.

This disconnect between thought and belief is found everywhere. It's found in the lawyer that wants to exist an entrepreneur, just fears what people volition think. It's found in the scientist that comes across a great observation, just hides it because it contradicts what he's been saying for years. It's constitute in the priest that would rather be a Buddhist, but is agape of losing everything if he reveals this.

Often times, the thing that gets in the way of thought and belief is our concern for reputation. Rather than existence truthful to ourselves, we want to fit the image that others expect. This business organization clouds our judgment, making us less honest with our real beliefs and muting the inner voice that knows united states of america all-time. This results in a lot of fickle "I should"s instead of definitive "I am"s, and obscures our ability to be clear thinkers.

To remove this fog, it's important to reflect on the finiteness of existence, and that your beliefs are the only things that will direct your words, deportment, and thoughts for this i life yous'll live. They are the maps that will guide you through the rocky terrain, and just you tin can draw your ain.

More oft than not, you lot will depict them in a fashion that aligns with your view of reality. Just sometimes, you might find yourself drawing it in a way that goes against what y'all know is right.

Introspection is about checking yourself in that moment, and revising that misguided route to directly information technology toward the truth. It'south about being committed to drawing your map to the best of your ability, and not in a mode that is convenient and reliant upon the expectations of others.

Earnestly believing what you believe is not as easy equally it sounds, only it'southward the only way to live a life that is aligned with everything you say, do, and recollect. The more than Conventionalities Triangles y'all form with that type of judgment, the more beacons of light y'all accept to guide you toward clarity and wisdom.

So I get out you with this question: Practise you really believe what y'all believe? For a question then uncomplicated, the answer is non. It's a lifelong inquiry into examining who you truly are, so inquire this question deeply, and ask it often.

Doing and then will reveal more about yourself than you thought you ever knew.

_______________

If you enjoyed this postal service, consider joining the More To That newsletter. You lot'll be notified when a new postal service is upward, and will get access to personal reflections that y'all won't find anywhere else.

Equally a welcome souvenir, I will send y'all a 10-page ebook called How to Discover Great Ideas, and a pack of colorful wallpapers for your phone.

If you'd like to support the many hours that go into making these posts, yous can practise then at our Patreon page here.

_______________

Annotation: I use the discussion "honest" quite a bit in this mail, and but similar "belief," it's a loaded word. For an in-depth await into my views on honesty, there's a big post on it that is only available on Patreon.

For more posts on introspection and self-reflection:

The Correct Side of Idea

How to Calm the Anxious Brain

The Quest to the Unlived Life

hopkinscarapt1964.blogspot.com

Source: https://moretothat.com/do-you-really-believe-what-you-believe/

Share this post