PDA

View Full Version : Religion and Reason (Psychology Today)



Flying Orca
04-30-2012, 12:23 PM
I thought this was interesting:


Your answer to the following riddle can predict whether you are a believer in religion (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/religion) or a disbeliever:


Q: If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?


A: If you answered $10 you are inclined to believe in religion. If you answered $5 you are inclined to disbelieve.


Why? Because, according to new research reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, the $10 answer indicates that you are an intuitive thinker, and the $5 answer indicates that you solve problems analytically, rather than following your gut instinct.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201204/religion-and-reason

Pretty general, and no mention of the degree of correlation; I'd like to know more. What do you think?

JimD
04-30-2012, 12:34 PM
A religious person would make up a ridiculous fairy tale about where the bat and ball came from in the first place. A non religious person would admit that ultimately, s/he doesn't know where they came from. But that doesn't mean s/he'd accept a silly child's story in lieu of a proper answer.

BrianY
04-30-2012, 01:02 PM
I've got no problem with the notion that in general people disposed to analytic thinking are inclinded to be less religious than those not so inclined as this has been confirmed by my own expereince and observation over my lifetime.

I do however have a problem with the idea that a baseball bat costs that much. THAT'S outrageous!

bobbys
04-30-2012, 01:40 PM
I don't get why anybody came up with 5 bucks instead of 10....

Flying Orca
04-30-2012, 01:47 PM
I don't get why anybody came up with 5 bucks instead of 10....

Oh, bobbys... math not your forte?

bobbys
04-30-2012, 01:53 PM
Oh, bobbys... math not your forte?.

No i get the math its just im a Fanatic!

David G
04-30-2012, 02:21 PM
My first answer was $10... just with a quick glance. Then I put pencil to paper. My answer is 'indeterminate'.

bs... do really not see how one of the correct answers could be $5? Or $10?

ron ll
04-30-2012, 02:25 PM
I don't get why anybody came up with 5 bucks instead of 10....

My god (so to speak). I'm starting to see why religion may exist. :D

Flying Orca
04-30-2012, 02:37 PM
Sigh... Total cost $110, bat costs $100 more than ball. Cost of ball = x, cost of bat = x+100, x + x + 100 = 110. 2x = 110-100 = 10. X = $5.

Concordia 33
04-30-2012, 02:52 PM
I said $10 but not because I am an intuitive thinker, but rather because I have ADHD and missed that the $110 was for the bat AND the ball. Had I caught this small detail I would have arrived at the correct $5 answer. Does this mean that everyone with ADHD believes in religion, or does this test also screen for ADHD?

Flying Orca
04-30-2012, 02:55 PM
I said $10 but not because I am an intuitive thinker, but rather because I have ADHD and missed that the $110 was for the bat AND the ball. Had I caught this small detail I would have arrived at the correct $5 answer. Does this mean that everyone with ADHD believes in religion, or does this test also screen for ADHD?

I suggest reading the article. Actually, I'd like to read the original paper, but that doesn't seem to be available from the magazine site. (ETA - it's in the current Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493), but I don't subscribe, my dad doesn't subscribe anymore, and everything but the abstract is behind a paywall. Bummer.)

Rich Jones
04-30-2012, 02:58 PM
I still don't get it. My head hurts when trying to do any math. Maybe this is why I so love religion.

Horace
04-30-2012, 03:00 PM
I said $10 but not because I am an intuitive thinker, but rather because I have ADHD and missed that the $110 was for the bat AND the ball. Had I caught this small detail I would have arrived at the correct $5 answer. Does this mean that everyone with ADHD believes in religion, or does this test also screen for ADHD?It doesn't explain Pascal, either.

Flying Orca
04-30-2012, 03:04 PM
It doesn't explain Pascal, either.

Ah... presumably, the correlation is less than 1. ;)

stevebaby
04-30-2012, 03:04 PM
Sigh... Total cost $110, bat costs $100 more than ball. Cost of ball = x, cost of bat = x+100, x + x + 100 = 110. 2x = 110-100 = 10. X = $5.
"x + x + 100 = 110. 2x = 110-100 = 10."
Why is the cost of 2 balls shown (x+x) when the total cost is for 1 ball and 1 bat?

Cost of ball=x,cost of bat and ball= 100, x+100=110, 110-100=10...looks better to me. What am I missing here?

ron ll
04-30-2012, 03:05 PM
I suggest reading the article. Actually, I'd like to read the original paper, but that doesn't seem to be available from the magazine site. (ETA - it's in the current Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493), but I don't subscribe, my dad doesn't subscribe anymore, and everything but the abstract is behind a paywall. Bummer.)

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20&%20Norenzayan%202012%20Science-%20Analytic%20Thinking.pdf

Concordia 33
04-30-2012, 03:11 PM
"x + x + 100 = 110. 2x = 110-100 = 10."
Why is the cost of 2 balls shown (x+x) when the total cost is for 1 ball and 1 bat?

Cost of ball=x,cost of bat and ball= 100, x+100=110, 110-100=10...looks better to me. What am I missing here?

The Price of the Ball is 'X'
The Bat is 'x+100'
The price of the ball AND bat is 'X+(X+100)'
X+(X+100)= $110 in the example - when you solve for "X" as describe above, you get $5 does that help?

TomF
04-30-2012, 03:11 PM
I'm an intuitive thinker, and have some ADHD symptoms. While I got the math, it didn't feel right. :D

What the article says, of course, is that it's a test for analytic/intuitive thinking, and it carefully says that one isn't better than the other. But intuitively (!) one discounts that last statement ... because the example the writers chose showed analytical thinking gave the "correct" answer ... leaving the intuitives muddling about and cursing algebra. Maybe cursing God.

Before I believe that they don't rank analysis above intuition, I want an analytic thinker to give an example where intuition "wins" instead - leaving the analytics feeling bereft.

The other bit I'd want to see, of course, is the strength of the correlation between intuition/analysis and belief/disbelief in God. And some exploration of whether the conclusion either way made both analytic and intuitive sense, if both analysis/intuition are equally valuable ...

Horace
04-30-2012, 03:13 PM
Ah... presumably, the correlation is less than 1. ;)Oh my.


"x + x + 100 = 110. 2x = 110-100 = 10."
Why is the cost of 2 balls shown (x+x) when the total cost is for 1 ball and 1 bat?

Cost of ball=x,cost of bat and ball= 100, x+100=110, 110-100=10...looks better to me. What am I missing here?Double, oh my.

ron ll
04-30-2012, 03:18 PM
Oh my.

Double, oh my.

And I'll second your double oh my. Even on an intuitive level WITHOUT the algebra, the ball costs $5! Why this discussion has lasted this long goes a long way to explaining religion. :)

Flying Orca
04-30-2012, 03:20 PM
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20&%20Norenzayan%202012%20Science-%20Analytic%20Thinking.pdf (http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/%7Ewill/Gervais%20&%20Norenzayan%202012%20Science-%20Analytic%20Thinking.pdf)

Awesome, thanks!

stevebaby
04-30-2012, 03:21 PM
Oh my.

Double, oh my.So...if the ball costs $5, and the bat costs $100, the total cost is $105?

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 03:22 PM
"x + x + 100 = 110. 2x = 110-100 = 10."
Why is the cost of 2 balls shown (x+x) when the total cost is for 1 ball and 1 bat?

Cost of ball=x,cost of bat and ball= 100, x+100=110, 110-100=10...looks better to me. What am I missing here?

Perhaps this formulation will make it clear for you:

Total cost of bat and ball = $110.

The bat costs $100 more than ball.

Cost of ball = x

Cost of bat = x + $100

So: x + (x + $100) = $110

Solve for x...

2x = $110 - $100

x = 10/2

x = $5.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-30-2012, 03:23 PM
So...if the ball costs $5, and the bat costs $100, the total cost is $105?

The ball costs $5 the Bat costs $105 - geddit.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 03:28 PM
So...if the ball costs $5, and the bat costs $100, the total cost is $105?

No. The total cost is $110. The ball costs $5. The bat costs $100 more than the ball... $105.

stevebaby
04-30-2012, 03:29 PM
Perhaps this formulation will make it clear for you:

Total cost of bat and ball = $110.

The bat costs $100 more than ball.

Cost of ball = x

Cost of bat = x + $100

So: x + (x + $100) = $110

Solve for x...

2x = $110 - $100

x = 10/2

x = $5.That makes more sense. Thank you Tom.

Flying Orca
04-30-2012, 03:29 PM
It doesn't explain Pascal, either.


Ah... presumably, the correlation is less than 1. ;)


Oh my.

I'm not sure how to take your response. I presumed you were referring to Blaise Pascal, seminal mathematician and famous religious apologist of a little piece of illogical "reasoning" commonly called Pascal's Wager. I further presumed that you seemed to be implying that a counterexample (religious mathematician) rendered the paper's conclusions incorrect. That might be the case with a perfect correlation (hence my reference to "1"), but with a less than perfect correlation (<1) it would not.

Y Bar Ranch
04-30-2012, 03:52 PM
Before I believe that they don't rank analysis above intuition, I want an analytic thinker to give an example where intuition "wins" instead - leaving the analytics feeling bereft.

There's a whole field of study on how experts make decisions using intuition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_decision-making

Horace
04-30-2012, 03:54 PM
Ah... presumably, the correlation is less than 1. ;)Oh my.

"x + x + 100 = 110. 2x = 110-100 = 10."
Why is the cost of 2 balls shown (x+x) when the total cost is for 1 ball and 1 bat?

Cost of ball=x,cost of bat and ball= 100, x+100=110, 110-100=10...looks better to me. What am I missing here?Double, oh my.Want to revisit this one?:
If even the lower figure of "2.1 million" defensive gun uses were accurate, then as Australia has a population 1/15 of the US, we should have 1/15 the number of defensive gun uses i.e 140,000 per year. Since we don't carry guns for self defence, those non occurring defensive uses should be an extra 140,000 deaths or serious injuries a year, or 383 extra deaths or serious injuries a DAY.
But we don't. We don't even have that many murders in a year.
It's s lie.
I'm not sure how to take your response. I presumed you were referring to Blaise Pascal, seminal mathematician and famous religious apologist of a little piece of illogical "reasoning" commonly called Pascal's Wager. I further presumed that you seemed to be implying that a counterexample (religious mathematician) rendered the paper's conclusions incorrect. That might be the case with a perfect correlation (hence my reference to "1"), but with a less than perfect correlation (<1) it would not.Oh, thank you. If it's still a burning issue in a couple of hours, I'll respond, although these things generally work themselves out in short order. In the meantime, there's a hint in the above. Hasta luego.

pefjr
04-30-2012, 03:55 PM
Nope, The ball musta been cheap, at .75. The bat , musta been a good bat at $100.75. The sale tax was $8.50. Total $110.

Flying Orca
04-30-2012, 03:58 PM
There's a whole field of study on how experts make decisions using intuition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_decision-making

And this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_fast_and_slow), which was referenced here in the Bilge not long ago. I was intrigued enough to order it and I look forward to reading it.

Flying Orca
04-30-2012, 04:00 PM
Want to revisit this one?: (a bunch of quotes with no apparent connection) Oh, thank you. If it's still a burning issue in a couple of hours, I'll respond, although these things generally work themselves out in short order. In the meantime, there's a hint in the above. Hasta luego.

You're not making any kind of sense here.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 04:07 PM
Your answer to the following riddle can predict whether you are a believer in religion (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/religion) or a disbeliever:

Q: If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?

A: If you answered $10 you are inclined to believe in religion. If you answered $5 you are inclined to disbelieve.

Why? Because, according to new research reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, the $10 answer indicates that you are an intuitive thinker, and the $5 answer indicates that you solve problems analytically, rather than following your gut instinct.

I'm curious as to how this problem was presented to the subjects of the study?

Was it presented as a multiple choice question or no?

If it was presented as a multiple choice question (as it was here), I can see the distinction between choosing by gut instinct or by analysis. But if the problem was presented to be independently solved by the subjects, it may have simply have stumped those not mathematically inclined.

I realized immediately that $10 was incorrect because $10 + ($100 + $10) = $120, NOT $110.

I then realized $5 was correct because $5 + ($100 + $5) DOES equal $110.

I could perform these simple tests in my head. Solving the problem independently would have required that I put pen to paper.

Y Bar Ranch
04-30-2012, 04:11 PM
And this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_fast_and_slow), which was referenced here in the Bilge not long ago. I was intrigued enough to order it and I look forward to reading it.
Thanks for reminding me...top of my interest list.

TomF
04-30-2012, 04:16 PM
And this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_fast_and_slow), which was referenced here in the Bilge not long ago. I was intrigued enough to order it and I look forward to reading it.It does seem interesting, but neither your link nor the one Y Bar offered seems to support the notion that intuitive thinking is more than second best. It's faster, but less accurate - much more prone to mistakes, so it seems. Maybe Y-bar's stuff doesn't go there, but there wasn't a whole lot of "there" there at the Wiki page ...

What seems clear to me is that intuition's problems (and analysis' strengths) are frequently defined within an analytic context - it's clearly worse at the kind of precise things at which analytical thinking excels. But are there things at which intuitive thinking excels? Making visual art, poetry, and otherwise working in symbol systems to convey meaning or emotion? Maybe the skills of excellent teaching or excellent presentation? The choices a facilitator uses to "work" a room and create consensus? These are not primarily analytical thinking skills, and applying analytical thinking usually gums up the works, making something pedantic and halting.

While some will deconstruct intuition as an ultra-fast set of what are actually analytical short-cuts ... that's not how it's experienced. And I'm not sure that how it's experienced isn't actually a good heuristic for describing what intuition is.

JimD
04-30-2012, 04:17 PM
My god (so to speak). I'm starting to see why religion may exist. :D
No kidding. Given the choice between 'Just do what God sez' and 'Solve E=MC2' it starts to become clear why religion is so popular.

wardd
04-30-2012, 04:23 PM
No kidding. Given the choice between 'Just do what God sez' and 'Solve E=MC2' it starts to become clear why religion is so popular.

actually it's do what you want god to tell you to do,

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 04:26 PM
It does seem interesting, but neither your link nor the one Y Bar offered seems to support the notion that intuitive thinking is more than second best. It's faster, but less accurate - much more prone to mistakes, so it seems. Maybe Y-bar's stuff doesn't go there, but there wasn't a whole lot of "there" there at the Wiki page ...

What seems clear to me is that intuition's problems (and analysis' strengths) are frequently defined within an analytic context - it's clearly worse at the kind of precise things at which analytical thinking excels. But are there things at which intuitive thinking excels? Making visual art, poetry, and otherwise working in symbol systems to convey meaning or emotion? Maybe the skills of excellent teaching or excellent presentation? The choices a facilitator uses to "work" a room and create consensus? These are not primarily analytical thinking skills, and applying analytical thinking usually gums up the works, making something pedantic and halting.

While some will deconstruct intuition as an ultra-fast set of what are actually analytical short-cuts ... that's not how it's experienced. And I'm not sure that how it's experienced isn't actually a good heuristic for describing what intuition is.

A circular saw is a great tool. But you're handicapped if it is the only tool in your cabinet.

TomF
04-30-2012, 04:30 PM
A circular saw is a great tool. But you're handicapped if it is the only tool in your cabinet.Absolutely. I think that your point (and the metaphor) cuts both ways. :D

Flying Orca
04-30-2012, 04:33 PM
It does seem interesting, but neither your link nor the one Y Bar offered seems to support the notion that intuitive thinking is more than second best. It's faster, but less accurate - much more prone to mistakes, so it seems. Maybe Y-bar's stuff doesn't go there, but there wasn't a whole lot of "there" there at the Wiki page ...

I'm holding off judgment until I read the book, but I would offer this, if it helps (and bear in mind this is coming from someone who has been accused of being logical to a fault). It's axiomatic that "not every job worth doing is worth doing well", or perhaps that "good enough" is just that in many cases. I think that is quite often the case with thinking - the experienced intuitive may arrive at a "good enough" answer long before the plodding logician works it out with precision.


What seems clear to me is that intuition's problems (and analysis' strengths) are frequently defined within an analytic context - it's clearly worse at the kind of precise things at which analytical thinking excels. But are there things at which intuitive thinking excels? Making visual art, poetry, and otherwise working in symbol systems to convey meaning or emotion? Maybe the skills of excellent teaching or excellent presentation? The choices a facilitator uses to "work" a room and create consensus? These are not primarily analytical thinking skills, and applying analytical thinking usually gums up the works, making something pedantic and halting.

I agree - by the time you've finished running the algorithm that generates the perfect comp, it's already the trombone's turn.


While some will deconstruct intuition as an ultra-fast set of what are actually analytical short-cuts ... that's not how it's experienced. And I'm not sure that how it's experienced isn't actually a good heuristic for describing what intuition is.

My brain hurts... can you unpack that double negative for me?

johnw
04-30-2012, 04:35 PM
Perhaps the entire gambling industry is based on intuitive reasoning (and operant conditioning.) Gamblers are notoriously superstitious, and tend to believe in mathematical fallacies like the maturity of chances.

Personally, I've got a feeling that I'm due...

bobbys
04-30-2012, 04:45 PM
No kidding. Given the choice between 'Just do what God sez' and 'Solve E=MC2' it starts to become clear why religion is so popular..

However Mathematical tables does not explain morality , Emotion or Women either.

ron ll
04-30-2012, 04:50 PM
Seems like the conclusion to this study is that the reason for religion is the absence of reason. :)

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 04:52 PM
However Mathematical tables does not explain morality , Emotion or Women either.

Correct. Those would be explained by evolutionary biology. ;)

johnw
04-30-2012, 04:58 PM
Seems like the conclusion to this study is that the reason for religion is the absence of reason. :)

Reason has not been the dominant mode of "thinking" for most of humanity for most of history. It got a boost in the Enlightenment, but it sometimes seems we are in the midst of a counter-Enlightenment in which people seek truth in religion and new age beliefs.

I thought of gambling because I once knew a psychologist who treated gambling addictions by teaching gamblers how you could actually make money playing the horses. You have to study the matter quite hard and apply analytical thinking, and as the article notes, getting people to do analytical thinking weakens their intuitive beliefs. In the case of the gamblers he was treating, they learned that knowledge and math could determine whether you won, and lost their faith in luck.

bobbys
04-30-2012, 04:59 PM
Correct. Those would be explained by evolutionary biology. ;).

LOL good one sept no man has figured out women yet or at least they kept it a secret

leikec
04-30-2012, 05:04 PM
.

However Mathematical tables does not explain morality , Emotion or Women either.



The mathematical explanation for the psychology of the female of our species is simple, fascinating, and completely irrelevant when the male of the species screws up (or when she becomes convinced that you did...pretty much the same thing!). :D:D:D

I'd share the math with you--but it really won't help a danged thing anyway.

Jeff C

Y Bar Ranch
04-30-2012, 05:08 PM
It does seem interesting, but neither your link nor the one Y Bar offered seems to support the notion that intuitive thinking is more than second best. It's faster, but less accurate - much more prone to mistakes, so it seems. Maybe Y-bar's stuff doesn't go there, but there wasn't a whole lot of "there" there at the Wiki page ...
The naturalistic decision making stuff I linked to came from a guy observing how experts make decisions in certain situations. Those situations have lots of uncertainty, high risk, incomplete information, time critical and a couple of other things. He found that experts worked off of intuition. The more expert they were, the more intuition. Analytical types would suffer paralysis by analysis in the same situations. A good decision now beats a better decision too late.

bobbys
04-30-2012, 05:15 PM
The mathematical explanation for the psychology of the female of our species is simple, fascinating, and completely irrelevant when the male of the species screws up (or when she becomes convinced that you did...pretty much the same thing!). :D:D:D

I'd share the math with you--but it really won't help a danged thing anyway.

Jeff C.

LOL Im not good at Math and im not Good with Women either.

The worst part is I fear i will never Evolve from the current Status..

Was there not Some NASA guys that fired a rocket off to a far away star and messed up on the math awhile ago?.

Maybe they were from the Religious section of NASA.

ron ll
04-30-2012, 05:17 PM
Reason has not been the dominant mode of "thinking" for most of humanity for most of history.

I think I remember reading somewhere that Homer's Odyssey was the first written evidence of self awareness. Prior to that it seems that one's own thinking was attributed to the voices of gods.

SamSam
04-30-2012, 05:36 PM
Seems like the conclusion to this study is that the reason for religion is the absence of reason. :)





WEDNESDAY, May 25 (HealthDay News) -- Older adults who say they've had a life-changing religious experience are more likely to have a greater decrease in size of the hippocampus, the part of the brain critical to learning and memory, new research finds.



http://www.philly.com/philly/health/132456883.html?c=r

johnw
04-30-2012, 05:37 PM
I think I remember reading somewhere that Homer's Odyssey was the first written evidence of self awareness. Prior to that it seems that one's own thinking was attributed to the voices of gods.

That's Julian Jaynes' theory about the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. If his theory was correct, it would explain something that opened the door to a more individualist and analytical way of thinking. Don't think anyone has found a way to test his hypothesis.

skuthorp
04-30-2012, 05:45 PM
Being a non-believer myself and having seen and held many 'discussions' on the subject I don't reckon reason has a hook on the argument. There isn't a common starting point to 'reason' from.
As for baseball, meh.

WX
04-30-2012, 05:48 PM
The ball costs $5 the Bat costs $105 - geddit.
I do now.

ron ll
04-30-2012, 06:06 PM
Being a non-believer myself and having seen and held many 'discussions' on the subject I don't reckon reason has a hook on the argument. There isn't a common starting point to 'reason' from.
As for baseball, meh.

I've always thought that one of the most highly evolved things we do as humans is to reason. To throw that away for blind faith has always seemed a little odd to me.