Treasured Beliefs

[MediumTex]

If you had the choice of having some of your most treasured beliefs invalidated in exchange for a more nuanced and expansive understanding of the world, would you do it?

It seems to me that when certain ways of thinking or believing that provide people with a sense of coherence are too badly disrupted it often leaves them worse off than when they started.  A sense of wholeness turns to a sense of confusion.  A sense of belonging turns into a sense of alienation.

When I see anthropologists studying people in the jungle who seem perfectly happy to worship a stick or throw rocks at the moon I am glad that anthropologists don't end their studies by telling the jungle people how most of their beliefs can be shown to be factually incorrect.  How would such knowledge help them?  What would they do with that knowledge once the anthropologists left?

It's a tough call, because for every Galileo spreading enlightenment there seem to be several others shattering people's sense of wholeness without offering much to replace it.  I feel torn about this topic, because I have had very good luck with abandoning certain beliefs that I discovered to be false, while in other cases I have found that I was happier when I believed things that I am now no longer able to believe. 

One interesting thing that I have found in travelling this road is that I am now far less inclined to try to shake someone else's belief in something unless I am certain I have something better to offer.  When it comes to investing, for example, I am happy to disrupt someone's past beliefs because I believe that the PP offers a much more sensible approach to investing than many people currently use.  OTOH, there are other beliefs that I am inclined to just leave alone, and I might even try to encourage someone to keep believing them if it gave them a sense of wholeness and purpose.

Perhaps we need an element of irrational belief in our psychological make-up to facilitate a coherent journey through life.  As an example, I think that most kids' lives are richer for believing in Santa Claus than they would be had they never heard of Santa Claus.

If the whole truth led to nothing but an inescapable sense of nihilism, of what value would that truth be?  Of course, there is also the matter of the same truth inducing a sense of nihilism in one person while it leaves no impact on another person, and it may even inspire someone else.

For me, this is a difficult topic to fully untangle.  I used to attack every alleged "truth" I was presented with until I was completely satisfied that it was, in fact, true as far as I could tell.  I have found as I have gotten older that I now take a gentler approach to things that are presented to me as truth, and sometimes I am more content to just leave things alone rather shine the brightest light I can find on them.

[dragoncar]

Luckily, I don't have any treasured beliefs.  Everything is up for discussion.  Except for pyramid power.

[cabronjames]

interesting idea, MT.

You are a wise dude.  Your wisdom is "2X leveraged", as if you were the wise elder 80 yr old.

[BearBones]

Rather profound post, MT. Beliefs are integral to our construction of ego identity (for better or worse), are they not? And we tend to hold onto our views of self more doggedly than about anything else. We purposefully gather and affiliate with others of similar belief to form larger ego entities based on our families, communities, countries, political parties, religious affiliations, and, yes, economic beliefs. We cannot function without some strong beliefs and clear sense of direction, as you noted, but holding on too tightly breeds anger, hatred, and conflict.

I wonder if some cultures benefit from mitigating the human tendency for strong beliefs by substituting "treasured myths and rituals," subconsciously designed to serve myriad purposes but not intended to be taken too literally.

Finally, I wonder how Buddhists interpret nihilism. Perhaps not so negatively. I would think that nihilism would be akin to the concept of anatta ("non-self"), specifically that our view of self is largely a delusion. There is no absolute, abiding self. All of our thoughts and beliefs are just mental constructs of a world which can be experience but not know. And this delusion of self is one of the causes of our human suffering. So, by giving up some of our identification with self and our strongly held beliefs (or at least taking such things more lightly, as you are hinting of in your post), we begin to open up to our innate sense of joy, compassion, and wonder.

[AdamA]

Luckily, I don't have any treasured beliefs.  Everything is up for discussion.  

I'd like to think the same is true for me, but I wonder if there might be certain beliefs that I'm not even really aware of that it would drive me nuts to have challenged.  

Based on the handful of "ah-ha" moments I've had in my life so far (and there are just as many, if not more, of these that have been unsettling than comforting) I think that is it better to have your beliefs challenged (and even invalidated) because, as uncomfortable as it may be, it usually leads to some kind of personal growth. 

[AdamA]

Gumby posted this on another thread:

I tend to believe that when someone has built their entire career as an "expert" who knows "as much about financial history as any other person on this site, and likely far more" then they are not in a position to have their most treasured beliefs invalidated.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/in ... ic=1992.30

I think that's a good point, and would generalize this a little bit more to say that I think those who have often been "right" about things (at least in their own minds) probably have a harder time having their beliefs questioned. 

Those of us who have been humbled a few times might not have as tough a time adapting when it happens yet again. 

[FarmerD]

Gumby posted this on another thread:

I tend to believe that when someone has built their entire career as an "expert" who knows "as much about financial history as any other person on this site, and likely far more" then they are not in a position to have their most treasured beliefs invalidated.

I'm reminded of quote by a famous physicist (whose name I forget):

"New Ideas in physics are accepted only when the older generation of physicists dies out."

If you have built your career and published many papers (or books) espousing a certian viewpoint, imagine how hard it is to realize you may be in error, particularly if your error is pointed out by "amateurs."  Suppose, for the sake of argument, some well known investment expert's opinion is shown be be deficient by "nonexperts" like an engineer and an attorney.   Do you really think that investment guru, would say, "You know, I may have been wrong all these years.  Perhaps there is a different equally good or better solution than I have been espousing."

I've never heard an expert admit anything like that.  

[MediumTex]

Gumby posted this on another thread:

I tend to believe that when someone has built their entire career as an "expert" who knows "as much about financial history as any other person on this site, and likely far more" then they are not in a position to have their most treasured beliefs invalidated.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/in ... ic=1992.30

I think that's a good point, and would generalize this a little bit more to say that I think those who have often been "right" about things (at least in their own minds) probably have a harder time having their beliefs questioned. 

Those of us who have been humbled a few times might not have as tough a time adapting when it happens yet again. 

Part of the Wall Street game is to project a sense of bulletproof self confidence in the stories you tell and the predictions you make. 

I think outsiders hear about the Wall Street "Master of the Universe" idea and think it is a joke.  I don't think many people realize just how towering some of these Wall Street egos really are.

The PP, OTOH, is based upon a fundamental sense of humility about the future and your ability to predict how it will unfold.  When you present an idea like the PP to someone whose job is to be the smartest guy in the room at all times, I think that often there is simply no way for the idea to take root in such a mind.

I ran across "Overheard on the Goldman Sachs Elevator", a website chronicling things supposedly overheard on elevators in the offices of Goldman Sachs.  As you read a few of these, imagine how receptive these minds would be to an investment strategy that presupposes an inability to predict the future and an inability to outperform other investors consistently through market speculation:

"If you can only be good at one thing, be good at lying… because if you’re good at lying, you’re good at everything."

"Living my life is like playing Call of Duty on Easy. I just go around and fuck shit up."

"By now, protesters just look like pigeons to me."

"From my experience, most people really should have lower self-esteem."

LINK

These are the personalities at the top of the Wall Street food chain.  Sort of scary, isn't it?

Malcolm Gladwell wrote a great piece for the New Yorker a while back about the psychology of overconfidence and talked a lot about Jimmy Cayne, Bear Stearns' CEO at the time of its collapse.  He quotes Cayne talking about when he first interviewed at Bear Stearns many years before and how Bear Stearns legend Ace Greenberg reacted when Cayne told him that he played bridge:

[Greenberg] says, “How well do you play?”?

I said, “I play well.”?

He said, “Like how well?”?

I said, “I play quite well.”?

He says, “You don’t understand.”?

I said, “Yeah, I do. I understand. Mr. Greenberg, if you study bridge the rest of your life, if you play with the best partners and you achieve your potential, you will never play bridge like I play bridge.”?

LINK

He said that to the guy who was interviewing him for a job.  It's ironic that when the two Bear Stearns hedge funds blew up in 2008 that set off the cascade that eventually sunk the whole firm, Cayne was at a bridge tournament and didn't think the matter was worth coming back to New York to address.

[stone]

I thought a lot of the trading strategy they use is also based around the assumption that prices move randomly. You can be a parasitic, arrogant, etc and use your understanding of stochastics as your way to be a successful parasite with a bloated ego.

In terms of your general point, I sometimes think it is healthy to have a sense of wonder at things being unknown.

[MediumTex]

I thought a lot of the trading strategy they use is also based around the assumption that prices move randomly. You can be a parasitic, arrogant, etc and use your understanding of stochastics as your way to be a successful parasite with a bloated ego.

Apparently, many of these firms didn't have a sufficiently deep understanding of stochastics and the rest of their overall risk to prevent themselves from perishing in 2008.

People talk about "vacuuming up nickels in front of a steamroller".  The implicit risk in the analogy is that occasionally even the most careful nickel vacuumers will get flattened.  Over time, all nickel vacuumers are flattened.  Without the government to bail them out, all of these nickel vacuuming firms would have gone under in 2008. 

Nassim Taleb pointed out in 2009 that if you add up all of the profits and losses of the financial industry over the last century, you find that the industry has actually lost money because its losses are so enormous when they occur.  He said that financial institutions tend to "eat like a bird but shit like an elephant."  I always got a kick out of that.

[Storm]

I'd like to think that I don't have any treasured beliefs, but I'm not naive enough to think so.  I'm sure I have a few that I might not be willing to part with.

Here's a treasured belief that 95% of most americans have:  The war on drugs must be fought with heavy militarized organizations like the DEA, CIA, ATF, etc.  These are bad cartels we are going after, and you need to fight them with military might.

How about rather than focusing on supply side destruction, we focus on demand side destruction?  If drugs were legalized demand for drugs from Mexico would dry up overnight and the cartels would shut down.  They would have no more buyers for their products.

The problem is that the military industrial complex feeds itself.  The drug war creates a demand for more military spending, and the more successful they are at stopping domestic suppliers of drugs, the more powerful the cartels get because they have no competition, so the more military spending and budget the government organizations get.  It's a vicious cycle, and it feeds the military industrial complex.

Yet, if you surveyed random people, 95% would probably think the war on drugs must be fought with military might. 

[Lone Wolf]

Great essay.  I really enjoy the way your mind works.

If you had the choice of having some of your most treasured beliefs invalidated in exchange for a more nuanced and expansive understanding of the world, would you do it?

While this is a dangerous question to answer (because none of us really know just which cherished beliefs we are placing at risk), I say yes.  I know that I'm insanely fortunate to be alive in this time and place (or even to exist at all.)  To me, it makes sense to just experience the world as it is, enjoy the company of the people in it, learn what I can, and waste no energy (intentionally) lying to myself or thinking that I must pretend to have answers for questions that will probably never be answered.

My personal "reminder" is to ask myself, "Do I think this because of the evidence or in spite of the evidence?"  That's what fits for me.  And when an uncomfortable truth surfaces, there's no law which says I have to spend a lot of time thinking about it.  For example, human mortality sucks... but there's no sense sitting around fretting about it, especially when there's so much that's good out in the world.

This was a difficult process at first, but ultimately freeing (not unlike always telling the truth, something Browne endorsed as a great strategy for personal freedom.)  However, I would never, ever in a million years want to force it on anybody.

One interesting thing that I have found in travelling this road is that I am now far less inclined to try to shake someone else's belief in something unless I am certain I have something better to offer.

This is a great point.  I find, though, that in some cases "nothing" really can be better than the "something" of some old belief that I was holding on to for no good reason.  Take, for example, the notion that it's possible to make specific, consistently correct predictions about the future.  This belief gives people such comfort that they pay homage to it by employing psychics, fortune-tellers and stock-picking experts (but I repeat myself.)

Life became richer for me when I ripped the notion of "predictability" out of my mind and in its place left... nothing but a belief in an uncertain world.  It's scary to leap off that cliff into the yawning void.  There are those few awful seconds of free-fall where you wonder "what it all means".  But then you realize that the world's still a great place, uncertainty or no.  And this is when the metaphor becomes really awesome because now you are no longer falling but soaring across the landscape in a wing suit with jet-powered shoes.

Sometimes I think you just have to let some "empty space" be and appreciate it for what it is.  Or to quote Paul Newman, "Sometimes nothing can be a pretty cool hand."

[stone]

Nassim Taleb pointed out in 2009 that if you add up all of the profits and losses of the financial industry over the last century, you find that the industry has actually lost money because its losses are so enormous when they occur.  He said that financial institutions tend to "eat like a bird but shit like an elephant."  I always got a kick out of that.

What they are doing is rational for them. Someone I know who works in the finance industry was in a company that imploded in 2008. He promptly got a new job with a different company. He has been doing very nicely indeed all the way through. What is irrational is that we vote for politicians that go along with the set up. What does astonish me though is that many people working in the industry do seem in their heart of hearts to believe that they are providing something for the rest of us. They trot off steady gains for a couple of decades then blow up and yet seem to think what they do amounts to more than simply shuffling risk into bailout events.

[MediumTex]

Let's say that two men enter a room who have diametrically opposed religious beliefs that in their view cannot be reconciled--i.e., each is equally convinced that his views are correct and the other fellow's views are blasphemous.

As a result of their disagreement and the perception that each of them has regarding the fundamentally blasphemous nature of the other fellow's entire existence, the two men are on the verge of walking out of the room to plan violence against each other's groups in the name of making the world a better place to practice the one true religion.

You are asked to step in and attempt to get to a better outcome than an endless cycle of disagreement and violence.

What would you say to the men?

What if one of the men shared the same faith as you?

What if one of the men professed to worship God and the other to worship Satan?

What if one of the men professed to worship a Pepsi bottlecap and the other to worship a black plastic comb?

[Straight Ays]

You are asked to step in and attempt to get to a better outcome than an endless cycle of disagreement and violence.

What would you say to the men?

The argument is focused on what they have found different between themselves, and their decisions are based on the their ideals alone.  The goal would be to move the conversation to their common ground.  So I believe the best course to take would be to ask them both about their families.  From there they may accidentally see the other as an equal human, who wants to be with friends, raise a family, work, be happy etc...

What if one of the men shared the same faith as you?

  I just wouldn't say anything and would continue to help the two men find common ground or mutual benefit.

What if one of the men professed to worship God and the other to worship Satan?

Let them know that one doesn't do well without the other 

What if one of the men professed to worship a Pepsi bottlecap and the other to worship a black plastic comb?

I would only intervene if these men could actually cause harm to others.  IE.. they know how to construct bombs.  While common ground was a theme in the answers before, it might shake things up a bit to simply show these two men a hundred different plastic objects of worship and hope to leave them in a state of confusion, and also an exponentially expanded list of enemies, to overwhelm them.   

And with that I end my first post.  I was one of the many lurkers.  I've been reading the forum for about a year now.  It has been just fantastic to have this resource.  Thank you all very much.

[BearBones]

Sometimes I think you just have to let some "empty space" be and appreciate it for what it is.  Or to quote Paul Newman, "Sometimes nothing can be a pretty cool hand."

So, by giving up some of our identification with self and our strongly held beliefs (or at least taking such things more lightly, as you are hinting of in your post), we begin to open up to our innate sense of joy, compassion, and wonder.

Different ways of saying the same essential truth (but I like your post better). Wow, that's fantastic! We share the same belief!
Oops...

[BearBones]

What if one of the men professed to worship God and the other to worship Satan?

Ideally I'd take the same position that you did on LTTs in your discussion on Being Able to Argue Against Your Own Position.
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=7

[MediumTex]

What if one of the men professed to worship a Pepsi bottlecap and the other to worship a black plastic comb?

While common ground was a theme in the answers before, it might shake things up a bit to simply show these two men a hundred different plastic objects of worship and hope to leave them in a state of confusion, and also an exponentially expanded list of enemies, to overwhelm them.   

And with that I end my first post. 

That was perhaps one of the finest first posts on any forum in the history of the internet.

Bravo.

[MediumTex]

What if one of the men professed to worship God and the other to worship Satan?

Ideally I'd take the same position that you did on LTTs in your discussion on Being Able to Argue Against Your Own Position.
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=7

I was just trying to introduce some cognitive dissonance due to the preconceived notions of right and wrong people sometimes bring to the table when you talk about God and Satan.

You could just as easily say that one of them worshiped the Texas Rangers and one of them worshiped the New York Yankees. As a matter of fact, this example might trigger more cognitive dissonance than God and Satan.

[Benko]

MT, (replying to original post)

You might enjoy this:

http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/test1/2 ... 00032.html

It is an ancient (800 year old) teaching story pointing out the perils, some potentially fatal, in trying to point out truth to people who are not so inclined.

In a more recent vein a nobel prize winning physicist (max planck) wrote:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... lanck.html

"I have found as I have gotten older that I now take a gentler approach to things that are presented to me as truth, and sometimes I am more content to just leave things alone rather shine the brightest light I can find on them."

Very wise.

And eventually reality does often intrude on people's own personal version of reality, one can only ignore reality for so long.  I don't know the history behind finances in Greece, but I assume that is what is finally happening now--reality setting in.

[AdamA]

What would you say to the men?

I think it is inevitable that these men will end up fighting, no matter what you say.  I don't think the issue would really be the specific beliefs, but more likely the fear by one group that the other would attempt to impose their beliefs somehow. 

What if one of the men professed to worship a Pepsi bottlecap and the other to worship a black plastic comb?

I would side with the man who worshipped the black plastic comb in the hopes that this belief would somehow allow me to keep what is left of my hair. 

[stone]

The problem is that IMO a lot of the way the world is currently run is by lying. I think things would probably be better if people didn't believe lies quite so readily. Treasured beliefs can be beliefs in lies. I'm taken aback by how Singaporean friends say that Singapore is a totally free country BUT I accept that almost everyone believes that our western system is based on something more than a conspiracy of lies built up over centuries by the finance system. I suppose the most important thing is to try and act in a way that seems right and cheers up others. Communication is a lot of what makes us human though. I suppose respecting each other as people is what it is all about.

[Straight Ays]

That was perhaps one of the finest first posts on any forum in the history of the internet.

Bravo.

Thanks for the nice words MT.  

Treasured beliefs can be beliefs in lies.

 

Some of the lies are integral to individuals self worth and "specialness" so I think they either die very hard, or continue throughout that individuals life.  I think this why to change a society, starting with educating the young is more effective.  

Even changing someone's mind about their investment style can be pulling at their core self worth.