Naïve Realism

[Ghost]

I heard a discussion on the radio yesterday of the term "naïve realism." This is the belief that if another person had all the information you do, they'd see things the way you do.

This struck me because I remember having a thought very similar to this as a missionary. If only the people I talked with could see into my mind for a few minutes, they'd understand how strong the case is for what we're trying to share.

Maybe there's an element of this for those who have gone through a faith transition, too. Piling historical facts on someone who still believes, with the assumption that this will change their mind or at least help them be more sympathetic.

This also reminds me of that quote that's attributed to many different writers but which appears to have originated with Jonathan Swift.

Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired

This is the discussion I'm referring to, if anyone is curious. It covered some other interesting topics as well.

[Red Ryder]

I had similar thoughts as a young naive missionary. If people could just believe like “we” do then their lives would be sooooo amazing. All thoughts and stuff said before I even understood if their life was already fulfilling and meaningful to them.

After a year out, I recall teaching a lady who let us in while knocking doors. She sat intently to the first discussion almost hanging on every word. Right after the part where you tell the Joseph Smith found gold plates She starts laughing out loud and says …wait! …wait! You believe that God and Jesus Christ appeared to this boy and he found gold plates??? Where the plates at now?”

“Well the angel took them back to heaven.”

“Ha ha ha ha ha. Right! Sure he did…”

It was the first time I was able to see inside the mind of a skeptic and feel like the story I fully believed was a bit on the unbelievable side. An a ha! moment that has stuck with me all these years later.

Maybe there's an element of this for those who have gone through a faith transition, too. Piling historical facts on someone who still believes, with the assumption that this will change their mind or at least help them be more sympathetic.

I’m guilty of doing this and thinking it will actually work. Over time I realized that a faith transition is highly personalized and that the first domino to fall is highly variable. For some it’s Joseph Smith character or BoM literal history. For others it’s patriarchy and women’s issues. Or something as silly as President Nelson declaring Mormon as a pejorative and win for satan.

Fascinating thoughts. Thanks for the link. I’ll have to dive into it a bit.

[dogbite]

No one can see what you have seen. You never saw it either.

You do not directly apprehend anything. All your sensory input is converted to nerve impulses that the brain translates and then constructs a model we use to navigate through whatever the real world may be. Smell might be the closest thing we get to direct apprehension as part of brain extends down to to the olfactory bulb at the back of the nose. So the transmission between the detecting neurons and the glomerulus is pretty short.

It's amazing we can agree on anything given the kludges of consciousness we are discovering.

We are not thinking animals who feel. We are feeling animals who think, sometimes.

[alas]

I had similar thoughts as a young naive missionary. If people could just believe like “we” do then their lives would be sooooo amazing. All thoughts and stuff said before I even understood if their life was already fulfilling and meaningful to them.

After a year out, I recall teaching a lady who let us in while knocking doors. She sat intently to the first discussion almost hanging on every word. Right after the part where you tell the Joseph Smith found gold plates She starts laughing out loud and says …wait! …wait! You believe that God and Jesus Christ appeared to this boy and he found gold plates??? Where the plates at now?”

“Well the angel took them back to heaven.”

“Ha ha ha ha ha. Right! Sure he did…”

It was the first time I was able to see inside the mind of a skeptic and feel like the story I fully believed was a bit on the unbelievable side. An a ha! moment that has stuck with me all these years later.

Maybe there's an element of this for those who have gone through a faith transition, too. Piling historical facts on someone who still believes, with the assumption that this will change their mind or at least help them be more sympathetic.

I’m guilty of doing this and thinking it will actually work. Over time I realized that a faith transition is highly personalized and that the first domino to fall is highly variable. For some it’s Joseph Smith character or BoM literal history. For others it’s patriarchy and women’s issues. Or something as silly as President Nelson declaring Mormon as a pejorative and win for satan.

Fascinating thoughts. Thanks for the link. I’ll have to dive into it a bit.

I think before the first domino can even fall, the person has to change how they feel emotionally. RR mentioned that for some, it is feminist issues. So, say a woman hears something that makes her *feel* second class. And sometimes it takes several times where something feels insulting. But each time there is an emotional hurt, it put a rock on the pile. When the emotional scale shifts, then people start letting the cognitive problems through. Otherwise, they just prop up the cognitive domino and don’t let it fall. It is a matter of, “I will ignore facts while I still love X.” Once they get their emotions out of the way, then the facts matter.

[Angel]

At our core, we are surviving. Seems like until it's your kid, or you personally, it won't sink in. After the personal breach - then everything else becomes clear.

It has to be a personal conversation to get through.