What do you think?
Rate this book
The Science of Superstition
“In an account chock full of real-world examples reinforced by experimental research, Hood’s marvelous book is an important contribution to the psychological literature that is revealing the actuality of our very irrational human nature.” — Science
In the vein of Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, Mary Roach’s Spook, and Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational, The Science of Superstition uses hard science to explain pervasive irrational beliefs and behaviors: from the superstitious rituals of sports stars, to the depreciated value of houses where murders were committed, to the adoration of Elvis.
322 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 7, 2009
219 people are currently reading
2748 people want to read
About the author
Bruce M. Hood
12 books129 followersI was born in Toronto, Canada, and my middle name is MacFarlane. This a legacy of my Scottish heritage on my father's side. My mother is Australian and has the very unusual first name of Loyale. I used to believe for many years that she had two sisters called Hope and Faith, but that was just my fertile imagination. Why Toronto I hear you ask. My father was a journalist and plied his art on various continents. By the time I had finally settled in Dundee, Scotland, at 8 years of age, I had already lived in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. If you are wondering, I support Scotland during the Rugby World Cup. I have an older brother who was also born in Toronto, but he doesn't have a mid-Atlantic accent like I do. He is sensible. He is a lawyer.
In Dundee, I went to school and then university where I studied psychology and socializing. I then went to Cambridge to conduct research on visual development in babies. Not because they are cute, but because their visual system is so interesting. I completed my Ph.D. in two years in 1991. That year I got married with a "Dr." in front of my name to my wife who is a real doctor and would not marry me until I was doctored. After a brief research period in London, we both set off to Boston, Massachusetts, to sample some U.S. academic life for a year. By the time we were ready to travel, we were now three, as my eldest daughter had been born. When my wife wasn't paying attention, I applied for and was given an associate professorship at Harvard. I interviewed without telling her. What was supposed to be just one year abroad in the United States turned into five. I do stuff like that all the time.
We decided that we wanted to raise our daughter in the U.K. because we did not want her to call us "Mom" and "Pop," or by our first names. So, 10 years ago, we moved back to the countryside just south of Bath. If you have ever been there, you'll know why. I work in the psychology department at the University of Bristol nearby. I conduct research, teach, and of course, write books. We have a second daughter now, and we all live in a medieval barn with mice. I also bought that without telling my wife. That's where I am up to now.
In Dundee, I went to school and then university where I studied psychology and socializing. I then went to Cambridge to conduct research on visual development in babies. Not because they are cute, but because their visual system is so interesting. I completed my Ph.D. in two years in 1991. That year I got married with a "Dr." in front of my name to my wife who is a real doctor and would not marry me until I was doctored. After a brief research period in London, we both set off to Boston, Massachusetts, to sample some U.S. academic life for a year. By the time we were ready to travel, we were now three, as my eldest daughter had been born. When my wife wasn't paying attention, I applied for and was given an associate professorship at Harvard. I interviewed without telling her. What was supposed to be just one year abroad in the United States turned into five. I do stuff like that all the time.
We decided that we wanted to raise our daughter in the U.K. because we did not want her to call us "Mom" and "Pop," or by our first names. So, 10 years ago, we moved back to the countryside just south of Bath. If you have ever been there, you'll know why. I work in the psychology department at the University of Bristol nearby. I conduct research, teach, and of course, write books. We have a second daughter now, and we all live in a medieval barn with mice. I also bought that without telling my wife. That's where I am up to now.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews
February 20, 2010
Like many of you who are reading this, I can't throw books away. Even thinking about it makes me uncomfortable, so there is no way I could possibly hold a book over a garbage can and just let it drop. Ugh.
I don't know why this should be, to be honest. I mean, they're just books, right? Paper and ink that anyone can buy. And not even special books - first edition, autor-signed, given to me by my beloved grandmother on her deathbed. I would be hard-pressed to throw away even bad books. Mein Kampf, Dianetics, A Series of Unfortunate Events - I would save even these from the trashpile. Not because they're worth reading, but because they're books.
I'm not a squishy, sentimental man, either. I can tell dead baby jokes without flinching. I've participated in the burning of an American Flag. I've flipped off the White House (it was the Bush era - I couldn't NOT flip it off), and if you give me a photo of the Pope, I'm pretty sure I can tear it up on live TV.
So what is it about these mass-produced blocks of paper that instills in me such reverence? This question is part of what Bruce Hood discusses in his book Supersense, appropriately subtitled, “Why we believe in the unbelievable.”
Hood is a psychologist by trade, and this book is an investigation into why we persistently believe in things for which we have no evidence. This can range from religious adherence and the firm belief in things like “holiness” and “sinfulness” all the way to haunted houses, superstitious behavior, and the belief that evil acts can somehow “taint” a physical object. In one demonstration that he refers to throughout the book, Hood offers a cardigan to his audience. It’s a nice enough sweater, perhaps a little out of date, but clean and it looks comfortable. It’s the kind of cardigan you might wear on a chilly autumn evening and think nothing of it.
Then Hood tells the audience that the sweater belonged to Fred West. For those of us who are not from England, Fred West is one of the most notorious serial killers of the last century. Over a span of twenty years, he and his wife tortured, raped and murdered at least twelve girls, two of whom were their own daughters. They’re very well-known in England, and as soon as people found out that the nice comfortable cardigan had belonged to Fred West, no one wanted to touch it, much less put it on. Even though there’s no rational basis to believe so, many people believed that there was some kind of contamination linked to the sweater, and feared that Fred West’s evil would somehow transfer to them.
As someone who tries to be rational as much as possible, I have found myself wondering why I hold on to beliefs that I know are fundamentally irrational. I wonder it even more when I watch the news or surf the internet and see how many people believe in things like “healing energy,” homeopathy, guardian angels, magic spells and the like. “What century are we living in?” I ask myself as I curl up into a ball and weep. The Enlightenment was only two hundred years ago - why are we backsliding?
Thinkers and scientists such as Richard Dawkins believe that this kind of fundamental irrationality is a learned trait. Parents pass it on to children, who then pass it on to theirs. Dawkins even goes so far as to consider bringing your child to church to be “child abuse,” and believe that if only we can break the chain of superstition, a new Age of Reason will emerge.
Hood disagrees, and he makes a pretty compelling case. He doesn’t argue for the existence of the supernatural at all in this book, but rather the sense of the supernatural - the Supersense, as he calls it. This is the feeling that someone is watching us, the belief that one object is somehow more “special” than another, identical object. It is the reason we plead with our computers when they don’t work, why we anthropomorphise so many things is our world, and why we revere the remains of saints and shun the sweaters of murderers. It is a sense that there should be a supernatural world out there, even if we can’t prove it.
Hood believes that the origin of this supersense is in the way our early minds develop as infants. In that very early stage of life, we try to make sense of the world as best we can. Babies are little scientists, testing reality against their observations again and again, and coming up with hypotheses about how the world should work. This need to understand the world is hard-wired into our brains as part of our “mind design,” and not only can we never get rid of it, it may be essential to our development into fully-formed human beings.
By testing children and how they observe the world, Hood tries to see how the mind develops from birth onwards, without the years of cultural indoctrination that Dawkins and those of similar opinion decry. These tests show how children expect reality to behave, and what happens when their expectations don’t match their observations. He looks at how children imbue the world with life and purpose - the Sun, always smiling in children’s drawings, exists to give us light, trees to shade us and the grass is there for us to play on. This endowment of purpose, or telos, if we’re going to be philosophical and pompous, is something we continue to do even into adulthood.
The more we learn about the world, the more we find out that it doesn’t follow the common-sense rules that we laid down in our infancy. It’s hard to accept, for example, that we aren’t the end product of evolution - even worse, evolution has no end product in mind. What’s more, after our brains went through years and years of classifying the world into neat little categories such as “living/non-living; intelligent/non-intelligent; plant/animal,” it’s jarring to know that we’re only 5% of the way off from chimpanzees and 50% off from being bananas!
Children intuit the world as they grow, and that is part of the mind-building process. This is the architecture of our minds. More often than not, it produces a rational picture of the world and how it works, but not always - the trade-off is that some supernatural ideas come along for the ride. While the mind-building process does prepare us to exist in the greater world, it also makes us fundamentally irrational beings. Some people are more able to overcome this irrationality than others, but even the hard-core skeptics may find it difficult to put on the sweater of Fred West, or have trouble not smiling when they’re in the presence of the sweater of Fred Rogers.
In a way, this book was both a disappointment and a relief. I have always hoped that one day humanity would rise above its irrationality and start appreciating the world for what it is, instead of wasting time looking for things that just aren’t there. But if Hood’s hypothesis is correct, that’s never going to happen. As long as we are human, there will always be a streak of the irrational in us. Try as we might, we will always have superstitions, strange beliefs, and we will always be looking for things that we cannot see.
And of course, perhaps this is a good thing. This irrationality is what gives us passion, it’s what connects us together as a species and as societies. This belief in the sacred, for example, is what gives rise to shared values in a community and a shared sense of what is important and what is forbidden. Without it, we’d be a species of Lex Luthors - fundamentally selfish, sociopathic and without the ability to connect to others.
On a personal note, it means that maybe I don’t have to be so hard on myself. I mean, being rational is great and all, but when you get to the point where you find yourself thinking something like, “Yeah, what is the big deal about incest?” then you know that it’s time to give the prefrontal cortex a break. And instead of beating myself up for not being able to completely disavow all the goofy little supernatural things that I cling to, perhaps I can just accept them as part of what makes me who I am. I know there’s nothing truly special about my books, but the supersense tells me otherwise. It may not be right, but at least it gives my life a little more color.
I don't know why this should be, to be honest. I mean, they're just books, right? Paper and ink that anyone can buy. And not even special books - first edition, autor-signed, given to me by my beloved grandmother on her deathbed. I would be hard-pressed to throw away even bad books. Mein Kampf, Dianetics, A Series of Unfortunate Events - I would save even these from the trashpile. Not because they're worth reading, but because they're books.
I'm not a squishy, sentimental man, either. I can tell dead baby jokes without flinching. I've participated in the burning of an American Flag. I've flipped off the White House (it was the Bush era - I couldn't NOT flip it off), and if you give me a photo of the Pope, I'm pretty sure I can tear it up on live TV.
So what is it about these mass-produced blocks of paper that instills in me such reverence? This question is part of what Bruce Hood discusses in his book Supersense, appropriately subtitled, “Why we believe in the unbelievable.”
Hood is a psychologist by trade, and this book is an investigation into why we persistently believe in things for which we have no evidence. This can range from religious adherence and the firm belief in things like “holiness” and “sinfulness” all the way to haunted houses, superstitious behavior, and the belief that evil acts can somehow “taint” a physical object. In one demonstration that he refers to throughout the book, Hood offers a cardigan to his audience. It’s a nice enough sweater, perhaps a little out of date, but clean and it looks comfortable. It’s the kind of cardigan you might wear on a chilly autumn evening and think nothing of it.
Then Hood tells the audience that the sweater belonged to Fred West. For those of us who are not from England, Fred West is one of the most notorious serial killers of the last century. Over a span of twenty years, he and his wife tortured, raped and murdered at least twelve girls, two of whom were their own daughters. They’re very well-known in England, and as soon as people found out that the nice comfortable cardigan had belonged to Fred West, no one wanted to touch it, much less put it on. Even though there’s no rational basis to believe so, many people believed that there was some kind of contamination linked to the sweater, and feared that Fred West’s evil would somehow transfer to them.
As someone who tries to be rational as much as possible, I have found myself wondering why I hold on to beliefs that I know are fundamentally irrational. I wonder it even more when I watch the news or surf the internet and see how many people believe in things like “healing energy,” homeopathy, guardian angels, magic spells and the like. “What century are we living in?” I ask myself as I curl up into a ball and weep. The Enlightenment was only two hundred years ago - why are we backsliding?
Thinkers and scientists such as Richard Dawkins believe that this kind of fundamental irrationality is a learned trait. Parents pass it on to children, who then pass it on to theirs. Dawkins even goes so far as to consider bringing your child to church to be “child abuse,” and believe that if only we can break the chain of superstition, a new Age of Reason will emerge.
Hood disagrees, and he makes a pretty compelling case. He doesn’t argue for the existence of the supernatural at all in this book, but rather the sense of the supernatural - the Supersense, as he calls it. This is the feeling that someone is watching us, the belief that one object is somehow more “special” than another, identical object. It is the reason we plead with our computers when they don’t work, why we anthropomorphise so many things is our world, and why we revere the remains of saints and shun the sweaters of murderers. It is a sense that there should be a supernatural world out there, even if we can’t prove it.
Hood believes that the origin of this supersense is in the way our early minds develop as infants. In that very early stage of life, we try to make sense of the world as best we can. Babies are little scientists, testing reality against their observations again and again, and coming up with hypotheses about how the world should work. This need to understand the world is hard-wired into our brains as part of our “mind design,” and not only can we never get rid of it, it may be essential to our development into fully-formed human beings.
By testing children and how they observe the world, Hood tries to see how the mind develops from birth onwards, without the years of cultural indoctrination that Dawkins and those of similar opinion decry. These tests show how children expect reality to behave, and what happens when their expectations don’t match their observations. He looks at how children imbue the world with life and purpose - the Sun, always smiling in children’s drawings, exists to give us light, trees to shade us and the grass is there for us to play on. This endowment of purpose, or telos, if we’re going to be philosophical and pompous, is something we continue to do even into adulthood.
The more we learn about the world, the more we find out that it doesn’t follow the common-sense rules that we laid down in our infancy. It’s hard to accept, for example, that we aren’t the end product of evolution - even worse, evolution has no end product in mind. What’s more, after our brains went through years and years of classifying the world into neat little categories such as “living/non-living; intelligent/non-intelligent; plant/animal,” it’s jarring to know that we’re only 5% of the way off from chimpanzees and 50% off from being bananas!
Children intuit the world as they grow, and that is part of the mind-building process. This is the architecture of our minds. More often than not, it produces a rational picture of the world and how it works, but not always - the trade-off is that some supernatural ideas come along for the ride. While the mind-building process does prepare us to exist in the greater world, it also makes us fundamentally irrational beings. Some people are more able to overcome this irrationality than others, but even the hard-core skeptics may find it difficult to put on the sweater of Fred West, or have trouble not smiling when they’re in the presence of the sweater of Fred Rogers.
In a way, this book was both a disappointment and a relief. I have always hoped that one day humanity would rise above its irrationality and start appreciating the world for what it is, instead of wasting time looking for things that just aren’t there. But if Hood’s hypothesis is correct, that’s never going to happen. As long as we are human, there will always be a streak of the irrational in us. Try as we might, we will always have superstitions, strange beliefs, and we will always be looking for things that we cannot see.
And of course, perhaps this is a good thing. This irrationality is what gives us passion, it’s what connects us together as a species and as societies. This belief in the sacred, for example, is what gives rise to shared values in a community and a shared sense of what is important and what is forbidden. Without it, we’d be a species of Lex Luthors - fundamentally selfish, sociopathic and without the ability to connect to others.
On a personal note, it means that maybe I don’t have to be so hard on myself. I mean, being rational is great and all, but when you get to the point where you find yourself thinking something like, “Yeah, what is the big deal about incest?” then you know that it’s time to give the prefrontal cortex a break. And instead of beating myself up for not being able to completely disavow all the goofy little supernatural things that I cling to, perhaps I can just accept them as part of what makes me who I am. I know there’s nothing truly special about my books, but the supersense tells me otherwise. It may not be right, but at least it gives my life a little more color.
September 23, 2012
My sister and I sort of looked at this together -- a sceptical atheist about to do a medical degree and a religious humanities graduate would not, you might think, agree at all when it comes to a book about supernatural feelings, thoughts and beliefs. (Before we go further, I'll add that I am the humanities graduate, for those who don't know me.) You'd think I'd be more resistant to the conclusions of the book, and that she'd be much happier to go along with it.
As it is, we both found the ideas fascinating, but somewhat lacking in rigour. For example, we both did the questionnaire at the end intended to measure one's level of 'supersense', and both came out with zero. This is not because we lack superstitions (she has a pair of Miffy socks which she wears for all exams; I ask my close friends to 'think good thoughts for me' in times of stress; neither of us can sleep without our teddy bears...) but because the questions were badly phrased. "Things sometimes seem to be in different places when I get home, even though no one has been there", for example. If you answer 'true', this counts as a point toward 'supersense' -- even if, like me and my sister, you actually have that feeling but know, without a doubt, that you just forgot where you put something down (or that someone else sharing the household came in unexpectedly). I don't think we have 'supersense', as defined by Bruce Hood, in that case: there's nothing mystical, to our minds, about how the situation came about.
So, interesting, but at times badly defined. Despite me and my sister's determination to break every question in the test, I think we all have superstitious beliefs, and that Hood is right that to some extent that behaviour is hard-wired into us. To his credit, he does ask after the set of questions whether it does actually measure 'supersense'.
It's particularly intriguing to read this as someone who suffers from anxiety, actually. I'm very used to questioning my own view of reality: if I have a generalised feeling of anxiety, I could choose to be afraid that I'm predicting a terrible event, or that there's a malevolent spirit in the room with me. However, I know I'm not and there isn't: somewhere something bad is happening, and no doubt someone is ill-wishing me, but I am certain I don't know about it through mystical means -- I'm just guessing. I once told my brother that something bad was going to happen because everyone we knew felt crappy; when I woke up the next morning, terrorist attacks had taken place in London. I believed I predicted that, but the logically trained part of me knows that it was a coincidence. I connected my prediction with the event because such an amazing event couldn't be a coincidence, but now I think about it and I'm sure that many other nights all our friends felt bad, and nothing bad happened the next day. I just didn't notice, because nothing important happened.
I can rationalise everything away if you let me at it for long enough, just as above, and in fact that's exactly what my doctor wants me to do, but at the same time I'm religious. I pray, and believe that it helps in some way -- not just that it makes me feel better, but that it has tangible results. How can you rationalise away all the bad/creepy stuff, and still believe in the positive stuff?
So yeah, this book is good to read if you're interested in questioning your own thoughts/beliefs and so on, and interestingly, it also ascribes a positive role in society to superstition and the like.
As it is, we both found the ideas fascinating, but somewhat lacking in rigour. For example, we both did the questionnaire at the end intended to measure one's level of 'supersense', and both came out with zero. This is not because we lack superstitions (she has a pair of Miffy socks which she wears for all exams; I ask my close friends to 'think good thoughts for me' in times of stress; neither of us can sleep without our teddy bears...) but because the questions were badly phrased. "Things sometimes seem to be in different places when I get home, even though no one has been there", for example. If you answer 'true', this counts as a point toward 'supersense' -- even if, like me and my sister, you actually have that feeling but know, without a doubt, that you just forgot where you put something down (or that someone else sharing the household came in unexpectedly). I don't think we have 'supersense', as defined by Bruce Hood, in that case: there's nothing mystical, to our minds, about how the situation came about.
So, interesting, but at times badly defined. Despite me and my sister's determination to break every question in the test, I think we all have superstitious beliefs, and that Hood is right that to some extent that behaviour is hard-wired into us. To his credit, he does ask after the set of questions whether it does actually measure 'supersense'.
It's particularly intriguing to read this as someone who suffers from anxiety, actually. I'm very used to questioning my own view of reality: if I have a generalised feeling of anxiety, I could choose to be afraid that I'm predicting a terrible event, or that there's a malevolent spirit in the room with me. However, I know I'm not and there isn't: somewhere something bad is happening, and no doubt someone is ill-wishing me, but I am certain I don't know about it through mystical means -- I'm just guessing. I once told my brother that something bad was going to happen because everyone we knew felt crappy; when I woke up the next morning, terrorist attacks had taken place in London. I believed I predicted that, but the logically trained part of me knows that it was a coincidence. I connected my prediction with the event because such an amazing event couldn't be a coincidence, but now I think about it and I'm sure that many other nights all our friends felt bad, and nothing bad happened the next day. I just didn't notice, because nothing important happened.
I can rationalise everything away if you let me at it for long enough, just as above, and in fact that's exactly what my doctor wants me to do, but at the same time I'm religious. I pray, and believe that it helps in some way -- not just that it makes me feel better, but that it has tangible results. How can you rationalise away all the bad/creepy stuff, and still believe in the positive stuff?
So yeah, this book is good to read if you're interested in questioning your own thoughts/beliefs and so on, and interestingly, it also ascribes a positive role in society to superstition and the like.
July 26, 2020
“Supersense. Why we believe in the Unbelievable” é o segundo livro que leio de Bruce Hood, professor britânico de neurociência cognitiva do desenvolvimento, e se não traz nada de muito novo, acaba tocando e aprofundando um assunto pelo qual tendemos a passar e definir de dois modos opostos, dependendo do momento: secundarizando como inexorável, parte da condição humana; ou criticando como efeito de baixa literacia científica. Falo da crença na superstição e religiosidade, a crença em tudo o que está para além da experiência empírica do natural, ou seja, o sobrenatural. Hood trabalha ao longo de todo este livro, munido de dezenas de exemplos e estudos, a estrutura cognitiva que dá suporte àquilo que faz de nós humanos e simultaneamente crentes.
Temos uma necessidade absoluta de significado, sem o que não conseguimos atribuir valor ao mundo que nos rodeia, daí que passemos, o nosso cérebro passa, praticamente todo o tempo a decifrar padrões e a dar-lhes sentido. Não é suficiente que a realidade exista enquanto conjunto de objetos e elementos, precisamos de lhes conferir categorias, hierarquias, valores, atributos, pesos, precisamos de comparar, e acima de tudo de significar. Isto é inerente a nós, não é possível sair deste modo de conhecer a realidade, porque é assim que o nosso cérebro está desenhado. Isto não é propriamente negativo, pois foi este mesmo design mental que nos permitiu criar a ciência e evoluir tudo aquilo que evoluímos como espécie ao longo de milénios. Mas como em tudo, existem sempre perdas ou disfunções. Assim como conseguimos criar algo tão impressionante como a Matemática, conseguimos simultaneamente criar algo como a Religião. Ambas nasceram do mesmo modo de trabalhar a realidade, ambas seguem necessidades impostas pelo nosso modo de pensar, e ambas parecem, ao nosso cérebro, fazer absoluto sentido.
Leia-se a seguinte lista e reflita-se sobre o que tem em comum:
O monumento Pártenon em Atenas, ou o Coliseu de Roma;
Um autógrafo de Stephen Hawking, ou de Stephen King;
Um casaco usado por Michael Jackson, ou por Ted Bundy;
A casa em que viveu Leonardo Da Vinci, ou Adolf Hitler;
A caneta usada por Eça de Queiroz, ou Fernando Pessoa;
O barco em que viajou Vasco da Gama, ou Cristóvão Colombo;
Um quadro de Picasso, ou de Van Gogh;
Uma casa em que se deram múltiplos assassínios, ou suicídios;
O coelhinho ou bonequinha com que dormíamos em criança;
Fotografias de familiares que já partiram;
Etc.
Continuar a ler no blog:
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
Temos uma necessidade absoluta de significado, sem o que não conseguimos atribuir valor ao mundo que nos rodeia, daí que passemos, o nosso cérebro passa, praticamente todo o tempo a decifrar padrões e a dar-lhes sentido. Não é suficiente que a realidade exista enquanto conjunto de objetos e elementos, precisamos de lhes conferir categorias, hierarquias, valores, atributos, pesos, precisamos de comparar, e acima de tudo de significar. Isto é inerente a nós, não é possível sair deste modo de conhecer a realidade, porque é assim que o nosso cérebro está desenhado. Isto não é propriamente negativo, pois foi este mesmo design mental que nos permitiu criar a ciência e evoluir tudo aquilo que evoluímos como espécie ao longo de milénios. Mas como em tudo, existem sempre perdas ou disfunções. Assim como conseguimos criar algo tão impressionante como a Matemática, conseguimos simultaneamente criar algo como a Religião. Ambas nasceram do mesmo modo de trabalhar a realidade, ambas seguem necessidades impostas pelo nosso modo de pensar, e ambas parecem, ao nosso cérebro, fazer absoluto sentido.
Leia-se a seguinte lista e reflita-se sobre o que tem em comum:
O monumento Pártenon em Atenas, ou o Coliseu de Roma;
Um autógrafo de Stephen Hawking, ou de Stephen King;
Um casaco usado por Michael Jackson, ou por Ted Bundy;
A casa em que viveu Leonardo Da Vinci, ou Adolf Hitler;
A caneta usada por Eça de Queiroz, ou Fernando Pessoa;
O barco em que viajou Vasco da Gama, ou Cristóvão Colombo;
Um quadro de Picasso, ou de Van Gogh;
Uma casa em que se deram múltiplos assassínios, ou suicídios;
O coelhinho ou bonequinha com que dormíamos em criança;
Fotografias de familiares que já partiram;
Etc.
Continuar a ler no blog:
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
December 14, 2012
OK, so this is a solid book by a neuroscientist on why we believe things that have no rational or logical pattern behind them. It starts with a cardigan, then Hood tells people that a mass murderer wore the cardigan. All of the sudden, people are skeeved out; they feel the material is contaminated with evil. What does this mean? Why does this happen?
Hood explains the physical science and the relative ridiculousness of such beliefs. He is an expert in children, so he spends a lot of time there. He does talk about the power of these beliefs on groups, but only in a surface sense.
And that’s why I think this book is well written, but I also think Hood missed an opportunity. He doesn’t quite tie this stuff as strongly as he could to new work in sociology and to the meaningful works of mythologists and others who dissect stories. Hood provides a piece of the puzzle, but I think he’s asking the intrepid reader to do more that he could’ve done himself. There is a whole power to the emotional side, and a strength to passing and sharing these emotions; Hood lightly breezes through that idea. He could’ve talked about why an audience suspends disbelief at a pay, why we cry at an actor’s sad moment. He could’ve talked about what happens in the brain when an ex-Catholic smells burning frankincense. He could’ve talked about why and how people’s brains get worked up over a fictional cause on Facebook, never checking to see if it’s true. There’s a LOT more to do here than just what he covers – over and over.
Yes, I felt the book is long and repetitive; I kept hoping for less new data and more new insights. Quit reproving the same point and show and how and why this point can be applied in new and powerful ways. They’re out there.
I admit I've been doing a lot of study in this area, so maybe my interests were in cross purposes with this book. I also admit my studies have delved into more than this book could provide.
Hood explains the physical science and the relative ridiculousness of such beliefs. He is an expert in children, so he spends a lot of time there. He does talk about the power of these beliefs on groups, but only in a surface sense.
And that’s why I think this book is well written, but I also think Hood missed an opportunity. He doesn’t quite tie this stuff as strongly as he could to new work in sociology and to the meaningful works of mythologists and others who dissect stories. Hood provides a piece of the puzzle, but I think he’s asking the intrepid reader to do more that he could’ve done himself. There is a whole power to the emotional side, and a strength to passing and sharing these emotions; Hood lightly breezes through that idea. He could’ve talked about why an audience suspends disbelief at a pay, why we cry at an actor’s sad moment. He could’ve talked about what happens in the brain when an ex-Catholic smells burning frankincense. He could’ve talked about why and how people’s brains get worked up over a fictional cause on Facebook, never checking to see if it’s true. There’s a LOT more to do here than just what he covers – over and over.
Yes, I felt the book is long and repetitive; I kept hoping for less new data and more new insights. Quit reproving the same point and show and how and why this point can be applied in new and powerful ways. They’re out there.
I admit I've been doing a lot of study in this area, so maybe my interests were in cross purposes with this book. I also admit my studies have delved into more than this book could provide.
September 14, 2010
It's pretty easy to spot books that are stitched together from lectures and talks. They tend to be amorphous and directionless, and this one is no exception. It wouldn't be so bad except I've heard similar lectures and talks, so this was like a bad dream where I'm back in college, but I haven't studied. Plus, I'm not wearing pants.
April 30, 2012
What is it about people that we are so suggestible when it comes to magical interpretations of the world around us? Hood offers answers in this enlightening analysis of how it is that we buy into such obvious silliness, and why we are unlikely to ever evolve into a purely rational species.
Sorry, I did not really write a full review of this, but I found a wealth of passages in the book that I found interesting.
P xiv
Humans are naturally inclined towards supernatural beliefs. Many highly educated and intelligent individuals experience a powerful sense that there are patterns, forces, energies, and entities operating in the world that are denied by science because they go beyond the boundaries of natural phenomena we currently understand.
In addition to the science content of the book in support of its central thesis, there is enough material here to supply several seasons of the X-Files or Fringe. (See Capgras – p 216, Cotard’s syndrome – p 217
p 54
…psychologist Martin Seligman…argues that humans are genetically wired to fear certain classes of things without the need for a lot of learning. Our species learned to be extra-sensitive to potential threats by natural selection. Maybe our prehistoric ancestors who were especially fearful of snakes and spiders passed that aspect of their personality on to their children through their genes. That would explain why the majority of phobias fit into a few categories that could have been sources or signals of potential danger, such as environment (open spaces, heights, dark places) animals (snakes, spiders) and animals that elicit disgust (rates, mice, maggots). There are few phobias of modern appliances because we simply have not had enough time to evolve wariness to threats like electric sockets.
So some fears seem to take root much more easily than others. Could this be true of other thoughts? Religious beliefs may be indoctrinated by associative learning in the same way phobias are, but like irrational fears, they may also build on our natural inclinations. This is because they fit well with our natural ways of thinking about the world—the mind design we have inherited through our genes. This may partly explain why supernatural beliefs are so earily accepted. They seem to fit with what we think is possible.
p 73
Knowledge generates beliefs, and …knowledge comes primarily from our intuitive reasoning…Only in the past fifty years have scientists really begun to appreciate how this thinking [children coming up with their own ideas independent of adult input] emerges in the growing child. …This is the main argument of the book: children generate knowledge through their own intuitive reasoning about the world around them, which leads them to both natural and supernatural beliefs.
P 83 – re behavioralism
By applying the learning rules of reinforcement and punishment, you can shape patterns of behavior. If you want to encourage behavior, give a reward, and an association will be strengthened. If you want to discourage behavior, give a punishment, and the association will be actively avoided. By linking together chains of behavior through punishment and reward, it was claimed, the laws of associative learning can shape any complex pattern, be it personality, skills, or even knowledge.
These laws were even believed to explain supernatural thinking. In what was one of the first experiments in irrational behavior, the Harvard behaviorist B. F. Skinner described in 1948 how he trained birds to act superstitiously. He achieved this with a laboratory box that was wired to give out rewards randomly. For example, if the bird happened to be pecking at some part of the cage when the pellet was delivered, it soon learned to repeat this behavior. Skinner argued that this simple principle could explain the origins of human superstitious rituals. Like pigeons, tennis players and gamblers seek to reproduce success by repeating behaviors that happened at the time of a reward.
P 96
When does supernatural thinking first appear? …Children chop the world of experience up into different categories of things and events. To make sense of it all they generate naïve theories that explain the physical world, the living world, and eventually the psychological world of other people. While children’s naïve theories are often correct, they can be wrong because the causes and mechanisms they are trying to reason about are invisible. For example, no one can see gravity but you assume something makes objects fall straight down if they are released… Sometimes living things do not move, and sometimes moving things are not alive. When we misapply the property of one natural kind to another, we are thinking unnaturally. If we continue to believe it is true, then our thinking has become supernatural. This where I think our supersense comes from.
P 97
Children…attribute purpose to everything in the world by assuming things were made for a reason. The sun was made for me. This is not surprising considering that modern children are immersed in a world of artifacts that have been designed and made for a reason. Young children do not readily make the distinction between things that have been created for a purpose and those that just happen to be useful for a purpose. For example, if I can use a stick for prodding, I may be inclined to see sticks as having a purpose. In other words sticks exist as something for me to use.
This way of thinking leads the child to what has been called “promiscuous teleology.” Teleology means thinking in terms of function—what something has been designed for. This way of thinking is promiscuous because the child over-applies the belief of purpose and function to everything. For example, there are 101 ways to travel down a hillside including walking, skipping, running, roller-blading, skateboarding, sledging, skiing, trail-biking, Zorb-balling, and so on. But no adult would make the mistake of saying that the hill exists because of any of these different activities. Children, on the other hand, say that hillsides are for rolling down and so on.
p 98
..children are also prone to anthropomorphism. Which means that they think about nonhuman things as if they were human. It’s easy to see this with pets and dolls, which children are encouraged to treat as human. However, children might also think that a burning chair feels pain or that a bicycle aches after being kicked, and because of their egocentrism, they misapply this view to everything, including inanimate objects.
Even adults easily slip into this way of thinking. Have you ever lost your temper at an object? Usually it’s one that has let you down at a critical moment. The car that dies on the way to an important meeting, or more often in my case, the computer that crashes when you have not backed up your work. Anthropomorphism explains why you talk nicely, beg, then threaten machines when they act up. It’s just the natural way to interact with objects that seem purposeful. We know that talking to objects has absolutely no effect, but still we do it.
So the origins of supernatural beliefs are within every developing child.
…The philosopher David Hume wrote about mind design and supernatural beliefs and identified the same aspects of mind design more than two hundred years ago. Hume recognized the same childlike reasoning in adults when trying to make sense of the world. Adults too see a world of things that seem alive with human qualities.
There is a universal tendency among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every object those qualities, with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious. We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds; and by a natural propensity, if not corrected by experiences and reflection, ascribe malice and good-will to everything, that hurts or pleases us. Hence…trees, mountains and streams are personified, and the inanimate parts of nature acquire sentiment and passion.
From this perspective, we can see how an egocentric, category-confused child is going to hold beliefs that are the origins of adult supernaturalism. To begin, children have difficulty distinguishing between their own thoughts and those of others. [ specific backup is not offered for this. Hmmm.] the child who has an idea thinks that others share the same idea. Such a notion would be consistent with telepathy and other aspects of mind-melding. Also, children may think they can affect reality by thinking, which is the basis for psycho kinesis: the manipulation of physical objects by thought alone. Children report that certain rituals, like counting to ten, can influence future outcomes, which is equivalent to spells and superstitions. They also believe that certain objects have special powers and energies. This is sympathetic magical thinking that links objects by invisible connections. To top it all, children see life forces everywhere. Anyone holding such misconceptions could easily succumb to a supersense. This is why I think that adult supernaturalism is the residue of childhood misconceptions that had not been truly disposed of.
p 118
Our natural tendency to assume that people’s behaviors are motivated by minds allows us to predict what they might do next. This is what the philosopher Dan Dennett calls adopting “the intentional stance.” When we adopt the intentional stance, we detect others as agents. An agent here is not James Bond, but rather something that acts with purpose. We attribute beliefs and desires to agents, as well as some intelligence to achieve those goals. This could be an adaptive strategy to ensure that we are always on the lookout for potential prey and predators. By adopting the intentional stance, you are giving yourself the best chance in the arms race of existence to find food and avoid being eaten.
However, the trouble with assuming an intentional stance is that it can be wrongly triggered. Things that don’t have intentions but seem to—because they either look as if they are live (movements and faces) or behave as if they are alive( respond contingently)—make us think they are agents. We are inclined to think that they are purposeful and have minds.
p 119
The intentional stance is just a comfortable way of talking about and interacting with the natural and artificial world. But…this way of thinking emerges early and may support a supersense that there are secret agents operating throughout the world. It is supernatural because it represents the over-extension of the intentional stance from real agents with minds to objects that cannot have this kind of mental life…the very same processes that led us as babies to seek out potential agents in the world continue to fool us as adults into thinking that the world is populated with purposeful and willful inanimate objects.
p 130
Some people think that it might be possible to copy a body through some form of technology and possibly even duplicate a brain, but they are less likely to think that a mind could be similarly copied. Moreover, if we could download the mind into another brain most people assume that the identity associated with that brain would also change with the new mind. So we are naturally inclined to see minds as unique identities that can exist independently to the brain. If the distinction is drawn from an early age, it is easy to see that it leads us to the position that minds are not necessarily tethered to the physical brain. If this is so then the mind is not subject to the same destiny as our physical bodies. Such reasoning allows us to entertain the possibility that the mind can outlive the body.
p 131
Understanding the mechanics and inevitability of death does not get rid of the belief in the immortal soul. Religion and secular supernaturalism encourage such beliefs, but we must recognize that the concept of the immortal soul originates in the normal reasoning processes of every child.
p 163
biological explanations are too limited for explaining all the things we find disgusting. Rather, the answer must be some other mechanism that uses disgust responses for some other purpose. One possibility is that disgust works as a mechanism for social cohesion. To form a cohesive group we must have sets of rules, beliefs, and practices that define our group and that each member must agree to abide by. This is how one gang distinguishes itself from another. These are the moral codes of conduct found throughout the different cultures of the world. When these rules are violated, a taboo has been broken, and a negative emotional response must be triggered. The perpetrator must feel guilt, and the rest of us must punish that person. This is how justice works. The net effect is to strengthen the cohesion of the group.
Culturally defined taboos may engender social cohesion, but they are not based on any reason other than that they define the group. That is why whose individuals who are happy to touch a killer’s cardigan are outsiders. By taking a behavior and linking it to a visceral response, we can use disgust to control individual group members. We can also use disgust to ostracize others…when we say the peasants are revolting, we mean it in a disgusted way. It provides the emotional reason for treating them the way oppressors do. We can treat others badly who do not share our values because it feels right. And why does it feel right? I think that the answer is that a supersense of invisible properties operating in the world makes these feelings seem reasonable, and disgust is the negative consequence of violating out sacred values.
p 206
As we grow older we increasingly apply our developing intuitive essentialism [things having a core that defines their essence] to significant objects and living things in the world. I think this psychological essentialism is one of the main foundations of the universal supernatural belief that there is something more to reality. Where and when does this inclination to treat certain objects as special and irreplaceable first emerge? Remarkably, it may begin as early as in the crib.
p 212
Both good and evil are perceived to be tangible essences that can be transmitted through items of clothing and contaminate them, and this belief strengthens as we grow older.
p 221
…our brains have a mind design that leads us naturally to infer structures and patterns in the world and to make sense of it by generating intuitive theories. These intuitive theories create a supersense. I think this happens early in development even before culture can have its major influence.
p 232
The psychologist Jesse Bering thinks that the belief in ghosts and spirits may have evolved as a mechanism to make us behave ourselves when we think we are being watched. A guilty conscience works because it polices the way we behave, and if it can be easily triggered by the sense of others watching us, then we are more likely to act in a way that is for the benefit of the group. In the same way that students are less likely to cheat when told a ghost story, if we believe the ancestors are watching us, we are more likely to conform to society’s rules and regulations. Such a way of thinking, being advantageous to the group, would be likely to be passed on from one generation to the next.
p 242
The supersense we experience as adults is the remnant of the child’s intuitive reasoning system that incorrectly comes up with explanations that do not fit rational models of the world. One might assume that those prone to the supersense and belief in the paranormal are lacking in rational thought processes, but that would be too simplistic. Studies reveal that the two systems of thinking, the intuitive and the rational, coexist in the same individual. There are, in effect, two different ways of interpreting the world. In fact, when we measure reliance on intuition, no relationship has been found with intelligence. Intuitive people are not more stupid. They are, however, more prone to supernatural belief. One recent study found that mood is an important factor in triggering supernatural beliefs in those who score more highly on measures of intuition. For example, happy, intuitive adults are more likely to sit farther away from someone they believe is contaminated… they are also less able to throw darts at pictures of babies; this measure reflects the sympathetic magical law of similarity by which objects that resemble each other are believed to share a magical connection. Even though individuals may not be consciously aware of the thought processes guiding such behavior, these effects reveal a deep-seated notion of sympathetic magical reasoning. The supersense lingers in the backs of our minds, influencing our behaviors and thoughts, and our mood may play a triggering role. This explains why perfectly rational, highly educated individuals can still hold supernatural beliefs.
p 245
We may put away childish things…but we never entirely get rid of them. Education can give us a new understanding and even progress to s scientific viewpoint, but development, distress, damage and disease show that we keep many mental skeletons in our closet. If those misconceptions involve our understanding of the properties and limits of the material world, the living world, and the mental world, there is a good chance that they can form the basis of adult supernatural beliefs.
As children discover more about the real world, they should progress to a more scientific view of the world. Clearly, this does not necessarily happen, Most adults hold supernatural beliefs. The supersense continues to influence and operate in our lives. It may even give us a sense of control over our behaviors. …many of our actions…give us a psychological way of dealing with things. Without these beliefs, we may feel vulnerable. We may not even be aware that a supersense is influencing our lives, and yet it clearly does.
p 246
Even though humans have the capacity to reason and make judgments, I think we will always regard some things in life as not reducible to rational analysis. That is because society needs supernatural thinking as part of a belief system that holds members of a group together by sacred values.
P 250
Supernatural thinking is simply the natural consequence of failing to match our intuitions with the true reality of the world. What’s more, these misconceptions are not necessarily discarded over our lifetime. Even as adults we can simultaneously hold rational models of the world alongside our intuitive notions.
Sorry, I did not really write a full review of this, but I found a wealth of passages in the book that I found interesting.
P xiv
Humans are naturally inclined towards supernatural beliefs. Many highly educated and intelligent individuals experience a powerful sense that there are patterns, forces, energies, and entities operating in the world that are denied by science because they go beyond the boundaries of natural phenomena we currently understand.
In addition to the science content of the book in support of its central thesis, there is enough material here to supply several seasons of the X-Files or Fringe. (See Capgras – p 216, Cotard’s syndrome – p 217
p 54
…psychologist Martin Seligman…argues that humans are genetically wired to fear certain classes of things without the need for a lot of learning. Our species learned to be extra-sensitive to potential threats by natural selection. Maybe our prehistoric ancestors who were especially fearful of snakes and spiders passed that aspect of their personality on to their children through their genes. That would explain why the majority of phobias fit into a few categories that could have been sources or signals of potential danger, such as environment (open spaces, heights, dark places) animals (snakes, spiders) and animals that elicit disgust (rates, mice, maggots). There are few phobias of modern appliances because we simply have not had enough time to evolve wariness to threats like electric sockets.
So some fears seem to take root much more easily than others. Could this be true of other thoughts? Religious beliefs may be indoctrinated by associative learning in the same way phobias are, but like irrational fears, they may also build on our natural inclinations. This is because they fit well with our natural ways of thinking about the world—the mind design we have inherited through our genes. This may partly explain why supernatural beliefs are so earily accepted. They seem to fit with what we think is possible.
p 73
Knowledge generates beliefs, and …knowledge comes primarily from our intuitive reasoning…Only in the past fifty years have scientists really begun to appreciate how this thinking [children coming up with their own ideas independent of adult input] emerges in the growing child. …This is the main argument of the book: children generate knowledge through their own intuitive reasoning about the world around them, which leads them to both natural and supernatural beliefs.
P 83 – re behavioralism
By applying the learning rules of reinforcement and punishment, you can shape patterns of behavior. If you want to encourage behavior, give a reward, and an association will be strengthened. If you want to discourage behavior, give a punishment, and the association will be actively avoided. By linking together chains of behavior through punishment and reward, it was claimed, the laws of associative learning can shape any complex pattern, be it personality, skills, or even knowledge.
These laws were even believed to explain supernatural thinking. In what was one of the first experiments in irrational behavior, the Harvard behaviorist B. F. Skinner described in 1948 how he trained birds to act superstitiously. He achieved this with a laboratory box that was wired to give out rewards randomly. For example, if the bird happened to be pecking at some part of the cage when the pellet was delivered, it soon learned to repeat this behavior. Skinner argued that this simple principle could explain the origins of human superstitious rituals. Like pigeons, tennis players and gamblers seek to reproduce success by repeating behaviors that happened at the time of a reward.
P 96
When does supernatural thinking first appear? …Children chop the world of experience up into different categories of things and events. To make sense of it all they generate naïve theories that explain the physical world, the living world, and eventually the psychological world of other people. While children’s naïve theories are often correct, they can be wrong because the causes and mechanisms they are trying to reason about are invisible. For example, no one can see gravity but you assume something makes objects fall straight down if they are released… Sometimes living things do not move, and sometimes moving things are not alive. When we misapply the property of one natural kind to another, we are thinking unnaturally. If we continue to believe it is true, then our thinking has become supernatural. This where I think our supersense comes from.
P 97
Children…attribute purpose to everything in the world by assuming things were made for a reason. The sun was made for me. This is not surprising considering that modern children are immersed in a world of artifacts that have been designed and made for a reason. Young children do not readily make the distinction between things that have been created for a purpose and those that just happen to be useful for a purpose. For example, if I can use a stick for prodding, I may be inclined to see sticks as having a purpose. In other words sticks exist as something for me to use.
This way of thinking leads the child to what has been called “promiscuous teleology.” Teleology means thinking in terms of function—what something has been designed for. This way of thinking is promiscuous because the child over-applies the belief of purpose and function to everything. For example, there are 101 ways to travel down a hillside including walking, skipping, running, roller-blading, skateboarding, sledging, skiing, trail-biking, Zorb-balling, and so on. But no adult would make the mistake of saying that the hill exists because of any of these different activities. Children, on the other hand, say that hillsides are for rolling down and so on.
p 98
..children are also prone to anthropomorphism. Which means that they think about nonhuman things as if they were human. It’s easy to see this with pets and dolls, which children are encouraged to treat as human. However, children might also think that a burning chair feels pain or that a bicycle aches after being kicked, and because of their egocentrism, they misapply this view to everything, including inanimate objects.
Even adults easily slip into this way of thinking. Have you ever lost your temper at an object? Usually it’s one that has let you down at a critical moment. The car that dies on the way to an important meeting, or more often in my case, the computer that crashes when you have not backed up your work. Anthropomorphism explains why you talk nicely, beg, then threaten machines when they act up. It’s just the natural way to interact with objects that seem purposeful. We know that talking to objects has absolutely no effect, but still we do it.
So the origins of supernatural beliefs are within every developing child.
…The philosopher David Hume wrote about mind design and supernatural beliefs and identified the same aspects of mind design more than two hundred years ago. Hume recognized the same childlike reasoning in adults when trying to make sense of the world. Adults too see a world of things that seem alive with human qualities.
There is a universal tendency among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every object those qualities, with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious. We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds; and by a natural propensity, if not corrected by experiences and reflection, ascribe malice and good-will to everything, that hurts or pleases us. Hence…trees, mountains and streams are personified, and the inanimate parts of nature acquire sentiment and passion.
From this perspective, we can see how an egocentric, category-confused child is going to hold beliefs that are the origins of adult supernaturalism. To begin, children have difficulty distinguishing between their own thoughts and those of others. [ specific backup is not offered for this. Hmmm.] the child who has an idea thinks that others share the same idea. Such a notion would be consistent with telepathy and other aspects of mind-melding. Also, children may think they can affect reality by thinking, which is the basis for psycho kinesis: the manipulation of physical objects by thought alone. Children report that certain rituals, like counting to ten, can influence future outcomes, which is equivalent to spells and superstitions. They also believe that certain objects have special powers and energies. This is sympathetic magical thinking that links objects by invisible connections. To top it all, children see life forces everywhere. Anyone holding such misconceptions could easily succumb to a supersense. This is why I think that adult supernaturalism is the residue of childhood misconceptions that had not been truly disposed of.
p 118
Our natural tendency to assume that people’s behaviors are motivated by minds allows us to predict what they might do next. This is what the philosopher Dan Dennett calls adopting “the intentional stance.” When we adopt the intentional stance, we detect others as agents. An agent here is not James Bond, but rather something that acts with purpose. We attribute beliefs and desires to agents, as well as some intelligence to achieve those goals. This could be an adaptive strategy to ensure that we are always on the lookout for potential prey and predators. By adopting the intentional stance, you are giving yourself the best chance in the arms race of existence to find food and avoid being eaten.
However, the trouble with assuming an intentional stance is that it can be wrongly triggered. Things that don’t have intentions but seem to—because they either look as if they are live (movements and faces) or behave as if they are alive( respond contingently)—make us think they are agents. We are inclined to think that they are purposeful and have minds.
p 119
The intentional stance is just a comfortable way of talking about and interacting with the natural and artificial world. But…this way of thinking emerges early and may support a supersense that there are secret agents operating throughout the world. It is supernatural because it represents the over-extension of the intentional stance from real agents with minds to objects that cannot have this kind of mental life…the very same processes that led us as babies to seek out potential agents in the world continue to fool us as adults into thinking that the world is populated with purposeful and willful inanimate objects.
p 130
Some people think that it might be possible to copy a body through some form of technology and possibly even duplicate a brain, but they are less likely to think that a mind could be similarly copied. Moreover, if we could download the mind into another brain most people assume that the identity associated with that brain would also change with the new mind. So we are naturally inclined to see minds as unique identities that can exist independently to the brain. If the distinction is drawn from an early age, it is easy to see that it leads us to the position that minds are not necessarily tethered to the physical brain. If this is so then the mind is not subject to the same destiny as our physical bodies. Such reasoning allows us to entertain the possibility that the mind can outlive the body.
p 131
Understanding the mechanics and inevitability of death does not get rid of the belief in the immortal soul. Religion and secular supernaturalism encourage such beliefs, but we must recognize that the concept of the immortal soul originates in the normal reasoning processes of every child.
p 163
biological explanations are too limited for explaining all the things we find disgusting. Rather, the answer must be some other mechanism that uses disgust responses for some other purpose. One possibility is that disgust works as a mechanism for social cohesion. To form a cohesive group we must have sets of rules, beliefs, and practices that define our group and that each member must agree to abide by. This is how one gang distinguishes itself from another. These are the moral codes of conduct found throughout the different cultures of the world. When these rules are violated, a taboo has been broken, and a negative emotional response must be triggered. The perpetrator must feel guilt, and the rest of us must punish that person. This is how justice works. The net effect is to strengthen the cohesion of the group.
Culturally defined taboos may engender social cohesion, but they are not based on any reason other than that they define the group. That is why whose individuals who are happy to touch a killer’s cardigan are outsiders. By taking a behavior and linking it to a visceral response, we can use disgust to control individual group members. We can also use disgust to ostracize others…when we say the peasants are revolting, we mean it in a disgusted way. It provides the emotional reason for treating them the way oppressors do. We can treat others badly who do not share our values because it feels right. And why does it feel right? I think that the answer is that a supersense of invisible properties operating in the world makes these feelings seem reasonable, and disgust is the negative consequence of violating out sacred values.
p 206
As we grow older we increasingly apply our developing intuitive essentialism [things having a core that defines their essence] to significant objects and living things in the world. I think this psychological essentialism is one of the main foundations of the universal supernatural belief that there is something more to reality. Where and when does this inclination to treat certain objects as special and irreplaceable first emerge? Remarkably, it may begin as early as in the crib.
p 212
Both good and evil are perceived to be tangible essences that can be transmitted through items of clothing and contaminate them, and this belief strengthens as we grow older.
p 221
…our brains have a mind design that leads us naturally to infer structures and patterns in the world and to make sense of it by generating intuitive theories. These intuitive theories create a supersense. I think this happens early in development even before culture can have its major influence.
p 232
The psychologist Jesse Bering thinks that the belief in ghosts and spirits may have evolved as a mechanism to make us behave ourselves when we think we are being watched. A guilty conscience works because it polices the way we behave, and if it can be easily triggered by the sense of others watching us, then we are more likely to act in a way that is for the benefit of the group. In the same way that students are less likely to cheat when told a ghost story, if we believe the ancestors are watching us, we are more likely to conform to society’s rules and regulations. Such a way of thinking, being advantageous to the group, would be likely to be passed on from one generation to the next.
p 242
The supersense we experience as adults is the remnant of the child’s intuitive reasoning system that incorrectly comes up with explanations that do not fit rational models of the world. One might assume that those prone to the supersense and belief in the paranormal are lacking in rational thought processes, but that would be too simplistic. Studies reveal that the two systems of thinking, the intuitive and the rational, coexist in the same individual. There are, in effect, two different ways of interpreting the world. In fact, when we measure reliance on intuition, no relationship has been found with intelligence. Intuitive people are not more stupid. They are, however, more prone to supernatural belief. One recent study found that mood is an important factor in triggering supernatural beliefs in those who score more highly on measures of intuition. For example, happy, intuitive adults are more likely to sit farther away from someone they believe is contaminated… they are also less able to throw darts at pictures of babies; this measure reflects the sympathetic magical law of similarity by which objects that resemble each other are believed to share a magical connection. Even though individuals may not be consciously aware of the thought processes guiding such behavior, these effects reveal a deep-seated notion of sympathetic magical reasoning. The supersense lingers in the backs of our minds, influencing our behaviors and thoughts, and our mood may play a triggering role. This explains why perfectly rational, highly educated individuals can still hold supernatural beliefs.
p 245
We may put away childish things…but we never entirely get rid of them. Education can give us a new understanding and even progress to s scientific viewpoint, but development, distress, damage and disease show that we keep many mental skeletons in our closet. If those misconceptions involve our understanding of the properties and limits of the material world, the living world, and the mental world, there is a good chance that they can form the basis of adult supernatural beliefs.
As children discover more about the real world, they should progress to a more scientific view of the world. Clearly, this does not necessarily happen, Most adults hold supernatural beliefs. The supersense continues to influence and operate in our lives. It may even give us a sense of control over our behaviors. …many of our actions…give us a psychological way of dealing with things. Without these beliefs, we may feel vulnerable. We may not even be aware that a supersense is influencing our lives, and yet it clearly does.
p 246
Even though humans have the capacity to reason and make judgments, I think we will always regard some things in life as not reducible to rational analysis. That is because society needs supernatural thinking as part of a belief system that holds members of a group together by sacred values.
P 250
Supernatural thinking is simply the natural consequence of failing to match our intuitions with the true reality of the world. What’s more, these misconceptions are not necessarily discarded over our lifetime. Even as adults we can simultaneously hold rational models of the world alongside our intuitive notions.
September 4, 2016
SuperSense: Why We Believe in the Unbelievable by Bruce M. Hood
“SuperSense" is the engaging, fascinating book about the origins of supernatural beliefs, why they are so common, and why they may be so difficult to get rid of. It’s a popular science book that is a lot to fun to read and ultimately enlightening. Dr. Bruce Hood uses modern psychology, cognitive neuroscience and an entertaining prose to entertain the masses in this wonderful and at times enthralling read. This 320-page book is composed of the following ten chapters: 1. What Secret Do John McEnroe and David Beckham Share?, 2. Could You Wear a Killer’s Cardigan?, 3. Who Created Creationism?, 4. Blooming, Bussing Babies, 5. Mind Reading, 6. Freak Accidents, 7. Would You Willingly Receive a Heart Transplant from a Murderer?, 8. Why Do Traveling Salesman Sleep with Teddy Bears?, 9. The Biology of Belief, and 10. Would You Let Your Wife Sleep with Robert Redford?
Positives:
1. Fascinating topic in the hands of a master storyteller.
2. Great popular science book that is a treat to read while educational at the same time. The author does a wonderful job of intermixing sound science with an interesting narrative, and a bit of humor too for good measure.
3. Thought-provoking questions and answers based on sound science.
4. Neuroscience and psychology made fun.
5. Supersense defined. Religion, paranormal activity, and wishful thinking; the three points on a continuum of supernatural thinking.
6. So many great examples and some bordering on the bizarre but always interesting. Hood “exposes a wide range of human beliefs and behavior that go beyond traditional notions of the supernatural”.
7. Great quotes abound, “Supernatural beliefs are a product of natural thinking”.
8. A lot of the studies depicted in this book have to do with child development and cognitive neuroscience, one of the author’s areas of expertise.
9. So much wisdom in one book. “We either accept ideas or reject them, but seldom do we consider why”.
10. One of the most compelling themes in this book is why it is easier for people to believe in the supernatural over natural explanations. Mind design and natural selection is our designer.
11. The beliefs behind superstitious practices. Vegas will never be the same.
12. Interesting looks at faulty reasoning. The reliance of unconscious inferences.
13. Interesting studies of the brain are found throughout this fascinating book. The things that make us human.
14. In defense of science…”the bedrock of our knowledge and wisdom”. The difference between supernatural and scientific beliefs. The contrast between creationist and the scientific theory of evolution.
15. An absorbing look at religion, “All religions are based on supernatural beliefs, but not all supernatural beliefs are based on religion”. The number one reason why people believe in the supernatural.
16. Evolution it does a species good.
17. Interesting look at how we generate beliefs. Many fascinating studies involving newborns and children.
18. Mind reading…theory of mind. The intentional stance. The chemicals involved oxytocin as an example. The illusion of free will and the soul. Great stuff!
19. Homeopathy the supernatural quackery to real medicine.
20. Bizarre beliefs a fascinating look.
21. Essential reasoning, psychological essentialism. So many great examples, some involving art.
22. Interesting look at bizarre disorders.
23. The biology of belief. Common supersenses like the sense of being stared at. Confirmation bias.
24. Neurotransmitter systems.
25. The future of supernatural beliefs.
Negatives:
1. Links did not work.
2. This book will cause cognitive dissonance to most likely theists.
3. Having to buy extra copies for relatives and friends.
In summary, I really enjoyed this book. There are certain books I connect better than others and this is one of them. A great mix of psychology, neuroscience, evolution and fascinating cases that makes this book a joy to read. This is an excellent popular science book that addresses supernatural beliefs and it did so to my satisfaction. I highly recommend it!
Further suggestions: “Subliminal” by by Leonard Mlodinow, “Immortality” by Stephen Cave, "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths..." by Michael Shermer, "The Scientific American Brave New Brain: How Neuroscience, Brain-Machine Interfaces, Neuroimaging, Psychopharmacology, Epigenetics, the Internet, and ... and Enhancing the Future of Mental Power..." by Judith Horstman, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker, “Who’s in Charge?” and "Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique, by Michael S. Gazzaniga, "Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality" by Laurence Tancredi, "Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality" by Patricia S. Churchland, “Paranormality” by Richard Wiseman, “The Myth of Free Will” by Cris Evatt, and "The Brain and the Meaning of Life" by Paul Thagard.
“SuperSense" is the engaging, fascinating book about the origins of supernatural beliefs, why they are so common, and why they may be so difficult to get rid of. It’s a popular science book that is a lot to fun to read and ultimately enlightening. Dr. Bruce Hood uses modern psychology, cognitive neuroscience and an entertaining prose to entertain the masses in this wonderful and at times enthralling read. This 320-page book is composed of the following ten chapters: 1. What Secret Do John McEnroe and David Beckham Share?, 2. Could You Wear a Killer’s Cardigan?, 3. Who Created Creationism?, 4. Blooming, Bussing Babies, 5. Mind Reading, 6. Freak Accidents, 7. Would You Willingly Receive a Heart Transplant from a Murderer?, 8. Why Do Traveling Salesman Sleep with Teddy Bears?, 9. The Biology of Belief, and 10. Would You Let Your Wife Sleep with Robert Redford?
Positives:
1. Fascinating topic in the hands of a master storyteller.
2. Great popular science book that is a treat to read while educational at the same time. The author does a wonderful job of intermixing sound science with an interesting narrative, and a bit of humor too for good measure.
3. Thought-provoking questions and answers based on sound science.
4. Neuroscience and psychology made fun.
5. Supersense defined. Religion, paranormal activity, and wishful thinking; the three points on a continuum of supernatural thinking.
6. So many great examples and some bordering on the bizarre but always interesting. Hood “exposes a wide range of human beliefs and behavior that go beyond traditional notions of the supernatural”.
7. Great quotes abound, “Supernatural beliefs are a product of natural thinking”.
8. A lot of the studies depicted in this book have to do with child development and cognitive neuroscience, one of the author’s areas of expertise.
9. So much wisdom in one book. “We either accept ideas or reject them, but seldom do we consider why”.
10. One of the most compelling themes in this book is why it is easier for people to believe in the supernatural over natural explanations. Mind design and natural selection is our designer.
11. The beliefs behind superstitious practices. Vegas will never be the same.
12. Interesting looks at faulty reasoning. The reliance of unconscious inferences.
13. Interesting studies of the brain are found throughout this fascinating book. The things that make us human.
14. In defense of science…”the bedrock of our knowledge and wisdom”. The difference between supernatural and scientific beliefs. The contrast between creationist and the scientific theory of evolution.
15. An absorbing look at religion, “All religions are based on supernatural beliefs, but not all supernatural beliefs are based on religion”. The number one reason why people believe in the supernatural.
16. Evolution it does a species good.
17. Interesting look at how we generate beliefs. Many fascinating studies involving newborns and children.
18. Mind reading…theory of mind. The intentional stance. The chemicals involved oxytocin as an example. The illusion of free will and the soul. Great stuff!
19. Homeopathy the supernatural quackery to real medicine.
20. Bizarre beliefs a fascinating look.
21. Essential reasoning, psychological essentialism. So many great examples, some involving art.
22. Interesting look at bizarre disorders.
23. The biology of belief. Common supersenses like the sense of being stared at. Confirmation bias.
24. Neurotransmitter systems.
25. The future of supernatural beliefs.
Negatives:
1. Links did not work.
2. This book will cause cognitive dissonance to most likely theists.
3. Having to buy extra copies for relatives and friends.
In summary, I really enjoyed this book. There are certain books I connect better than others and this is one of them. A great mix of psychology, neuroscience, evolution and fascinating cases that makes this book a joy to read. This is an excellent popular science book that addresses supernatural beliefs and it did so to my satisfaction. I highly recommend it!
Further suggestions: “Subliminal” by by Leonard Mlodinow, “Immortality” by Stephen Cave, "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths..." by Michael Shermer, "The Scientific American Brave New Brain: How Neuroscience, Brain-Machine Interfaces, Neuroimaging, Psychopharmacology, Epigenetics, the Internet, and ... and Enhancing the Future of Mental Power..." by Judith Horstman, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker, “Who’s in Charge?” and "Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique, by Michael S. Gazzaniga, "Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality" by Laurence Tancredi, "Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality" by Patricia S. Churchland, “Paranormality” by Richard Wiseman, “The Myth of Free Will” by Cris Evatt, and "The Brain and the Meaning of Life" by Paul Thagard.
January 16, 2020
This was way better than I expected it to be. Author Bruce M. Hood is a very knowledgeable guy, and the book contains a ton of super-interesting information.
I was unfamiliar with him, and a quick google search told me that he's an "experimental psychologist who specializes in developmental cognitive neuroscience." Well, that explains a few things.
"The Science of Superstition" covers many different kinds of magical thinking, or "supersense" (which is also the alternative title of the book). Hood explores many different kinds of intuitive magical thinking in here; everything from religion and creation myths to phobias, to charms and talismans, among others.
Here is a good quote from near the end of the book, which ties things together pretty nicely:
"Psychologists have come to the conclusion that there are at least two different systems operating when it comes to thinking and reasoning.54 One system is believed to be evolutionarily more ancient in terms of human development; it has been called intuitive, natural, automatic, heuristic, and implicit. It’s the system that we think is operating in young children before they reach school age.
The second system is one that is believed to be more recent in human evolution; it permits logical reasoning but is limited by executive functions. It requires working memory, planning, inhibition, and evaluation. This second reasoning system has been called conceptual-logical, analytical-rational, deliberativeeffortful- intentional-systematic, and explicit. It emerges much later in development and underpins the capacity of the child to perform logical, rational problem-solving. When we reason about the world using these two systems, they may sometimes work in competition with each other."
The book is very well researched and written.
I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in social psychology and psychology in general.
4.5 stars, rounded up to 5.
I was unfamiliar with him, and a quick google search told me that he's an "experimental psychologist who specializes in developmental cognitive neuroscience." Well, that explains a few things.
"The Science of Superstition" covers many different kinds of magical thinking, or "supersense" (which is also the alternative title of the book). Hood explores many different kinds of intuitive magical thinking in here; everything from religion and creation myths to phobias, to charms and talismans, among others.
Here is a good quote from near the end of the book, which ties things together pretty nicely:
"Psychologists have come to the conclusion that there are at least two different systems operating when it comes to thinking and reasoning.54 One system is believed to be evolutionarily more ancient in terms of human development; it has been called intuitive, natural, automatic, heuristic, and implicit. It’s the system that we think is operating in young children before they reach school age.
The second system is one that is believed to be more recent in human evolution; it permits logical reasoning but is limited by executive functions. It requires working memory, planning, inhibition, and evaluation. This second reasoning system has been called conceptual-logical, analytical-rational, deliberativeeffortful- intentional-systematic, and explicit. It emerges much later in development and underpins the capacity of the child to perform logical, rational problem-solving. When we reason about the world using these two systems, they may sometimes work in competition with each other."
The book is very well researched and written.
I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in social psychology and psychology in general.
4.5 stars, rounded up to 5.
June 2, 2020
This took me forever to read. I couldn't figure out why.
Despite the fact it is about a subject that interests me -- why people believe the things we do, why our illogical phobias, why we get "squicked out" over certain things, and what purpose all the superstitions, irrational phobias and illogical beliefs might serve -- in spite of that, I couldn't get into this book. I found it all too easy to put down in favor of anything else. I couldn't figure out why.
Finally, after three separate attempts to read it and countless weeks of dragging myself back to the pages with this last attempt, long after finishing it became a task rather than an interest, I can finally count it as read. And, damn it, it feels like I should have something relevant or at least informative to say about it. I don't.
Perhaps the most helpful thing I can offer is to suggest you go read the author's bio here on Goodreads. Unless he changes it for some reason after I type this, that bio is written in pretty much the same style as this book. If you find his profile engaging, you might like this book better than I did. If you find yourself wondering if he ever stops rambling and ever makes a hard point or why he wrote it, then you might want to skip the book.
Despite the fact it is about a subject that interests me -- why people believe the things we do, why our illogical phobias, why we get "squicked out" over certain things, and what purpose all the superstitions, irrational phobias and illogical beliefs might serve -- in spite of that, I couldn't get into this book. I found it all too easy to put down in favor of anything else. I couldn't figure out why.
Finally, after three separate attempts to read it and countless weeks of dragging myself back to the pages with this last attempt, long after finishing it became a task rather than an interest, I can finally count it as read. And, damn it, it feels like I should have something relevant or at least informative to say about it. I don't.
Perhaps the most helpful thing I can offer is to suggest you go read the author's bio here on Goodreads. Unless he changes it for some reason after I type this, that bio is written in pretty much the same style as this book. If you find his profile engaging, you might like this book better than I did. If you find yourself wondering if he ever stops rambling and ever makes a hard point or why he wrote it, then you might want to skip the book.
March 8, 2021
Superstition is a by-product of pattern recognition bugs in our psychology due to our perilous evolutionary history. It is worse to make a type II error about the tiger in the bush than a type I about the rustling of the wind. So we as result have overactive agency detection. Add to that that find in signal in noise led to rewards so to detect patterns even if they don't make apparent sense is a handy cognitive tool. Put things like this together and you get a kludgy human psychology that helps one navigate the world passably but with a lot of bugs superstition being one of them and religious thought and its accouterments. Not bad. Worth a look.
May 27, 2011
I’ve always enjoyed vigorous debate with those who don’t share my particular spiritual point of view. While none of the people I’ve had good conversations with have fit into the most extreme fundamentalist brackets, I have noticed that more evangelical Christians seem to enjoy a kind of thinking that is circular at best. I try not to just write these people off out of hand. Their experiences are unknown to me and there may be very good and rational explanations for their unshakable faith.
Well, it turns out there are!
At the core of Bruce M. Hood’s engaging and amusing book is the idea that we are biologically inclined toward supernatural thought. One of the many quirks of human thinking that makes us so vastly superior to thinking engines is our instinctive urge to group our experiences. We see patterns everywhere. If you’ve ever caught yourself staring at a monochrome tiled floor, engrossed in the patterns your eye produces, you know what Hood is talking about. This ability is critical in our thinking process as it allows us to jump to conclusions about similar items and make educated guesses (hypotheses) about the world around us.
Hood argues that this same kind of thinking is at work in supernatural belief. We have hundreds of supernatural beliefs that influence our actions, whether we admit it or not. From superstitions involving ladders, mirrors or salt, to social taboos and personal rituals, we are hardwired to take comfort in repeated patterns and behaviors. It isn’t uncommon to find out that your friends have little good luck items or practices but very few of us recognize these behaviors as supernatural. But the step from good luck rituals to religious rites isn’t very big. They’re all examples of us repeating unrelated events to try to ensure a better outcome, or avoid a negative one.
As a prelude, Hood talks about a lecture he gave where he produced a sweater and asked for volunteers from the audience to try it on. He then explained that the sweater belonged to Fred West, a contemporary British serial killer. Hood marked a dramatic decrease in volunteers every time he explained the (false) origin of the sweater. The stunt bought him a great deal of attention, and when he was invited to give a seminar at a convention, he was received complaints about the demonstration. Even though the artifact was a fake, people still had a problem with the very idea that the sweater could have been worn by a serial killer.
The point here is that we attribute all sorts of qualities to the things around us that have nothing to do with reality. Not wanting to wear a serial killer’s sweater is exactly the same as the fervent belief that the bones of saints or fragments of their clothing have miraculous properties. We grant a measure of the owner to the possession. This and a hundred other little examples create a compelling rational explanation for all sorts of supernatural beliefs.
Hood explains his supersense with wit and alacrity. The book reads quickly and smoothly and spends a fair amount of time entertaining us with jokes and asides. At no point does Hood condemn either the supersense, or religion. He is just explaining some of the biological and psychological facts that underlie our cognitive structure. We are designed to seek meaning and pattern, so is it all that surprising that a great deal of human time and energy is dedicated to the grandest meaning we can reach for? These same tools have enabled great thinkers to reach lofty scientific heights, when backed by logic and method. He does comment on the attractiveness of religious thought to the developing minds of children and notes how kids raised in fundamentalist environments have more difficulty discerning the difference between a fact and a belief. But even these cautions don’t read as chastisements.
The Science of Superstition is exactly that; a scientific exploration of the structures that give rise to supernatural thought. It doesn’t try to tell us that we are weaker for our quirks, or that only science and logic hold the answers to rationality. It is an excellent read and one that I’d recommend to anyone trying to come to grips with their personal spirituality or lack thereof.
Well, it turns out there are!
At the core of Bruce M. Hood’s engaging and amusing book is the idea that we are biologically inclined toward supernatural thought. One of the many quirks of human thinking that makes us so vastly superior to thinking engines is our instinctive urge to group our experiences. We see patterns everywhere. If you’ve ever caught yourself staring at a monochrome tiled floor, engrossed in the patterns your eye produces, you know what Hood is talking about. This ability is critical in our thinking process as it allows us to jump to conclusions about similar items and make educated guesses (hypotheses) about the world around us.
Hood argues that this same kind of thinking is at work in supernatural belief. We have hundreds of supernatural beliefs that influence our actions, whether we admit it or not. From superstitions involving ladders, mirrors or salt, to social taboos and personal rituals, we are hardwired to take comfort in repeated patterns and behaviors. It isn’t uncommon to find out that your friends have little good luck items or practices but very few of us recognize these behaviors as supernatural. But the step from good luck rituals to religious rites isn’t very big. They’re all examples of us repeating unrelated events to try to ensure a better outcome, or avoid a negative one.
As a prelude, Hood talks about a lecture he gave where he produced a sweater and asked for volunteers from the audience to try it on. He then explained that the sweater belonged to Fred West, a contemporary British serial killer. Hood marked a dramatic decrease in volunteers every time he explained the (false) origin of the sweater. The stunt bought him a great deal of attention, and when he was invited to give a seminar at a convention, he was received complaints about the demonstration. Even though the artifact was a fake, people still had a problem with the very idea that the sweater could have been worn by a serial killer.
The point here is that we attribute all sorts of qualities to the things around us that have nothing to do with reality. Not wanting to wear a serial killer’s sweater is exactly the same as the fervent belief that the bones of saints or fragments of their clothing have miraculous properties. We grant a measure of the owner to the possession. This and a hundred other little examples create a compelling rational explanation for all sorts of supernatural beliefs.
Hood explains his supersense with wit and alacrity. The book reads quickly and smoothly and spends a fair amount of time entertaining us with jokes and asides. At no point does Hood condemn either the supersense, or religion. He is just explaining some of the biological and psychological facts that underlie our cognitive structure. We are designed to seek meaning and pattern, so is it all that surprising that a great deal of human time and energy is dedicated to the grandest meaning we can reach for? These same tools have enabled great thinkers to reach lofty scientific heights, when backed by logic and method. He does comment on the attractiveness of religious thought to the developing minds of children and notes how kids raised in fundamentalist environments have more difficulty discerning the difference between a fact and a belief. But even these cautions don’t read as chastisements.
The Science of Superstition is exactly that; a scientific exploration of the structures that give rise to supernatural thought. It doesn’t try to tell us that we are weaker for our quirks, or that only science and logic hold the answers to rationality. It is an excellent read and one that I’d recommend to anyone trying to come to grips with their personal spirituality or lack thereof.
February 11, 2010
I could never understand why normal, educated folks like myself could possibly believe in such strange things like ghosts, good luck charms, ESP, an afterlife, and a host of other supernatural events. For the first time EVER, I finally found someone who could explain such things in a reasonable, well thought out and at times, humorous way. And it is the most obvious of reasons, one that is right under our noses (literally!), a look at the world through a child's eyes and mind.
I enjoyed the book enough that I am doing a second read immediately after I just finished it. I cannot remember doing THAT in a long, long time!
If nothing else, it is a great conversational topic. My college going son and I spent a enjoyable trip back to school going through some of the topics where neither of us remember the driving part at all.
I enjoyed the book enough that I am doing a second read immediately after I just finished it. I cannot remember doing THAT in a long, long time!
If nothing else, it is a great conversational topic. My college going son and I spent a enjoyable trip back to school going through some of the topics where neither of us remember the driving part at all.
February 13, 2016
Nonsense on stilts.
This is a book by a skeptic, though he moderates the skeptical philosophy somewhat. He argues that beliefs in what he calls the supernatural--though it's not at all clear what this term means--are inherent to the human condition. Science can help us progress, but we cannot completely eradicate these vestiges, and they might even provide a (Darwinian) adaptive role in the species survival.
So, he hates on supernaturalism, mostly, but admits its here to stay.
In itself, these ideas aren't horrible, though they lack a lot of support and are, themselves, archaic to the point of embarrassment in understanding the relationship between modernity, science, and superstition. It's not the thesis, limited and repeated ad nauseum, that's such a problem, but the mode of argument, the lapses in logic, and the lack of evidence: it's an attack on anything other than complete acceptance of the scientific world view as irrational while using irrational, anecdotal, evidence.
The basis of the argument is that humans and "primitives"--ontology recapitulates phylogeny, don't ya know? Cutting edge biology in 1880 must still be right!--both make sense of a world they do not rationally understand using mental equipment with which they were born. This mental equipment finds patterns and make assumptions, often supernatural--there's a innate tendency toward creationism, he says, for example. As we grow, the bets of us throw of these beliefs, but not completely, so there is always a irrational residue in us.
The next problem, beyond that foundational one, is that in Hood's hands everything which is not vetted by science is necessarily supernatural. Because (some!) scientists do not accept mind-brain dualism, the fact that laypeople do mans they are being supernatural and risk believing in secular supernatural phenomena such as ESP. And you can see right there the problem--I do not believe in ESP, but those who do need not invoke supernatural explanations. There could be perfectly natural causes of it. And that error is repeated throughout. Apartheid came from supernatural beliefs in contagion, he argues, which is so ridiculous as to refute it.
The problem, he says, is only getting worse, as people today except supernatural essentialism--this is what drives them to hate GMOs, not possible material side effects, but their residual, supernatural belief in the inviolability of natural categories. And they mistrust science not because of the things scientists have done--bombs, DDT--nor because science has become politicized, in part by the scientists themselves--nor because of the shifting and often contradictory nature of scientific conclusions--but because science has ruined their supernatural beliefs.
Which, you know, is so much bullshit I could smell it as I read it.
But supernatural residuals are not all bad, though it drags down science and slows progress. (He argues, with a straight face, that one of the defining differences between science and superstition is that science is progressive and superstition stagnant, unchanging! The man has never opened a history book in his life.) The supernatural does allow us to see as important things that, logically, we might not otherwise accept: sociability, objets d'art, important political documents. And these allow our societies to cohere. There's an adaptive reason for supernaturalism!
Which, if you look at the obverse, is a pretty horrific line of argument. Essentially, Hood is saying that if we were all perfectly advanced, scientifically rational humans freed of our supernatural vestiges, we would be . . . Ayn Rand. Selfish. Unworried about anyone else. Pure logic leads to pure avarice, ego.
This claim is a rather large one, but the evidence does not hold up. He has a few studies here and there of questionable merit, a lot (lot, lot, lot) of "I believe"s as though that should be convincing, and laughable gaps of logic. People innately turn to creationism, he says, because their minds looks for teleology, patterns, and causality--but pattern and causality are central to evolutionary thinking, too, and more than one scientific evolutionist has been tempted by teleology.
Toward the end, he even tries to suggest that there are biochemical differences between skeptics and those still in thrall with scientific thinking, something about dopamine receptors. But it's all speculative hogwash. Indeed, much earlier in the book, he borrowed, without attribution, Malinowski's theory that magical thinking is a way of imagining control over an otherwise uncontrollable situation. Since he does not separate magic from supernaturalism--really poor reasoning--he thinks supernatural belief serves a similar function.
It is not hard to apply this exact same thought to Hood himself. He has no idea what separates believers from skeptics--a ridiculous categorization at any rate--and so he invokes his own magical reasoning. Little bits of dopamine and dopamine receptors inside the human body control whether you are rational, like him, or still beholden to zombie ideas, controlled by your unrefined rationality.
Thinking doesn't get much more magical than that.
This is a book by a skeptic, though he moderates the skeptical philosophy somewhat. He argues that beliefs in what he calls the supernatural--though it's not at all clear what this term means--are inherent to the human condition. Science can help us progress, but we cannot completely eradicate these vestiges, and they might even provide a (Darwinian) adaptive role in the species survival.
So, he hates on supernaturalism, mostly, but admits its here to stay.
In itself, these ideas aren't horrible, though they lack a lot of support and are, themselves, archaic to the point of embarrassment in understanding the relationship between modernity, science, and superstition. It's not the thesis, limited and repeated ad nauseum, that's such a problem, but the mode of argument, the lapses in logic, and the lack of evidence: it's an attack on anything other than complete acceptance of the scientific world view as irrational while using irrational, anecdotal, evidence.
The basis of the argument is that humans and "primitives"--ontology recapitulates phylogeny, don't ya know? Cutting edge biology in 1880 must still be right!--both make sense of a world they do not rationally understand using mental equipment with which they were born. This mental equipment finds patterns and make assumptions, often supernatural--there's a innate tendency toward creationism, he says, for example. As we grow, the bets of us throw of these beliefs, but not completely, so there is always a irrational residue in us.
The next problem, beyond that foundational one, is that in Hood's hands everything which is not vetted by science is necessarily supernatural. Because (some!) scientists do not accept mind-brain dualism, the fact that laypeople do mans they are being supernatural and risk believing in secular supernatural phenomena such as ESP. And you can see right there the problem--I do not believe in ESP, but those who do need not invoke supernatural explanations. There could be perfectly natural causes of it. And that error is repeated throughout. Apartheid came from supernatural beliefs in contagion, he argues, which is so ridiculous as to refute it.
The problem, he says, is only getting worse, as people today except supernatural essentialism--this is what drives them to hate GMOs, not possible material side effects, but their residual, supernatural belief in the inviolability of natural categories. And they mistrust science not because of the things scientists have done--bombs, DDT--nor because science has become politicized, in part by the scientists themselves--nor because of the shifting and often contradictory nature of scientific conclusions--but because science has ruined their supernatural beliefs.
Which, you know, is so much bullshit I could smell it as I read it.
But supernatural residuals are not all bad, though it drags down science and slows progress. (He argues, with a straight face, that one of the defining differences between science and superstition is that science is progressive and superstition stagnant, unchanging! The man has never opened a history book in his life.) The supernatural does allow us to see as important things that, logically, we might not otherwise accept: sociability, objets d'art, important political documents. And these allow our societies to cohere. There's an adaptive reason for supernaturalism!
Which, if you look at the obverse, is a pretty horrific line of argument. Essentially, Hood is saying that if we were all perfectly advanced, scientifically rational humans freed of our supernatural vestiges, we would be . . . Ayn Rand. Selfish. Unworried about anyone else. Pure logic leads to pure avarice, ego.
This claim is a rather large one, but the evidence does not hold up. He has a few studies here and there of questionable merit, a lot (lot, lot, lot) of "I believe"s as though that should be convincing, and laughable gaps of logic. People innately turn to creationism, he says, because their minds looks for teleology, patterns, and causality--but pattern and causality are central to evolutionary thinking, too, and more than one scientific evolutionist has been tempted by teleology.
Toward the end, he even tries to suggest that there are biochemical differences between skeptics and those still in thrall with scientific thinking, something about dopamine receptors. But it's all speculative hogwash. Indeed, much earlier in the book, he borrowed, without attribution, Malinowski's theory that magical thinking is a way of imagining control over an otherwise uncontrollable situation. Since he does not separate magic from supernaturalism--really poor reasoning--he thinks supernatural belief serves a similar function.
It is not hard to apply this exact same thought to Hood himself. He has no idea what separates believers from skeptics--a ridiculous categorization at any rate--and so he invokes his own magical reasoning. Little bits of dopamine and dopamine receptors inside the human body control whether you are rational, like him, or still beholden to zombie ideas, controlled by your unrefined rationality.
Thinking doesn't get much more magical than that.
March 28, 2010
Hood, a cognitive neuroscientist, pulls together common experience and neuroscience to paint an enlightening picture of how and why we tend to hold supernatural ideas. He explains how children develop theories about how the world works, and shows that adults retain and use those intuitions along with rational thought.
One form of intuitive thinking is the concept that things have non-physical properties that make them unique. For example, objects owned by a celebrity are valued because of that association, regardless of the fact that the object was completely unaffected by the celebrity ownership. Living things are also considered to have an identity independent of their bodies, which results in belief in ghosts and spirits.
Two related natural intuitive thinking processes are observing patterns and identifying things by placing them in categories. These develop early in childhood, and are very useful throughout life. They enable us to make quick judgments which are usually accurate. Our intuitive thinking is so reliable, however, that we have difficulty disregarding it when we are presented with good evidence that it is incorrect in some cases.
Hood concludes by suggesting a subtle benefit of supernatural thinking which may help to explain why it persists in our genetic makeup. He points out that it offers support for values which are considered sacred by a group, thus promoting group cohesion.
Until I read this book, I believed that supernatural beliefs were merely ideas that were handed down from each generation to the next and accepted unquestioningly because of respect for the authority of parents and other teachers. This book showed me that intuitive beliefs that incline to the supernatural are developed naturally in childhood and continue to influence our thinking throughout life. It helps me to be more sympathetic toward people who resist questioning of religious ideas.
One form of intuitive thinking is the concept that things have non-physical properties that make them unique. For example, objects owned by a celebrity are valued because of that association, regardless of the fact that the object was completely unaffected by the celebrity ownership. Living things are also considered to have an identity independent of their bodies, which results in belief in ghosts and spirits.
Two related natural intuitive thinking processes are observing patterns and identifying things by placing them in categories. These develop early in childhood, and are very useful throughout life. They enable us to make quick judgments which are usually accurate. Our intuitive thinking is so reliable, however, that we have difficulty disregarding it when we are presented with good evidence that it is incorrect in some cases.
Hood concludes by suggesting a subtle benefit of supernatural thinking which may help to explain why it persists in our genetic makeup. He points out that it offers support for values which are considered sacred by a group, thus promoting group cohesion.
Until I read this book, I believed that supernatural beliefs were merely ideas that were handed down from each generation to the next and accepted unquestioningly because of respect for the authority of parents and other teachers. This book showed me that intuitive beliefs that incline to the supernatural are developed naturally in childhood and continue to influence our thinking throughout life. It helps me to be more sympathetic toward people who resist questioning of religious ideas.
February 5, 2018
Overall, a good book. Sort of hard to get into, as I was for some reason thinking more about the supernatural - ghosts, UFOS, all that sort of thing. But I truly ended up like this. Has some very deep concepts, but I see where the author is going with them.
..."the widening gap between scientists and the general public when it comes to understanding. We are happy to accept the technologies that emerge from science, like the Internet, cell phones, medicines, and so on, but we remain generally ignorant about how science goes about its business. Second, science has a poor public relations image. Ever since scientists were deemed to be tinkering with Mother Nature, they have been held responsible for all sorts of humankind's problems."
"...I cannot easily accept that all living organisms have evolved from the same origin. I simply cannot see how I am related to the furry green mold growing on the cheese in my fridge...Much harder to accept is that we also share 50 percent of our genetic makeup with a banana. I may feel that some of my fellow humans have the intelligence of a banana, but to fully accept that all life is related by the same basic genetic building blocks is beyond belief."
"Maybe this is where our sense of authenticity comes from, because around the same time children begin to appreciate that certain objects said to belong to significant others have an intrinsic value over and above their material worth." - might explain some hoarding tendencies?
..."the widening gap between scientists and the general public when it comes to understanding. We are happy to accept the technologies that emerge from science, like the Internet, cell phones, medicines, and so on, but we remain generally ignorant about how science goes about its business. Second, science has a poor public relations image. Ever since scientists were deemed to be tinkering with Mother Nature, they have been held responsible for all sorts of humankind's problems."
"...I cannot easily accept that all living organisms have evolved from the same origin. I simply cannot see how I am related to the furry green mold growing on the cheese in my fridge...Much harder to accept is that we also share 50 percent of our genetic makeup with a banana. I may feel that some of my fellow humans have the intelligence of a banana, but to fully accept that all life is related by the same basic genetic building blocks is beyond belief."
"Maybe this is where our sense of authenticity comes from, because around the same time children begin to appreciate that certain objects said to belong to significant others have an intrinsic value over and above their material worth." - might explain some hoarding tendencies?
February 6, 2012
I picked up this book because my sister checked it out from the library one week, and seeing a book titled "The Science of Superstition", I expected nothing less than science, sort of like a Discovery-channel type of thing, in this case a look into superstitions. What I got instead was highly opinionated philosophy presented in a very condescending, matter-of-fact attitude. I did not read the entire book, I'll admit, but I read from a few different chapters. The author's attitude rubbed me the wrong way, as I did not like his smug, know-it-all tone throughout much of the book. Although there is truth that I (and maybe others) agree with or can't deny and some real facts and statistics in the book, the overall content is mostly opinion from a seemingly close-minded individual.
One thing that bothered me is that he dismissed creationism as merely a figment of human imagination--which is understandable for an evolutionist--but also asserts that "evolution is a fact". Last time I checked, it was the THEORY of evolution, not the fact of evolution. It's only his opinion that it's a fact, because despite being a widely-supported theory, it is not indisputable fact. A person who believes it's fact does so b/c of their own personal philosophy--same with any other form of belief or theory.
If this book was supposed to be a journal of opinions, then the title must be very misleading. What he considers science is his opinion, and if the book was supposed to be about science, then he should of at least tried to be more objective--some of his opinions are offensive, and not just b/c he doesn't believe in religion either. If he wanted to write a commentary on his perspective and ideology, then he should not have used such a misleading title.
Another thing I found weird was when he quoted an analogy from another scientist, it was something about "chopping down/destroying the forests of spirituality w/ the chainsaws of reason". Now, if you want to make an argument for your ideology, wouldn't you want to present it as something 'constructive' rather than 'destructive'? That quote only turned me off from his philosophy even more, and I'm sure it might put off others as well. Whatever happened to religious tolerance? I agree with freedom of speech, and I also agree that we are allowed to disagree. I for one disagree with his opinions and how he delivers them. So much for getting straight facts from a doctor...
I will say that the author was not entirely arrogant, as he did refer to astrophysicists that he felt made him look like an idiot, and he mentioned scientists that do believe in a religion or God/a god. I like at least one of his anecdotes about stepping on a dead cat as a child--which was really gross, but what's funny about it is that he's been turned off from rice pudding ever since (and his purpose for that anecdote, I'm sure, had to do with the psychology theories he went into detail about). I also liked his explanation of a presentation that included the coat of a mass-murderer, and why most people are disgusted by something like that--like I said, there is some truth and fact in this piece of work, but the rest was the opposite of science and fact, which I expected, but didn't get enough of.
What also bothered me was the way he describes humans as though we were meant to be mechanical, or void of emotion (he may not have written that directly, but that's how it came across), and that's one thing that bothers me about most evolutionists, they don't talk about people as people, they talk about them as beasts, or something simpler than that--having little respect for people as individuals, but instead possessing a devalued and degraded outlook on human beings. I understand the theory of evolution and the many explanations and pieces of evidence that go with it, and why so many people agree with it, I'm not ignorant, I'm just saying that I disagree with that view of humans very much--and I don't have to agree with it. One thing I noticed is that the author says life was not created, it was 'designed'. Now, if I know the correct definition, a design must have a designer, so if he's trying to say there is no creator or designer and everything happens at random, then the word 'design' is not the correct word to use (maybe he meant a metaphor of nature? But this author doesn't come across as being very figurative, so I doubt it. I think it was a misuse of a word, to say the least).
In short, unless you like opinionated people who act as thought they know everything and/or anti-religious rants in place of REAL science, then don't bother reading this. Find a real science book, one that considers ALL of the evidence, or at least most of it, with little biased interference as possible--that is, if you want textbook-style explanations. I expected from reading the title some history and insight into common superstitions, backed by scientific evidence to disprove them, but instead I got a heap of condescending, anti-religion, know-it-all opinion. If that was supposed to be the content, then perhaps this book should have gotten a different title, something that says "A doctor's opinion on superstition"--if he really equates superstition w/ religion--rather than "THE science of superstition". I learned my lesson, we all have been told not to judge a book by it's cover, but now I learned not to put all my trust into the title of a book either. What a disappointment.
One thing that bothered me is that he dismissed creationism as merely a figment of human imagination--which is understandable for an evolutionist--but also asserts that "evolution is a fact". Last time I checked, it was the THEORY of evolution, not the fact of evolution. It's only his opinion that it's a fact, because despite being a widely-supported theory, it is not indisputable fact. A person who believes it's fact does so b/c of their own personal philosophy--same with any other form of belief or theory.
If this book was supposed to be a journal of opinions, then the title must be very misleading. What he considers science is his opinion, and if the book was supposed to be about science, then he should of at least tried to be more objective--some of his opinions are offensive, and not just b/c he doesn't believe in religion either. If he wanted to write a commentary on his perspective and ideology, then he should not have used such a misleading title.
Another thing I found weird was when he quoted an analogy from another scientist, it was something about "chopping down/destroying the forests of spirituality w/ the chainsaws of reason". Now, if you want to make an argument for your ideology, wouldn't you want to present it as something 'constructive' rather than 'destructive'? That quote only turned me off from his philosophy even more, and I'm sure it might put off others as well. Whatever happened to religious tolerance? I agree with freedom of speech, and I also agree that we are allowed to disagree. I for one disagree with his opinions and how he delivers them. So much for getting straight facts from a doctor...
I will say that the author was not entirely arrogant, as he did refer to astrophysicists that he felt made him look like an idiot, and he mentioned scientists that do believe in a religion or God/a god. I like at least one of his anecdotes about stepping on a dead cat as a child--which was really gross, but what's funny about it is that he's been turned off from rice pudding ever since (and his purpose for that anecdote, I'm sure, had to do with the psychology theories he went into detail about). I also liked his explanation of a presentation that included the coat of a mass-murderer, and why most people are disgusted by something like that--like I said, there is some truth and fact in this piece of work, but the rest was the opposite of science and fact, which I expected, but didn't get enough of.
What also bothered me was the way he describes humans as though we were meant to be mechanical, or void of emotion (he may not have written that directly, but that's how it came across), and that's one thing that bothers me about most evolutionists, they don't talk about people as people, they talk about them as beasts, or something simpler than that--having little respect for people as individuals, but instead possessing a devalued and degraded outlook on human beings. I understand the theory of evolution and the many explanations and pieces of evidence that go with it, and why so many people agree with it, I'm not ignorant, I'm just saying that I disagree with that view of humans very much--and I don't have to agree with it. One thing I noticed is that the author says life was not created, it was 'designed'. Now, if I know the correct definition, a design must have a designer, so if he's trying to say there is no creator or designer and everything happens at random, then the word 'design' is not the correct word to use (maybe he meant a metaphor of nature? But this author doesn't come across as being very figurative, so I doubt it. I think it was a misuse of a word, to say the least).
In short, unless you like opinionated people who act as thought they know everything and/or anti-religious rants in place of REAL science, then don't bother reading this. Find a real science book, one that considers ALL of the evidence, or at least most of it, with little biased interference as possible--that is, if you want textbook-style explanations. I expected from reading the title some history and insight into common superstitions, backed by scientific evidence to disprove them, but instead I got a heap of condescending, anti-religion, know-it-all opinion. If that was supposed to be the content, then perhaps this book should have gotten a different title, something that says "A doctor's opinion on superstition"--if he really equates superstition w/ religion--rather than "THE science of superstition". I learned my lesson, we all have been told not to judge a book by it's cover, but now I learned not to put all my trust into the title of a book either. What a disappointment.
August 4, 2020
A detailed book on the essence of things, the lack of any scientific data on its actual existence but the importance of that to humans from early on. Covers many studies done with children of different ages showing the development of the brain that attributes these extra characteristics to inanimate objects or allows for differentiation between animate and inanimate objects. Interesting overall, but perhaps somewhat repetitive at times? It's a book everyone should be able to relate to one way or another though.
March 5, 2013
What a very interesting book on superstition. This book is about the natural "sense" we have that attributes supernatural elements to our lives despite all of our scientific advances. It comes from our incredible ability, our "supersense", in recognizing patterns and inferring cause and effect. We are so good at it that we attribute cause to an effect even when it doesn't really exist. This supersense is also what allows us to have more cohesive relationships, but we have to be careful, too, that we don't let our abilities make us attribute supernatural causes just because we detect patterns or because one incident follows another. The professor who wrote this book originally drew attention from a demonstration he did in his class:
He took a pen, which he said had been Albert Einstein's, and distributed it around the room. People wanted to touch it, and many were in awe. Then, he took a sweater, which he said had been a serial killer's, and asked who would be willing to wear it. As you could probably guess, not many would.
He took a pen, which he said had been Albert Einstein's, and distributed it around the room. People wanted to touch it, and many were in awe. Then, he took a sweater, which he said had been a serial killer's, and asked who would be willing to wear it. As you could probably guess, not many would.
October 5, 2013
I was not much impressed by this one. The author understands and does a good job of explaining the cognitive mechanisms that cause humans to develop religious beliefs and other superstitions, but he makes the whole book foolish by claiming that these irrational beliefs are somehow necessary to human culture and society. As he puts it, "These beliefs and sacred values are essential in binding us together as a society because they help us to see ourselves connected to each other at a deeper level." He offers no evidence to support this hypothesis -- and ignores data provided by many successful and thoroughly secular human societies in which people are "connected to each other" at a level that appears adequately "deep," without the need for religion or other superstitious beliefs.
January 25, 2011
Frankly, this book pissed me off! Scientists seem to forget that science is simply one form of knowledge and that it is merely a lens for reality. Evolutionary theories are certainly valid, but you have to remember that these are made post hoc and cannot be tested in the same way that other scientific theories can. This book does bring up some interesting points about why we are inclined to believe in the supernatural, however, it is important to keep in mind that before gravity was scientifically "proven" to exists, it would have also been considered a supernatural belief! This book pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with science as a discipline. Take it with a grain of salt!
September 3, 2009
This book was absolutely phenomenal. Steven Pinker says, "An intriguing look at a feature of the human mind that is subtle in its operation but profound in its consequences."
Some may know that my Minor in college at U.C. Davis was Psychology, and I recall several of the experiments referred to in this book, but in Supersense, many events receive clarity like never before. The book delves into not only our human beliefs, but WHY we believe the way we do. And you don't need a college education to understand.
Some may know that my Minor in college at U.C. Davis was Psychology, and I recall several of the experiments referred to in this book, but in Supersense, many events receive clarity like never before. The book delves into not only our human beliefs, but WHY we believe the way we do. And you don't need a college education to understand.
January 12, 2017
General interest book
Decided to read simply because of my thirst for general , sometimes , useless information. Unfortunately i was unable to really get involved with this book. Started reading a few times and put down. Wish i could explain why but it just couldn't hold my interest long enough to read straight thru. Not a bad book, but glad i didn't pay retail for it. You may feel entirely different. One of those.
Decided to read simply because of my thirst for general , sometimes , useless information. Unfortunately i was unable to really get involved with this book. Started reading a few times and put down. Wish i could explain why but it just couldn't hold my interest long enough to read straight thru. Not a bad book, but glad i didn't pay retail for it. You may feel entirely different. One of those.
December 21, 2019
Entertaining, interesting, totally atheistic, and utterly repetitive — read chapters 1 - 3 and then skip to the last two.
My biggest beef is that I don’t think I ever actually noticed the conclusions that Hood mentioned at the beginning once I got to the end... He seems to say that SuperSense is an innate part of humanity — dominion something that will never go away — and possibly even integral to creativity — but it seems to me that he kind of wishes it would.
My biggest beef is that I don’t think I ever actually noticed the conclusions that Hood mentioned at the beginning once I got to the end... He seems to say that SuperSense is an innate part of humanity — dominion something that will never go away — and possibly even integral to creativity — but it seems to me that he kind of wishes it would.
June 25, 2012
I like this book a lot because it understands that we don't have to be
a) religious or
b) atheists
Many of us, like myself, consider ourselves spiritual - but don't adhere to a specific religion. This book remains on my active Kindle list as I want to re-read and make notes. Recommended for those thinking about faith and who might sit on the margins themselves.
a) religious or
b) atheists
Many of us, like myself, consider ourselves spiritual - but don't adhere to a specific religion. This book remains on my active Kindle list as I want to re-read and make notes. Recommended for those thinking about faith and who might sit on the margins themselves.
December 29, 2016
The information is mostly interesting, but it could have done with a much more brutal editor. He waffles quite a lot, and when you're rehashing things that a lot of people have already said, finding a new way to say it can be very important.
May 13, 2015
The theory that our Brain is designed to believe in supersense is believable.
October 4, 2018
Muddleheaded non sense "thinking" marked by vagueness and illogical jumps.
A lot of "I think X", "I believe Y." So? Why would I care? Show your workings, "pal". There's too much of "Scientists who added X to petri dish killed cancer cells" and of poorly phrased questions directed at young children. I have never believed in a single one of his ten phenomena on pg 50. Yet he insists.
An aversion to wearing a murderer's cardigan and the appeal of playing Lennon's piano are simply not "supernatural". They work more like mantras: By repetition, a word or phrase becomes associated with a feeling, which feeling can be evoked at a desired time by repeating the mantra, or playing the piano. No "essences" need be posited. That associations of disgust need only be made once, just shows a higher trainability for disgust-"mantras". Unless Hood wishes to insist that Pavlov's dogs determined the bells to be imbued with "the essence of food"?
He claims that children naturally intuit "creationism". But what he unaccountably calls "creationism" (and I'll simply accept his reports of these studies at face value) is that they intuit STASIS as opposed to CHANGE of species. Which isn't creationism as such. He seems to be ignorant of the existence of creationists who accept some degree of change over time, not to mention the fact that the "official doctrine" of the Vatican is that after YHWH set things off, she let natural selection take its course - bar one bit of interference involving "the soul" (thus in fact making this something other than actual, bona fide evolution) - both instances being of "ACTUAL" creation. Though stasis is what he calls creationism, he also mentions that some of the children claim that "God" started things off, but he shows no curiosity as to where they got that word from, ie why they didn't arbitrarily invoke Noddy, Mr. Bean, Eric Clapton, or others. When he goes on to say that older children abandon "spontaneous" biogenesis, it doesn't occur to him that this means, not that they have reasoned their way TOWARD "God", but that they have realized, presumably due to accumulated experiences, that things don't happen "spontaneously". ie, I am claiming that children's reasoning has IMPROVED - notwithstanding recourse to a culturally acquired word ("God") in areas where they lack experiences from which they can reason for themselves. And I would suggest that without the word "God" in cultural circulation, they would fall back on "I don't know" in stead. Given the limited data available to a child, I would say that stasis is the more reasonable conclusion. Most importantly, a belief that species remain static is not supernatural, but MISTAKEN.
What a pathetically mistaken "understanding" of the antipathy to replications...
The closest item I saw in support of his views was where one third of children interpreted hamster-cloning "dualistically". Interestingly, though Hood mentioned that two thirds of the children were non-dualistic, he promptly "forgot" them...
Sheldrake. lol
A read such as to quite put me off livi... errr, readi..., READING. This is not the time and place for me to address the book more thoroughly, but all in all I conclude that Hood's "supersense" is itself supernatural, ie non-existent.
A lot of "I think X", "I believe Y." So? Why would I care? Show your workings, "pal". There's too much of "Scientists who added X to petri dish killed cancer cells" and of poorly phrased questions directed at young children. I have never believed in a single one of his ten phenomena on pg 50. Yet he insists.
An aversion to wearing a murderer's cardigan and the appeal of playing Lennon's piano are simply not "supernatural". They work more like mantras: By repetition, a word or phrase becomes associated with a feeling, which feeling can be evoked at a desired time by repeating the mantra, or playing the piano. No "essences" need be posited. That associations of disgust need only be made once, just shows a higher trainability for disgust-"mantras". Unless Hood wishes to insist that Pavlov's dogs determined the bells to be imbued with "the essence of food"?
He claims that children naturally intuit "creationism". But what he unaccountably calls "creationism" (and I'll simply accept his reports of these studies at face value) is that they intuit STASIS as opposed to CHANGE of species. Which isn't creationism as such. He seems to be ignorant of the existence of creationists who accept some degree of change over time, not to mention the fact that the "official doctrine" of the Vatican is that after YHWH set things off, she let natural selection take its course - bar one bit of interference involving "the soul" (thus in fact making this something other than actual, bona fide evolution) - both instances being of "ACTUAL" creation. Though stasis is what he calls creationism, he also mentions that some of the children claim that "God" started things off, but he shows no curiosity as to where they got that word from, ie why they didn't arbitrarily invoke Noddy, Mr. Bean, Eric Clapton, or others. When he goes on to say that older children abandon "spontaneous" biogenesis, it doesn't occur to him that this means, not that they have reasoned their way TOWARD "God", but that they have realized, presumably due to accumulated experiences, that things don't happen "spontaneously". ie, I am claiming that children's reasoning has IMPROVED - notwithstanding recourse to a culturally acquired word ("God") in areas where they lack experiences from which they can reason for themselves. And I would suggest that without the word "God" in cultural circulation, they would fall back on "I don't know" in stead. Given the limited data available to a child, I would say that stasis is the more reasonable conclusion. Most importantly, a belief that species remain static is not supernatural, but MISTAKEN.
What a pathetically mistaken "understanding" of the antipathy to replications...
The closest item I saw in support of his views was where one third of children interpreted hamster-cloning "dualistically". Interestingly, though Hood mentioned that two thirds of the children were non-dualistic, he promptly "forgot" them...
Sheldrake. lol
A read such as to quite put me off livi... errr, readi..., READING. This is not the time and place for me to address the book more thoroughly, but all in all I conclude that Hood's "supersense" is itself supernatural, ie non-existent.
May 18, 2017
Came to the library for homework and not surprisingly ended up spending half the day on the first appealing book I found. The writer is not the most logically strong explainer but he still delivered really interesting findings. Main takeaways so far: 1. Our brain is born to make sense of things even when there is no sense to be made. 2. When two things happen in sequence, we automatically believe the first one causes the second, which, in many cases of course, is wrong. 3. We think that when we learn new things that prove our old notions wrong, we would abandon our old mistaken ideas. Truth is we may never be able to entirely get rid of them. Our superstitious behaviors present good example of it. 4. People usually exaggerate the chances of coincidence like meeting someone having the same birthday at a party. While statistics show the chance's actually high enough that it's not even mentionable thing.
It seems the author is trying to show us we really shouldn't be so indulged in our superstitious beliefs made out from things we personable can't explain or force our own understandings on. It's a good point but I still need much more to be convinced. Will keep on reading and update my review.
It seems the author is trying to show us we really shouldn't be so indulged in our superstitious beliefs made out from things we personable can't explain or force our own understandings on. It's a good point but I still need much more to be convinced. Will keep on reading and update my review.
December 15, 2019
Why do we believe what we do? As a materialist it is hard to understand why we as humans would believe in outside unseen forces that could affect us for good or bad. Hood presents the idea that through our own evolution as a species, our brains have become hard wired for superstition. Read along with Hood's incredible investigation on the self, these ideas have major ramifications for who we are personally and as a species. Hood never entertains the idea that any of these things are real, but makes a case for the universal belief in these sorts of things, removing judgement of those with belief. I was surprised to see Hood stating that the book might not be for everyone, and that he even thought certain people (skeptics) wouldn't even read a book like that. I completely disagree, finding the work fascinating and revelatory. I feel everyone could gain some sort of insight from this book. While it isn't as mind blowing and life changing as Self Illusion is, this one is highly recommended and cements Hood as one of my new favorite writers of pop-psych and philosophy.
January 27, 2023
This book was more compelling, but also less fun, than I expected. Hood highlights a very interesting question: Why do so many of us have so many superstitious beliefs? In an era of science, education and deep skepticism, where do all these patently implausible convictions come from? Hood makes a supremely compelling case that our brains are wired for it, that they are so good at finding patterns that we convince ourselves they are everywhere, even where none exist. In essence, it's a funny side effect of our evolutionarily advantageous observational skills. Similar to how our ancestors found it highly advantageous to walk on two legs, rather than four - but along with that, they inherited a quarry-load of back pain. Superstition and religion are the back pain of the pattern-seeking mind. Hood's writing is clear, sober and good natured, which enhances his persuasiveness, but too often it's also placid and dry. Recommended for content, though, for sure.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews