We need to discuss Post-Hoc Rationalisation

[Scholar]

This topic is connected to Spiral Dynamics and Self-bias. I feel like in this community we need to have a much greater awareness of Post Hoc rationalisation in general because it is so prevalent everywhere, even in this forum. I catch myself doing it all the time so I am not special in the regard that I don't do it. But the awareness of it alone I think can keep a lot of us from falling into traps.

Post hoc rationalisaion is basically creating arguments from a conclusion or feelings that you already have. An easy example of doing this is by asking "Is rape a good thing?"

Now, pretty much all of us will have already concluded that rape is wrong, we will not even start to entertain the question. Our minds will feel that it is wrong, we will intuit it, and from there our minds will try to come up with good reasons for why it is wrong. Notice yourself doing that.

You will be doing this even if you are a moral nihilist. A moral nihilist will already have concluded that nothing is wrong and his mind will immediately shuffle around to find the justifications for his position.

 

The tricky thing is that post hoc rationalisation does not mean you are automatically wrong, infact often if gets us results that are farely accurate. But doing it unconsciously allows for the devilry to take place, it allows for self-deception, for self-bias. In the cases in which it does, we will keep arguing a position even when we have not yet found any rational reason to justify it.

It's like when you ask a normal person if they think eating meat is moral, they will in most cases immediately tell you reasons for why they indeed do think it is moral. When you then inspect the reasons, you will notice that they are all shallow and completely absurd, yet the person who stated them did not notice it, even if they would notice it if we would change the context. This is a really good example of post hoc rationalisation, because it demonstrates that we reason from our emotions, from our conclusions, rather than objectively inspecting the question to find an answer.

 

With our knowledge of Spiral Dynamics we know that the way we value things is determined by what needs have been fulfilled or not fulfilled in our lifes. For example, a person cannot transition into orange before they have not fulfilled their individualistic needs. What we value is basically a tool of survival, it allows us to focus on what is important and leave out that which is not. For someone who is individualistic, animal rights are secondary because they are still worried about actualizing their own individuality. Once that individuality is actualized, one might move onto valuing say community or the like, which then becomes the primary object of perception.

It means that what we perceive to be lacking in our lifes will be what we will value, and therefore our perceptions will focus on finding information that will fulfill and actualize that value. This is where post hoc rationalisation comes in. When we ask someone why they value what they value, they will come up with reasons, but the reasons they give are never truly the reasons for why they value it, rather the reasons are a result of what they already value. They create the arguments from the way they perceive and from what they value in the world.

This determines everything. This determines our metaphysics, it determines how we speak, it determines what we like to consume. Literally everything. And our intellectual positions are part of that. We will find certain world views and ideologies more compelling than others based on what we value, and we will do anything to justify these world views.

This is why we cannot convince a religious person, with arguments, that their religion is wrong. The arguments don't really matter, what matters is what they value. They will come up with any reason, no matter how absurd, to justify their beliefs. And this is happening everywhere. We are all doing it, and we need to be aware of it.

 

Some good questions to keep and mind and ask yourself on a regular basis are:

"Why do I find this argument compelling?"

"Am I attached to this position?"

"Would I really want to be convinced of the opposite of what I believe?"

"How would it make me feel if I was wrong about this?"

"Am I more certain about this than I should be?"

 

Basically we need to observe the process of rationalisation. Where are my thoughts coming from, why are they the way they are? There must be a reason and it will be found if we look for it.

I see a lot of people for example delegitimizing the model of Spiral Dynamics, despite them not really understanding it at all. How is that possible, how can a rational agent not understand something and yet disagree with it? Well, because they do not care for the truth, they care about how this piece of information will be useful to actualize whatever they value. If a piece of information goes contrary to what they value, infact even if they just hint thaat it might they will immediately proceed to rationlize why that piece of information is false. Their minds will seek reasons from a conclusion instead of inspecting it honestly.

We need to train ourselves to catch this process, because whether our arguments are valid or not, this process allows for the devil to sneak in. Infact, the devil will use the instances where this process worked to justify all of it's lies.

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

Self-deception 101

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Self-deception 101

But how do we make people aware of this? I watched the self-deception series but I didn't have this post hoc rationalization realization until now for some reason. Is it possible to make someone aware of it by trying to explain it to them or does it take time for it to actualize into an actual awareness of what is going on?

So many of us here are doing it and I feel like it's such an obvious thing that somehow we should be able to avoid, right? But how?

 

 

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But how do we make people aware of this? 

Part of the dynamic are defenses to protect the dynamic. ime, there needs to be at least some willingness and receptivity. If someone hunkers down behind a barrier with a message "Do Not Enter" - they won't allow entry.

At a more fundamental level, it's about survival - including survival of the ego. Attachment/Identification to an identity goes deep and their is a survival mechanism to protect that identity. In a moderate form, it is an identity crisis that can be uncomfortable and destabilizing. Some people may resist and withdraw, others may seek to develop and improve their identity. 

At a deeper level, the whole house of cards comes down. It is revealed it's all just ideas, stories, perspectives without a "me" owning any of it. This is complete loss of the narrative and is a major threat to self survival. Very few people confront this. It takes a lot of courage and can be terrifying. Most people would rather protect a miserable identity than transcending the identity. For example "I'm a scientist and I value reason and logic. I'm a skeptic and won't believe in something without evidence. I am very analytical and this has caused problems in my romantic relationships. I'm so logical, I have a hard time expressing my emotions and connecting with others. Sometimes I feel like my life doesn't have meaning. But that's just who I am. . . " There may be a very strong attachment/identification to this identity - even if it means getting into debates and arguments to win on logic - yet cause misery. Transcending this identity threatens the survival of the identity - which is a form of death. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

But how do we make people aware of this?

Most people are not interested in being aware of it because you'd be undermining their very way of life!

Self-deception is a VAST topic with many sub-topics. It's the bulk of how humans fool themselves into believing they are human.

The trick is that this stuff cannot simply be taught or explained, it requires deep self-reflection, contemplation, and consciousness work -- which virtually nobody is willing to do.

And even if you do it, you'll still get tripped up in self-deception. Self-deception does not joke around. It's seriously deceptive.

[ValiantSalvatore]

@Scholar I also have similar experiences, yet I never heard the term despite of even thinking in this particular way about this issue. I can't find the part I like the most to quote it but it was along the lines of not understanding of what one thinks or thought patterns and loops. Most people don't notice this and run mechnically I always liked for instance cognitive biases, such as the confirmation bias or the halo effect, or even a cultural shock is a cognitive distortion. Most people don't consciously entertain these biases as a possbillity as well as they are run by the unconsciously if they never heard about anything that influences behaviour and thinking. I am still amazed how much meditation changed my day to day thought pattern and how positive I can be just by thinking positive thoughts or interacting in a happy manner with positive people, who seem to be more aware. 

Reading about what one values or to question what one self values is a bit tricky since most people don't know what the culture even values, I like this model http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp?CMSID=Findings it even has a survival line which I did not notice. Which shows what people in a country value and how fast this changes, this shows yes people can change and their predispositions change. For instance look at sweden in the 30 second video and how strong they have grown in the self-expressive line.

I do think awarness alone is curative as well as being aware of cognitive distortions and biases helps to reduce them, yet from what I've read they are not fully negatable. 

I mean there even is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity as well as for instance of how people market products and services for instance to certain social mileaus. At least here in Germany. https://www.sinus-institut.de/en/sinus-solutions/sinus-milieus/

Being aware of that you can shoot for the most conscious "mileau" as well as individuals and reflect upon the collective to see how a individual functions or a collective "aggregates" and interacts. For instance I notice that even my english is very secular because of German values and how the language is formed, it is always about some space or some modality or some concatination. I for instance do better with words that are sciency than words that are self-expressive like, scurries or smth. similar to that. Or the whole thing vice-versa.

At least this is my bias. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by ValiantSalvatore