The psychology of belief

This is going to be a long post and heavy on the workings of the mind, but do keep in mind I have no training in psychology, just a lifelong fascination with the human mind. I do tend to ramble a bit and go off-topic now and then. There is every possibility that I may be WAY off on some of this. It is nothing like a professional, tested, peer reviewed analysis, more my personal thoughts, but backed by what I believe to be sound reasoning.

First, this is not a strictly religious topic, but I’m putting it here for a couple of reasons. First, this is the part of the forum which has the thread which prompted this post. Second, though the topic itself is not religious, the context given is religious, if only because that is where my personal experience comes from. Third, I think, given the topic, it will be of most interest to those with an interest in analyzing religious beliefs and, loosely related, other “out there” beliefs such as the paranormal and alternative medicines and the like.

We generally don’t put much though into belief. We know that some people hold beliefs we find stupid and it’s really hard to convince them, even with mounds of evidence, that their beliefs are simply not true. We may look into ways to try to better convince them. I recently listened to a 2 1/2 hour long talk from some Christian about how to go the other way with it and convince people that their belief is correct. (The guy’s arguments and claims could be easily disassembled using his own techniques and his main technique was called “The Columbo Technique” where you just ask annoying questions to try to catch the other person on a technicality and shift the burden of proof onto them, but that’s another subject).

I used to be a true believer and now, I find that stupid. So I have spent a ton of time (decades, actually) psychoanalyzing myself, going through my own thought process and trying to figure out what was happening in my head at every stage. And some of the stages did seem miraculous. I went through the whole “receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues” thing, I am embarrassed to say. That’s how deep I was in. But, it gave me a unique perspective into the psychology behind babbling like an idiot and truly believing that you are speaking a language so secret that not even you understand it. But every part of my self-analysis is long. It would fill a book. So I’m not going into that part here and now, just one small revelation which I came to a couple of years or so ago.

Today I’m going to be talking about belief. Specifically the nature of belief which we don’t usually stop to consider. I’m not going to give rationales for my conclusions, just the conclusions just because I already anticipate this being ludicrously long.

Essentially there are two types of beliefs. There is the fact-based belief and the emotion or desire-based belief. I’ll start by discussing each one in depth.

The fact-based belief is a belief we hold based on the facts as we know them. I believe the Earth is spherical because all the facts I have say it is. They are enough to convince me so that I believe that. However, with a fact based belief the belief will automatically change as the facts change. If I got new, convincing evidence tomorrow that the Earth is really a cube and it’s 5th dimensional spatial distortions which cause us to perceive it as spherical then the facts would change. I would need to evaluate those facts (on a subconscious level, usually) to determine whether I accept them as valid or not and, if I do, my belief changes. There is no work on my part. The change in belief is automatic. The MOMENT I accept new information as fact the belief is immediately altered.

This does mean that a fact-based belief is not actually based on real “facts”, it is based on what we accept as being factual subconsciously. We can be tricked into holding a fact-based belief which is not based on actual facts, HOWEVER, we cannot trick ourselves into holding a fact-based belief which is not backed by facts as we actually accept them on a subconscious level. We cannot consciously choose which facts we accept and which facts we reject as being actually factual. That is the job of our subconscious and is out of our conscious control. The subconscious is a very good no-nonsense fact evaluating machine and, whether we like the fact or not, the subconscious is always going to judge it based on the information available to us.

So, the way people trick us into holding a false fact-based belief is to present us with false facts in a manner which makes them sound very reasonable and believable. The climate change denier, for example, will present us with charts showing warming in the past (the facts) and then claim that today’s warming is no different (the belief). They will also take pokes at any of the actual facts you may already have to discredit them. The goal is to shift the subconscious acceptance of what is and is not actual fact toward what they want you to believe and then the belief will follow automatically. So a fact based belief isn’t necessarily “right”, nor is it necessarily based on actual facts, but it must be based on what we subconsciously perceive to be actual facts.

If we want to hold a belief not based on facts or one which opposes the facts, for that we need a desire-based belief. A desire-based belief is a belief we hold because we want to believe it. Desire-based beliefs are more on the conscious level, but that’s not to say the subconscious leaves them completely alone. Quite the opposite, actually. The subconscious is only interested in facts and reality. It has no time for voodoo or witchdoctory. It wants facts to use to evaluate beliefs. Because the subconscious evaluates all of our beliefs and only cares about the facts to support them. So the subconscious will try to evaluate our desire-based beliefs as if they were fact-based beliefs and, of course, soundly rejects them immediately as hogwash. The subconscious simply will not allow a desire-based belief to stand on its own. If there are no fact to support it then it isn’t reality as far as the subconscious is concerned. But, it can be coaxed into keeping quiet about it. Or, at least quieter than the normal scream of “That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard!”

In order to get our subconscious to stop evaluating our desire-based beliefs loudly enough that we cannot help but reject them consciously we have to build a kind of structure out of a mix of belief types in our heads. Let’s look at the example, Christian belief (simply because it’s the one I’m most familiar with from personal experience).

Christians will tell you that they have “truth”, that their beliefs are based on facts. But do they actually believe that? The answer is complicated. Magical beliefs are generally not going to be fact-based beliefs (though they can be, but you’d pretty much have to live in a cave an have no contact with people who knew literally anything to hold fact-based magical beliefs). There are no facts which support the existence of magic, so there are no fact-based magical beliefs. Generally speaking, of course. Christianity is purely a desire-based belief. I WANT to believe that I’m going to live forever after I die (I’m still not sure how that makes sense to anyone). I WANT to feel a connection to something greater. I WANT to not feel alone in the universe. I WANT to feel loved and protected. Christianity allows you to have all of those things if you simply believe it. But the subconscious isn’t going to let me believe in magic just because I want to. It demands facts. And as you get further into Christianity the facts actually start to point the other way. There are the contradictions in the Bible. There is the difference between Jesus, who lost his temper only ONCE when his father was disrespected and said you should pray in secret, and his followers, who may be loud, in your face and seem angry all the time. There are the differences between what the Bible says and what your church says. There are a ton of little nagging facts you are constantly being exposed to as a Christian which scream, “This is wrong!” Ignoring these is not an option. The subconscious will not allow it. You simply CANNOT hold a desire-based belief on its own.

So, to reconcile the difference between what you consciously desire and what your subconscious will allow you create a “belief bridge” to bring our desire-based belief in as a fact-based belief. This involves two different beliefs, but one of the beliefs you don’t actually hold. The desire based belief is not actually something you believe. Stop and think about that for a second and you will see that is quite a bold statement. I am stating that Christians don’t actually believe what they are pushing. No Christian ACTUALLY believes that 2,000 years ago Jesus walked around casting magic spells left and right, died, rose from the dead and then flew away to a magical place. They don’t believe that because they can’t believe that. The subconscious won’t let them because it’s not supported by the facts. What they DO have is the fact-based belief which props it up. The belief they ACTUALLY hold is the belief that they believe that. So, the desire-based belief that all the things they claim to believe are real, not happening. The subconscious says no. But they believe that they believe that. That second belief is a fact-based belief, and if you can manipulate what you accept as fact enough you can hold that belief

However, the subconscious does keep evaluating it and throwing up red flags at you. There are those nagging feelings where the subconscious is saying, “Wait a minute!” and you have to push those objections down. If you think about it consciously then the subconscious is busy analyzing it as a fact-based belief, and even sometimes when you’re not thinking about it consciously. So you have to get the facts in your head just right to convince yourself to believe that you do believe something you actually don’t believe. For a lot of Christians, especially the black-and-white fundamentalists, this takes some maintenance. What they have convinced themselves that they believe is so out there that they need to regularly boost the “facts” which support it.

Many times this takes the form of “testifying”. If you can convince someone else that you’re right then that gives credence to the idea that your facts are acceptable. This guy just double checked me and he says I’m right too! Of course, that’s not likely to happen very often. So then they turn to another tactic. And this is where the subconscious actually helps them rather than fighting them on it. You need to add to the evidence that the “facts” that you accept as reality are, indeed, factual, so you make your case to someone else hoping to get confirmation. But it’s not going well. Not only is this guy not confirming your “facts”, he’s challenging them. This causes fear. Your desire-based beliefs are at risk of being exposed as the fraud they are. The subconscious helps you out here by giving you another way to get what you need. It turns that fear into anger for you. Now you aren’t testifying to a friend, now you’re a warrior fighting the evil before you. If you can just win this fight, THEN that will prove you have truth and true power on your side! Anything to win the argument. And if it’s not going well, “You’re going to burn in Hell for all eternity!” to end the argument with “I win because I’ll be in paradise while he’ll suffer for making me doubt!”

Now, granted, this is not how most Christians prop up their beliefs. This is just the fundamentalist method I am familiar with from my own personal experience. I have personally gone through the stages of this method of propping up a desire-based belief which I subconsciously knew to be wrong.

There is another little trick the subconscious will also let you play on yourself to prop up your beliefs. The belief bridge can cause a feedback loop for you. No, you don’t actually believe in magic, but you’ve convinced yourself that you do hold that belief. And since you believe that you believe that, things from the desire-based belief can be taken as “facts”. It is now a FACT that Jesus rose from the dead because I truly believe that I truly believe that. It is a FACT that the person who disagrees with me is wrong. I know this for a fact even though I have not seen the evidence that they are wrong yet. And if I never find that evidence, or, especially if I am finding evidence that they are not wrong I can just quit looking because it’s out there. The stronger the belief that you hold another belief, the stronger the “facts” from that desire-based belief seem.

The subconscious will only ever let us hold fact-based beliefs, never desire-based beliefs not backed by facts. But our fact based beliefs do not need to be backed by actual facts. Perceived facts are good enough. And our subconscious will allow us to hold a fact-based belief that we do hold a desire-based belief, even though that is impossible for our minds to do. But the subconscious is constantly evaluating our beliefs. It is the subconscious which wants complete control of what we believe after careful evaluation of the facts. What we want is mostly, but not entirely irrelevant to our subconscious when it comes to beliefs. The subconscious, in this context, is just there to do the evaluations for us, and it will evaluate anything we want it to. Have you ever given a good argument and won, even though you figured out halfway through that you were wrong? Yeah, the subconscious knows you’re wrong, but you need to evaluate things in a way to get “I win!” as an outcome and it’s up for the task of evaluating anything you want. Once you’ve consciously accepted that you are wrong the subconscious stops evaluating it and turns its attention toward winning the argument. It no longer needs to evaluate the facts to determine if you’re right or wrong. It has settled that. And it doesn’t care that you’re looking to win an argument when you know you’re wrong. You need evaluation done, it does the evaluation. But until you consciously accept the conclusion that your subconscious has come to it will nag you constantly. It’s annoying. It’s frustrating. It makes you angry. Then you accept it and you’re all dick from there. You’re no longer annoyed, frustrated or angry because the subconscious stopped bugging you about it the moment you accepted it, leaving you free to concentrate on being petty and making the other person annoyed, frustrated and angry.

Keep in mind here, by the way, that I’m not talking about the subconscious in the same way that psychology usually does. In psychology the subconscious usually deals with feelings and emotions and such. I’m talking about the purely analytical subconscious here, the background worker which analyzes reality for us and tells us what is real and what is not. I don’t know enough about psychology to know if it’s the same thing or if they are two distinct parts of the subconscious mind and, being an atheist and, thus, having no emotions, I do not have personal emotional experience from which to draw a conclusion on that or analyze the subconscious in the way psychology usually does. In all seriousness, though, I have only ever given thought to the analytical part of the subconscious as I’ve always been a very logical thinker, so it’s the part that most interests and fascinates me.

That’s it in a nutshell. I probably could have gone on for a couple more chapters if pressed. I’m a talker when it comes to typing out my thoughts. But that’s more than just the basic, general idea. Two types of beliefs, but one of them is not actually a type of belief because we cannot directly hold it as a belief. So there’s really just one type of belief and one type of pseudo-belief that we convince ourselves is a belief. And all the heavy lifting is done by the analytical subconscious, which is impossible for us to trick, but is possible for us to persuade to help us trick ourselves.

Widdershins, that was long……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

That was a trip. How did you figure out what the “subconscious” and other parts of the psyche were saying to each other? And how did you confirm that all of us are processing as you described?

The topic is of interest to me. I think that understanding and dealing with individual and social belief systems is one of the most important human accomplishments or failures of our near to mid-term future. I tend to look at it from the angle of a massive and effective assault on truth that is spewing out from various points in the world.

Suggestion: Never drone on like that again on a Forum post.

 

@widdershins

I wish I knew you IRL…it would be cool to go out for beers and talk about this stuff.

 

Just a quick scan for now, and then I’ll be tied up for a few days, but thoughts:

I would need to evaluate those facts (on a subconscious level, usually) to determine whether I accept them as valid or not and, if I do, my belief changes. There is no work on my part. The change in belief is automatic. The MOMENT I accept new information as fact the belief is immediately altered
So ... belief is involuntary. That's basically what you are saying, right?

IMHO, our beliefs are almost never a matter of “choice.” Yes, people often “believe what they choose to believe,” but often, they believe things they wish they didn’t. If this weren’t the case, no one would suffer from depression or anxiety, because people could just decide to believe in a better version of reality.

And no one could force me to believe I’m a unicorn, not even at gunpoint. The bottom line is, something has to make sense, somehow, in our brains, before we can believe it. We may decide to follow a tortured logic to GET there; we may choose which sources we will investigate and which to ignore. But “belief” isn’t something we “pick” like an omelette from a menu.

I had 10,000 issues with Christianity, but if I had to choose one, it’s that it’s unique among world religions for prioritizing orthodoxy over orthopraxy: God can punish you forever for simply failing to THINK a certain thing. Our brains don’t work that way, and a god who really made them would know that.

 

I WANT to believe that I’m going to live forever after I die (I’m still not sure how that makes sense to anyone).
And I don't know why this sounds GOOD to anyone. I never understood the appeal of living forever, not even in bliss. It sounds horrible.
But they believe that they believe that.


I’m talking about the purely analytical subconscious here, the background worker which analyzes reality for us and tells us what is real and what is not.


I’m really tired right now and just want to toss this out there … I think there is terminology for what I’m going to say, but I can’t think of it right now…

So: Our brains constantly have to create shortcuts for things, or else we wouldn’t be able to function because every observation would be too complex.

For example, when I moved in, I learned that my housemate is named Jason and that he’s an accountant. Once I knew that, I put that on a “shelf.” I don’t have to consider in my mind who he is, what a housemate is, and what an accountant is, every time I encounter him in the hallway or living room. There is no reason to “revisit” it.

If you were talking about emotions, then you would be discussing cognitive dissonance, or compartmentalizion…things the mind does to protect itself against thoughts that would be unpleasant or overwhelming.

But the thing I’m talking about here has nothing to do with emotions. It’s just the way our brains categorize and keep things, to simplify and economize.

Let’s say I lived here for 5 years, and one day authorities come to my door and begin asking about Jason. And it turns out he’s a serial killer named Frank, who escaped from prison, and has been living under a false identity…but I never suspected.

Now, I am remembering the time someone called and referred to him as Frank, and he said it was a wrong number … and that he was really secretive about his box of photo albums. But his name and identity had already been put on the “shelf” and I’d had no really compelling reason to climb back up there and take a second look.

Is that what you mean?

Ugh, that probably makes no sense at all; I will come back in a couple days

Anyway, welcome!

 

 

 

Wow, my mom used to warn me, be careful what you wish for.

2885 dense words - I’m going to have to take that in chunks, which is why it’s already in a word documents.

Also, I’m neck deep in obligations so we’ll see how it goes.

 

I never understood the appeal of living forever, not even in bliss. It sounds horrible.
I hear ya Tee!!!
Widdershins: "The subconscious will only ever let us hold fact-based beliefs, never desire-based beliefs not backed by facts."
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Widdershins: "Keep in mind here, by the way, that I’m not talking about the subconscious in the same way that psychology usually does. In psychology the subconscious usually deals with feelings and emotions and such.

I’m talking about the purely analytical subconscious here,

the background worker which analyzes reality for us and tells us what is real and what is not.

I don’t know enough about psychology to know if it’s the same thing or if they are two distinct parts of the subconscious mind and, being an atheist and, thus, having no emotions, …"

I already anticipate this being ludicrously long.
Then why not some judicious editing?
Essentially there are two types of beliefs. There is the fact-based belief and the emotion or desire-based belief. I’ll start by discussing each one in depth.
I don't know. Seems to me before you can jump to beliefs - you must first spend a good deal of time on our sensing and thinking processes.

Furthermore, you make it sound as though “truth” were some absolute thing. I don’t think that is the case, do you?

 

Hey, this thought just popped into my mind.

Can you define the difference between “Truth” and “Honesty”

and might that factor into some of your musing?

The subconscious is a very good no-nonsense fact evaluating machine and, whether we like the fact or not, the subconscious is always going to judge it based on the information available to us.
I tried reading on past this, but you've drawn conclusions based on nothing that I'm familiar with and in contradiction to what I am familiar with. The scientific method is based on the idea that we can fool ourselves and that our desires will skew our interpretation of facts. You are saying the opposite. I can't even figure out what you mean by "whether we like it or not". Whether what part of us likes it? Doesn't liking imply feelings and subconscious emotions?

In the end you say,

Keep in mind here, by the way, that I’m not talking about the subconscious in the same way that psychology usually does. In psychology the subconscious usually deals with feelings and emotions and such. I’m talking about the purely analytical subconscious here, the background worker which analyzes reality for us and tells us what is real and what is not.
So, you kinda made up a definition of subconscious? Based on what?

Thank you Lausten - this thread needed some good grounding,

much appreciated.

That phrase “being an atheist, and thus having no emotions...” is really bugging me. I am not sure of the context of that phrase, so perhaps it is not what it seems (an assertion that atheists are emotionless).???

@Timb

I saw that, too. But:

I don’t know enough about psychology to know if it’s the same thing or if they are two distinct parts of the subconscious mind and, being an atheist and, thus, having no emotions, I do not have personal emotional experience from which to draw a conclusion on that or analyze the subconscious in the way psychology usually does. In all seriousness, though, I have only ever given thought to the analytical part of the subconscious as I’ve always been a very logical thinker, so it’s the part that most interests and fascinates me.
I'm assuming he meant it sarcastically, tongue-in-cheek, as a nod to those who actually do believe atheists have no depth of emotion.

But it’s unclear. And it’s sort of dangerous to do that, on your first post in a group of people who don’t know you, especially when it’s really long and not otherwise funny or whatever.

no follow up by W, hmmm…

@TimB

This was not a simple “what if”, it was an attempt to convey the entirety of a complicated issue I have been considering for literal decades. I know it was long, but it was posted at the request of another user and a very complex issue.

And to answer your question, I don’t “know” any of this. It’s an analysis of and attempt to understand my own thought process through decades of my own life. There are many clues I gave serious thought to come to these conclusions. To keep it short I will give a single example briefly.

I mentioned somewhere that I “received the gift of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues”. Without getting into detail, this is an altered mental state brought on by intense meditation (prayer). It is involuntary and unlike anything you’ve ever experienced. It can last from a few minutes to an hour or longer, depending on how long you make it last subconsciously. It is supposed to be the single greatest experience of a Christian’s life. But it made me feel guilty. I felt like I had to prove to everyone that it was real. I feared people didn’t believe me. Years later I realized that it was because I knew I was lying to myself on a subconscious level.

And the “no emotions” thing was a joke because of the way Christians, especially fundamentalists, see us. The whole eating babies and worshiping Satan thing.

@teebryantoo

You are too kind. I certainly understand the fascination with the workings of the mind, hence my heady pondering for decades.

Yes, I am basically saying that belief is involuntary, but not belief as we know it. All true beliefs are fact-based beliefs and those are absolutely involuntary. But the pseudo-beliefs, the desire based beliefs, those are entirely voluntary, though they are not actual beliefs, just something we convince ourselves are beliefs.

I hear you on the living forever. They’re only going to make so many episodes of The Venture Brothers. What would I do for the next few millennia?

The shortcuts thing is interesting and not something I had really considered, so no, it wasn’t what I was talking about. But now that you mention it I am certain that cognitive dissonance plays a role in helping us maintain false beliefs.

I would consider what you’re talking about there a sort of pattern recognition after the fact. I don’t really see how it fits into what I’m talking about, but it may in some way I’m not seeing.

@citizenschallengev3

I did say “half a book”.

I came to the conclusion that we can only hold fact-based beliefs because of a years-long analysis of different types of woo I have believed over the years. UFOs, ghosts, the evils of vaccination, anti-climate change, magic, Christianity… There are two very distinct types of belief there. The anti-vaccine and anti-climate change beliefs were “fact based”. I bought into bogus “facts” I read on the Internet about them. I had no emotional investment in those beliefs. I didn’t care when they went the way of the dinosaur. What I wanted was truth and the moment I realized I was not qualified to say the opposite of what the vast majority of qualified scientists were saying those beliefs just went away.

The other beliefs, on the other hand, facts had little affect on those until I lost my emotional investment in them. I had to give up looking for what I wanted to hear and actually look for facts. It was only when I accepted that these things may or may not be real and gave up looking for “evidence” that I could allow them to become fact-based beliefs. With a total and utter lack of any supporting facts I no longer hold those beliefs.

As for truth being an absolute, that’s one of those pointless philosophical questions. I do not hold philosophy, as it is used today (and for the last few centuries) in high regard. In this case “truth” is presented as some vague notion to ponder the existence of. There are, of course, things which are “true”, so in those cases truth would be an absolute thing. But the “truth” about vague notions such as God, not so much.Truth is that which is true. Pretty straight forward. Honesty is presenting the truth as you understand it, but it isn’t necessarily truth. Again, this feels more like a philosophical question and I’m not really into philosophy since seeing it mutilated in the various “proofs of God” arguments.And I work with computers all week long. When I go home at nights and on the weekends I tend not to touch them, so a follow up is unlikely to be immediate. As long as I’m enjoying the company here, I’ll get back to it during the week.

@Lausten

As I said, these are my own musings based on my own analyses of my own mind in an unprofessional capacity.I’m essentially talking about the conscience here (if you want to label it), though looking at it in a slightly different way than we normally consider. Normally we think of the conscience nagging at us when we’ve done something morally wrong based on our understanding of morality. But there’s also that same nagging when we believe something which we know to not be true.And do keep in mind that I did say that I have no training in psychology and that I may be totally wrong about all of this. I am not an expert and do not claim to have any answers, just an understanding as I see it based on my own life experience. I’m not going to argue that I’m right here, but I would absolutely love if you pointed out where I was wrong. I’ll take understanding over indignant insistence any day.

I’m not going to argue that I’m right here, but I would absolutely love if you pointed out where I was wrong. --W
I think I did that. But I'm not finding much of a point to engaging your particular speculation. You aren't really presenting them as questions and it doesn't seem you've tried to find answers using the very means that you advocate. The internet is a great place to find people who have nothing better to do than try to unpack what someone posts then replace it with their own post which might be just as speculative. The internet is also an incredible resource that can help you track down whatever you want. I kind of like using it for that.
Widdershins: And the “no emotions” thing was a joke because of the way Christians, especially fundamentalists, see us. The whole eating babies and worshiping Satan thing.
I thought it was the Christians? Isn't it they who created that secret church ceremony of the sacrament of blood and flesh to honor their ego, oops I meant their lord. ;-)
Widdershins: What I wanted was truth and the moment I realized I was not qualified to say the opposite of what the vast majority of qualified scientists were saying those beliefs just went away.
I keep reading that sentence trying to figure out what it is trying to say.
Widdershins: Truth is that which is true. Pretty straight forward.
W, I'm thinking you should spend a little more time pondering on what Lausten wrote September 22, 2019 at 10:17 am

It’s really key to appreciating why we are so tepid about what you wrote.

 

Best wishes.

 

Lausten: ... the scientific method is based on the idea that we can fool ourselves and that our desires will skew our interpretation of facts.

You are saying the opposite.

I can’t even figure out what you mean by “whether we like it or not”.

Whether what part of us likes it? Doesn’t liking imply feelings and subconscious emotions?

I don’t see where you did that at all. Looking back all I see is a vague notions about what you’re “familiar with”. Not knowing you I have no idea what that means or whether what you’re “familiar with” is in any way relevant to me or carries any more weight than does my own opinion. Are you saying you have a different opinion no more authoritative than mine or are you saying that in your expert opinion as a trained psychologist that this is hogwash? How am I supposed to know that?

The only other thing you did was jump to a wrong conclusion about what I was saying. I understand if you didn’t read it all. That much text would only be of interest to people with very narrow interests. But it looks as if you read down to a certain point and then quit because the second “belief type” I talked about, the desire-based belief, is all about our desires skewing how we interpret facts, saying, not the opposite of your statement, but the exact same thing.

And yes, everything I posted was speculation. I made no attempt to hide the fact that I have no qualifications in the subject.

But if you don’t want to discuss it further, that’s fine. It’s not of interest to everyone.

I would point out, however, that the Internet is absolutely NOT an “incredible resource” that can in any way help me become an expert in psychology. For that I need a PhD in psychology followed by well received peer reviewed publications so that I am accepted as an expert by my peers in the psychology community. There is nothing on the Internet anywhere which would make me any more qualified than I am right now to hold opinions in psychology. Only training in psychology can do that.

@citizenschallengev3

What I was saying in the “truth” part you didn’t understand was that I had wanted reality to be a certain way, then I stopped wanting that and began instead wanting to know what was and was not true. This lead to the realization that I was not, nor would I ever be, qualified to hold an opinion of my own on, say, global warming. I simply do not know the science well enough to form a valid opinion on it, therefore my opinion on global warming is to accept scientific consensus. I am not qualified to determine for myself the validity of a scientific idea and never will be, no matter how smart I can sound talking about it to the average person. That’s what scientific consensus is for.

I have considered what Lausten wrote. All I see there is vague mention of what he is “familiar with”. I don’t know what that is to consider it further. And then there was the wrong conclusion about what I was saying. I don’t see anything there for me to consider. Is Lausten a PhD holding psychiatrist? Then I’m wrong. I don’t know how, and it’s not his job to explain it, but I’m wrong. Is he not? Then we both just have an opinion.

I’m not asking anyone to accept anything I said. It’s just my own musings and my own understanding of my own mind. Nothing more. Maybe there’s something to it, maybe there isn’t. If you’re qualified to tell me there isn’t then, by all means, tell me your qualifications and simply say, “You’re wrong”. I understand that it’s not the expert’s job to explain to us laymen what is wrong with every little musing we have. “I’m am well qualified in this field and you are wrong” is enough for me to accept that. I would have questions, but I don’t suppose well qualified people have the time to hold my hand and explain, in a dumbed down way that I could understand, all of my misconceptions about the human mind.