Print
Your Brain Lies to You
by New York Times
Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html?em&ex=1214798400&en=55e3196d3a7018e0&ei=5087%0A
Your Brain Lies to You
By SAM WANG and SANDRA AAMODT
FALSE beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found. Thus it seems slightly less egregious that, according to another poll, 10 percent of us think that Senator Barack Obama, a Christian, is instead a Muslim. The Obama campaign has created a Web site to dispel misinformation. But this effort may be more difficult than it seems, thanks to the quirky way in which our brains store memories — and mislead us along the way.
The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer's hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man's curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don't remember how you learned it.
This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.
With time, this misremembering only gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.
Even if they do not understand the neuroscience behind source amnesia, campaign strategists can exploit it to spread misinformation. They know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked. In repeating a falsehood, someone may back it up with an opening line like "I think I read somewhere" or even with a reference to a specific source.
In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility.
Adding to this innate tendency to mold information we recall is the way our brains fit facts into established mental frameworks. We tend to remember news that accords with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it.
In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position.
Psychologists have suggested that legends propagate by striking an emotional chord. In the same way, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke — or about a presidential candidate.
Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to "stop the smears," the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man.
Consumers of news, for their part, are prone to selectively accept and remember statements that reinforce beliefs they already hold. In a replication of the study of students' impressions of evidence about the death penalty, researchers found that even when subjects were given a specific instruction to be objective, they were still inclined to reject evidence that disagreed with their beliefs.
In the same study, however, when subjects were asked to imagine their reaction if the evidence had pointed to the opposite conclusion, they were more open-minded to information that contradicted their beliefs. Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true.
In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Holmes erroneously assumed that ideas are more likely to spread if they are honest. Our brains do not naturally obey this admirable dictum, but by better understanding the mechanisms of memory perhaps we can move closer to Holmes's ideal.
Sam Wang, an associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton, and Sandra Aamodt, a former editor in chief of Nature Neuroscience, are the authors of "Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys but Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html?em&ex=1214798400&en=55e3196d3a7018e0&ei=5087%0A
Your Brain Lies to You
By SAM WANG and SANDRA AAMODT
FALSE beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found. Thus it seems slightly less egregious that, according to another poll, 10 percent of us think that Senator Barack Obama, a Christian, is instead a Muslim. The Obama campaign has created a Web site to dispel misinformation. But this effort may be more difficult than it seems, thanks to the quirky way in which our brains store memories — and mislead us along the way.
The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer's hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man's curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don't remember how you learned it.
This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.
With time, this misremembering only gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.
Even if they do not understand the neuroscience behind source amnesia, campaign strategists can exploit it to spread misinformation. They know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked. In repeating a falsehood, someone may back it up with an opening line like "I think I read somewhere" or even with a reference to a specific source.
In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility.
Adding to this innate tendency to mold information we recall is the way our brains fit facts into established mental frameworks. We tend to remember news that accords with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it.
In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position.
Psychologists have suggested that legends propagate by striking an emotional chord. In the same way, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke — or about a presidential candidate.
Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to "stop the smears," the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man.
Consumers of news, for their part, are prone to selectively accept and remember statements that reinforce beliefs they already hold. In a replication of the study of students' impressions of evidence about the death penalty, researchers found that even when subjects were given a specific instruction to be objective, they were still inclined to reject evidence that disagreed with their beliefs.
In the same study, however, when subjects were asked to imagine their reaction if the evidence had pointed to the opposite conclusion, they were more open-minded to information that contradicted their beliefs. Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true.
In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Holmes erroneously assumed that ideas are more likely to spread if they are honest. Our brains do not naturally obey this admirable dictum, but by better understanding the mechanisms of memory perhaps we can move closer to Holmes's ideal.
Sam Wang, an associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton, and Sandra Aamodt, a former editor in chief of Nature Neuroscience, are the authors of "Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys but Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, June 28, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 105 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #200748 by moderndaythomas on June 28, 2008 at 7:39 am
Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true.
Here's something that will never be uttered from the pulpit.
ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits
This is not news, I not only have to worry about saying the wrong thing about Christianity in general public, but also about such things as Horoscopes, and Big Foot.
A gal in my line of work usually avoids having lunch at the same time I do because I ask embarrassing questions.
Upon passing her when she was having a bad day I couldn't resist asking her "It's not Friday the thirteenth or a full moon, what are you going to blame it on now?"
I'm such a jerk.
edit: not really, we're fine together, she just avoids reading the horoscopes in front of me, and I clench my teeth a lot when people are wrong.
Pick your battles.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
3. Comment #200750 by qomak on June 28, 2008 at 7:41 am
What amazes me is people like Ken Miller who know these facts about our imperfect memory and also know that our minds is a perfect illusion factory, they all know about false positives and our tendency to seek patterns. Yet, they believe that thousands of years ago when people were much more ignorant and superstitious miracles happened and got narrated perfectly after generations. That really really really puzzles me. Other Comments by qomak
4. Comment #200759 by moderndaythomas on June 28, 2008 at 7:59 am
qomak said: they believe that thousands of years ago when people were much more ignorant and superstitious miracles happened and got narrated perfectly after generations.
Ken Miller has to find his own compromise in order to call himself a biologist and a Catholic. Miracles do not fit into this and consequently, to Miller, the Biblical references are nothing more than metaphor.
If he wants to call himself a Catholic, he can call himself a Catholic so long as this doesn't clash with the ultimate facts of science.
He seems to pull this off, but to the average persone, the evidence for evolution is not taught against creation because of its religious status.
Even if the evidence were given, it would have to be in bite size portions and the receiving party would have to take it on faith just as they do the Book of Genesis.
One source tells me this, one tells me that, which one do I "believe"? Which one helps me out in my time of need?
To the poorly informed there is no contest here.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
5. Comment #200773 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 28, 2008 at 8:19 am
One of the supposed "best" Christian apologists is William Lane Craig. Here is a debate between him and Atkins. I have to warn you Atkins performance is poor but this is not because Craigs arguments are somehow hard to defeat.William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins
One of Craigs arguments is that the resurrection of Jesus is the most plausible argument that accounts for the "facts" known about Jesus' death.
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
6. Comment #200777 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 8:23 am
Why is it that I read this article and think, well, maybe I'm wrong and there really IS something to religion! I'm so afraid of being wrong that I won't commit to any particular position, argh. Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
7. Comment #200780 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 8:27 am
Comment #200773 by ThoughtsonCommonToadI have to confess my opinion of Atkins' performance in that debate has changed since I last commented on it in another thread recently. Atkins has a strong anti-philosophy bias, which is unfortunate as any good atheist philosopher could have countered Lane Craig's positions in that discussion.
Comment #200777 by Layla Nasreddin
Don't worry. The default rationalist's position should be "maybe I'm wrong". This is why we have certain standards of evidence, and procedures for judging hypotheses like Ockham's Razor. Supernaturalist religion fails those tests as something we should even start to consider reasonable.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
8. Comment #200784 by Bonzai on June 28, 2008 at 8:39 am
Atkins has a strong anti-philosophy bias, which is unfortunate as any good atheist philosopher could have countered Lane Craig's positions in that discussion.
If Atkins came better prepared I am sure he could have mopped the floor with Craig too. If someone makes an argument for God that only a trained philosopher can refute it is probably a stupid, irrelevant argument based on word play to begin with,
Three cheers to the anti-philosopher, :)
Other Comments by Bonzai
9. Comment #200789 by Quine on June 28, 2008 at 8:45 am
Bonzai, are you still suffering from that allergy to the word "philosopher" without regard to the content of the arguments? Other Comments by Quine
10. Comment #200793 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 28, 2008 at 8:45 am
My big annoyance was 1 Atkins should have wiped the floor with the so called Jesus facts claim and he was pathetic. 2 Craig kept banging on about objective platonic realities like the mathematical and he even said aesthetic and moral, that should have been knocked out of the park.Also his deductive arguments (even though his premises could be challenged) did not go close to, therefore god. Atkins lack of historical and philosophical knowledge made a poor debate.
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
11. Comment #200794 by Rational_G on June 28, 2008 at 8:46 am
I think these results show not so much that the brain lies to you but rather that our education system has failed to turn out citizens capable of independent, critical thinking. Other Comments by Rational_G
12. Comment #200802 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 8:53 am
I recall an incident with Obamas pastor. So why is he Muslim?In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position.
Yup, and that's why I don't argue with religious people.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
13. Comment #200811 by Bonzai on June 28, 2008 at 9:08 am
. 2 Craig kept banging on about objective platonic realities like the mathematical and he even said aesthetic and moral, that should have been knocked out of the park.
Someone needs to tell him his God would be superfluous if he believes in Platonic realities like Plato did. Plato didn't need no creator God. The Greek gods were secondary beings.
Other Comments by Bonzai
14. Comment #200829 by moderndaythomas on June 28, 2008 at 9:42 am
TeraBrat.
If I were American, I'd vote for the man. His position on keeping church and state separate sounds promising. As I had said weeks ago, he all but told the church to piss off.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
15. Comment #200832 by Sargeist on June 28, 2008 at 9:50 am
Layla,I have exactly the same worries, which is why my comments here tend to have rather a large portion of parenthetical argument added to them. I'll start of writing something and then think of a perfectly valid objection to it, and then worry that everything I'm thinking is wishy washy half-arsed fence-sitting.
But, for me, this is better than simply being forthright and no more likely to be correct.
Other Comments by Sargeist
16. Comment #200835 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 10:00 am
Comment #200784 by BonzaiLet me try and explain things simply.
In order to show that an argument is just word play, you need to understand the use of words, and how they are played.
Part of the battle against theologists is to defeat them on their own ground, using their own rules. This is not to concede that their ground exists, or that their rules exist, but it shows they are inconsistent.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
17. Comment #200844 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 10:14 am
TeraBrat wrote:
I recall an incident with Obamas pastor. So why is he Muslim?
The "claim," such as it is, is that, since his father (whom he barely saw) was born Muslim, then Barack is, too (per the Islamic rule stating that children of a Muslim father are considered to belong to his religion). There is no evidence that he was ever raised Muslim in any way, shape, or form.
Incidentally...what happens when a Jewish woman marries a Muslim man, what are their children supposed to be? Recall that in Judaism, the children are considered to be Jewish if their mother is Jewish! (I have no doubt that Dawkins would register his disapproval of both these rules labelling children with the religion of at least one of their parents in the harshest possible terms!)
Steve Zara wrote:
Don't worry. The default rationalist's position should be "maybe I'm wrong". This is why we have certain standards of evidence, and procedures for judging hypotheses like Ockham's Razor. Supernaturalist religion fails those tests as something we should even start to consider reasonable.
Yeah, well, how do we actually know that? How do we "know" that our concepts of logic and reason actually correspond with what's out there in the real world, or should I say "real world"? How do we know we're not just all fooling ourselves that we're logical, reasonable people? (Said tongue in cheek!) The problem is, that way lies madness...
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
18. Comment #200862 by Spinoza on June 28, 2008 at 10:51 am
Facts are not "stored first in the hippocampus". That's just false. Other Comments by Spinoza
19. Comment #200866 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 10:57 am
Incidentally...what happens when a Jewish woman marries a Muslim man, what are their children supposed to be? Recall that in Judaism, the children are considered to be Jewish if their mother is Jewish! (I have no doubt that Dawkins would register his disapproval of both these rules labelling children with the religion of at least one of their parents in the harshest possible terms!)
Why not both?
The difference is that you can be a Jewish atheist or agnostic or whatever. I still consider myself Jewish. It's much more than just the religion. One of the wierdest things about Judaism is that you don't really have to believe in god. All you have to do is follow the rules. My father once admitted to me (he'd deny it if you asked him), that he doesn't really believe in god but he likes the rituals and sense of belonging that he gets from Judaism. My mother would never admit that she ever doubted gods existence for a moment.
We're a strange lot, very independant and while there are a few guidelines we are pretty free to have our own interpretations for everything :-)
Other Comments by TeraBrat
20. Comment #200867 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 11:09 am
TeraBrat wrote:
Why not both?
Well, very liberal-minded Jews might go for that, but NOT Muslims, I'm afraid! Islam claims to "supercede" the old, "corrupted" Jewish and Christian "revelations," so it would be pretty illogical to claim to be both Muslim and something else...unless you're taking neither religion very seriously.
The difference is that you can be a Jewish atheist or agnostic or whatever. I still consider myself Jewish. It's much more than just the religion. One of the wierdest things about Judaism is that you don't really have to believe in god. All you have to do is follow the rules.
Yeah, I know...I did a long study of Judaism before deciding to convert to Islam (more proof, as if more were needed, that I'm hopelessly confused). Islam is similar, in that there are a lot of rules to follow, but the difference is that you HAVE to believe while you're doing them! There IS a sense of belonging to a "people," or rather a "nation," the ummah (and so even Muslims who have ceased believing in the religion will still be upset over, say, the Palestinians or treatment of Muslims in the West), but it isn't anywhere near as strong as the Jewish "peoplehood" concept.
I wouldn't mind being a "Jewish agnostic/atheist", by the way, but I'm not so I have to settle with being a Muslim agnostic (recall what I said about not wanting to be wrong)!
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
21. Comment #200869 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 11:11 am
We've been around and knocked around a few thousand years longer ;-)And converting to Judaism is a nightmare. It can take years.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
22. Comment #200870 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 11:13 am
Comment #200844 by Layla NasreddinIncidentally...what happens when a Jewish woman marries a Muslim man, what are their children supposed to be?I know a Jewish man who married a Muslim woman. While they were away the eldest of their three sons married a Catholic girl.
Not sure what particular sect any children from that liaison will be.
Other Comments by epeeist
23. Comment #200871 by vanwall on June 28, 2008 at 11:16 am
Even more diabolical than source amnesia is example amnesia. People here example after example in which Kerry and Obama are victims and they tend to forget that Democrats lie too.Other Comments by vanwall
24. Comment #200872 by phil rimmer on June 28, 2008 at 11:17 am
SpinozaFacts are not "stored first in the hippocampus". That's just false.
No but it does mediate the formation of new autobiographical and episodic memories.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
25. Comment #200873 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 11:19 am
epeeist,By Jewish law the children are not Jewish. If they want to be Jewish they have to convert.
I believe the Reform Jews will accept a child whose father is Jewish as Jewish without conversion. The law may change now that we have DNA testing and can prove who the father is.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
26. Comment #200875 by Double Bass Atheist on June 28, 2008 at 11:20 am
Comment by #200870 by epeeist
I know a Jewish man who married a Muslim woman. While they were away the eldest of their three sons married a Catholic girl.
Not sure what particular sect any children from that liaison will be.
A Catjewslim? (*rim-shot*)
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
27. Comment #200882 by Bonzai on June 28, 2008 at 11:39 am
One of the wierdest things about Judaism is that you don't really have to believe in god. All you have to do is follow the rules.
I know that. Someone I know converted to Judaism a few years ago but this guy is a truly militant atheist, he would show up in a church on Sunday, sit through the whole service just to pick a fight with the priest or the pastor. He said he still didn't believe in God, he converted and followed the rules just because he admired the culture. He even said it in front of his rabbi the latter didn't seem offended at all. When I expressed my surprise the Rabbi explained that Judaism is different from Christianity, keeping the laws counts whether one believes or not, and of course keeping the laws and believing would be best. He was a Rabbi of Conservative Judaism, apparently if you are Reformed you don't even have to follow the rules.
Other Comments by Bonzai
28. Comment #200884 by Rational_G on June 28, 2008 at 11:44 am
Judaism, Islam, Christianity, whatever.Fairy tale nonsense all.
Other Comments by Rational_G
29. Comment #200887 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 11:49 am
Bonzai,This is why I have a hard time seeing Judaism lumped in with the fanatical, missionary Christianty and Islam.
The truth is you don't have to follow the rules at all even if you are Orthodox. There is no heaven or hell. There is a belief in resurrection when the Messiah comes, but, everyone is resurrected.
The reward for following the rules is supposed to be a more fulfilling and better life. Nothing more, nothing less.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
30. Comment #200892 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 12:07 pm
TeraBrat wrote:
This is why I have a hard time seeing Judaism lumped in with the fanatical, missionary Christianty and Islam.
There seems to have been a tradition for (some) Enlightenment thinkers to dump on the Jews as much as previous (and not-so-previous) generations dumped on them for being "Christ-killers" and all that crap. Voltaire, for example, was infamous for making the worst kind of bigoted remarks about Jews. In theory, since he hated the Catholic Church so much ("Ecrasez l'infame!") he should have defended the rights of those it persecuted, such as the Jews...right? Absolutely not!
I have my own pet theory -- Jews might have been seen as the "originator" of the hated Christianity, or of monotheism in general, and since they were still around as a small, powerless group, why not pick on them? It's far easier than realizing that it's your own ancestors who are to blame for adopting Christianity!
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
31. Comment #200898 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Layla,It's kind of funny when you think about it. For two thousand years we were hated because we supposedly killed Jesus. Now we are hated because we are responsible for his birth. No matter what it's always the Jews fault.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
32. Comment #200899 by Epinephrine on June 28, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Seriously? Could you whine a bit more?
Life is suffering. My ancestors have variously: Been cleared from their lands, forced to convert religions due to famine, had to flee countrylands, put in labour camps, etc.
That's history. That's life. Get over it.
Other Comments by Epinephrine
33. Comment #200900 by Quetzalcoatl on June 28, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Epinephrine-
on a complete tangent: is your avatar a depiction of an epinephrine molecule or something like that? Just wondering.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
34. Comment #200901 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 12:32 pm
It's not history, it's the present.Other Comments by TeraBrat
35. Comment #200905 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Terabrat,Is the problem semantic.
Being a jew is both a religion and a race.
You are draging a history around which would have been long forgotten if you originated from anywhere else. Sorry if I come across as antisemantic.
Other Comments by the great teapot
36. Comment #200906 by Epinephrine on June 28, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Yes, it's a space-filling model of epinephrine. I doubt it's conformationally correct, however, as I suspect that there would be attractions between the catechol hydroxyl groups, which would likely have them in plane and facing the same direction. Other Comments by Epinephrine
37. Comment #200913 by Mitchell Gilks on June 28, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I've learned to be intuitively suspicious of "facts" I can't remember the sourses of, because they have been the ones to let me down the most often. I guess there is good reason to do so. This makes a lot of sense to me. Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
38. Comment #200915 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 1:04 pm
You are draging a history around which would have been long forgotten if you originated from anywhere else.
Burn all the history books!!!
Other Comments by TeraBrat
39. Comment #200916 by Rational_G on June 28, 2008 at 1:19 pm
How about just saying we're all Homo Sapiens and move on?All this talk about which desert monotheistic cult suffers the most is pointless and annoying on a web site dedicated to reason.
Other Comments by Rational_G
40. Comment #200917 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Burn all the history books!!!My comments were meant in jest.
What do you mean by burn the history books.
If you want to be persecuted forever keep living in the past. Keep reminding everyone that you come from a long line of people who haven't mixed for 4000 years. If we all cling to our history then prejudice will remain forever.
Way to go quoting out of context by the way.
If your "burn all the history books" was tounge in cheek please ignore the above with my apologies.
Other Comments by the great teapot
41. Comment #200919 by bluebird on June 28, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Off topic:
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/wfaa080627_wz_jesusstone.4525c654.html
Other Comments by bluebird
42. Comment #200921 by Brian English on June 28, 2008 at 1:55 pm
So, who knew that the sea-horse helped us remember?I'm sure Cartomancer did.
Epinephrine, you're just a stuck-up catecholamine. You even go by the pseudonym of adrenaline.
Other Comments by Brian English
43. Comment #200922 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Bluebird,That is him. That's exactly what I remember him looking like.
(Terabrat, that is a joke. Do you see what I have done there)
Other Comments by the great teapot
44. Comment #200924 by Quine on June 28, 2008 at 2:09 pm
bluebird, that was, clearly, Qui-Gon Jinn. Other Comments by Quine
45. Comment #200926 by esuther on June 28, 2008 at 2:14 pm
For two thousand years we were hated because we supposedly killed Jesus. Now we are hated because we are responsible for his birth. No matter what it's always the Jews fault.
Give it a rest, will you? We know this song by heart.
Other Comments by esuther
46. Comment #200927 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 2:14 pm
If you want to be persecuted forever keep living in the past. Keep reminding everyone that you come from a long line of people who haven't mixed for 4000 years. If we all cling to our history then prejudice will remain forever.
Or maybe we could just learn to live together without losing what we already have. Isn't a 4,000 year old culture worth preserving? I don't expect you to understand.
teapot I have a sense of humor, that's why I said burn all the history books.
esuther,
I know you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be singing it all the time.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
47. Comment #200941 by 8teist on June 28, 2008 at 2:45 pm
quite right, burn all the history booksbefore the books burn you.:)
Other Comments by 8teist
48. Comment #200947 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Too right I don't understand. What my forefathers did is meaningless to me. We are all part of the human race. German, hun, chinese, slav etc,keep clinging to the myths that is what the white supremesists do.
I have offered an olive branch in this conversation you have ignored it.
Other Comments by the great teapot
49. Comment #200950 by Epinephrine on June 28, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Epinephrine, you're just a stuck-up catecholamine.
Whoa! Just a catecholamine?? I am descended from the noblest enzymes and phenolic compounds, and can trace my lineage back to L-DOPA, who you'll remember no doubt as the star of the movie Awakenings (along with Robin Williams, who made a few appearances).
I'm way more serious than the old catecholamines you may be thinking about. I handle life and death situations, fight or flight! I ll grant you that my grandparents were more concerned about feeling good, and we won't talk about my distant cousin urushiol, he's just irritating.
Or maybe we could just learn to live together without losing what we already have.
That would be good. Bringing up how badly one was persecuted is a bit gauche though, if one is trying to get along.
Isn't a 4,000 year old culture worth preserving?
Not necessarily - that's the same argument that is made as to why religion is important and should have special privileges. Just because people have been doing something for a long time doesn't make it in any way important or worth preserving.
"But we have a custom of female genital mutilation! It's been happening for thousands of years!"
Yeah, looks like a pretty dumb argument when you put it that way.
I don't expect you to understand.
Oh no you di'int!
Other Comments by Epinephrine
50. Comment #200955 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Isn't a 4,000 year old culture worth preserving? I don't expect you to understand.Are you sure this culture has not changed any? And why is it so worth preserving? What about other cultures? Is it only worth preserving for it's age? Footbinding had about a millenium of history behind it - worth preserving?
Reminds me of the Chinese 5000 years of recorded cultural history. Been checked by censors for the last, oooooh, 5000 years and appropriately sinified for general consumption...
Other Comments by Goldy
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson
Other Recommended Reading
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
The Future of Life
Edward O. Wilson
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #200731 by scooternyc on June 28, 2008 at 7:19 am
Facts are objective
Feelings are subjective
Two facts others ought understand
Other Comments by scooternyc