Does the truth make people happy?

[Ivan Seeking]

Does "the truth" make people happy?

I have often wondered if faith, fantasy, or even delusions, are, on the average, critical to happiness. Frankly, some of the happiest people that I've known were and are people that I consider to be the least in touch with reality.

Is it possible that our inquisitive nature and yearning for knowledge actually betray our emotional needs? I have sometimes been struck by people's desperate need to believe strange things. Debunk a belief, or explain a mystery, and one can often make the believer very sad - profoundly sad. In fact, esp when it comes to religious matters, a failed belief, or lost faith, can be devestating for some people. And it works both ways. People often get angry when they can't debunk something they believed to be debunkable. It seems that, again, on the average, people don't really want to know the truth about something; they just want to be right. They want their belief confirmed.

Another twist on this idea: I once knew someone whose wife didn't understand what causes rainbows. So, one day he explained it to her. According to his wife, he ruined rainbows for her. Years later she was still slightly angry about it. I found this to be quite striking.

 

[Borg]

I would like to comment but, I'm afraid that one of us might become unhappy. :tongue:

Seriously, I think that the main problem is a person putting too much faith in their belief of something. Personally, I accept the fact that I don't know everything and that my belief systems could be disproved. When I find out that I'm wrong, I deal with it as a learning experience. I think that I'm pretty happy as a result and I would find it sad to treat my beliefs otherwise.

 

[alxm]

Depends on how much you like delusions. Personally I've always had a strong preference for the truth; as a child I hated when adults lied to me.

In my opinion, the truth has proved itself to be more interesting and fascinating than anything we'd ever be able to imagine.
Just survey historic human thinkers on "What is the sun?" and the results will be "It's a god.", "Yup, it's a god.", "It's the torch of the gods", etc..

Nobody had ever come up with the idea that the sun was, in fact, a gigantic furnace of nuclear fusion -
transmuting elements and creating the very matter we're made of.
Stable in a precarious balance between the explosive energy created from these reactions,
and the crushing force of gravity trying to compress it together..

That's a lot more interesting to me than claiming it's a god.

 

[radou]

I'll quote Feynman:

"I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."

Basically, it's all a matter of how open/closed minded you are.

 

[madness]

It seems that, again, on the average, people don't really want to know the truth about something; they just want to be right. They want their belief confirmed.

I think this is the most important point, and it applies to most people whether they are "delusional" in their beliefs or see themselves as upholders of empiricism and rationalism. People pick beliefs and stick with them, usually with some level of emotional investment, and become angry or defensive when their beliefs are challenged. Richard Dawkins strikes me as a good example of someone who has high emotional investment in his beliefs.

Studies have shown that people are far more receptive to information coming from a political party they already side with (regardless of what their political beliefs are). If we are being open-minded ánd unbiased, I think we have to admit that we are guilty of these faults as much as any "deluded religious person" or whoever else you might try to pin it on. It seems to be a fundamental trait of human nature that we try to retain the beliefs we form rather than taking on new ones every day.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Depends on how much you like delusions. Personally I've always had a strong preference for the truth; as a child I hated when adults lied to me.

In my opinion, the truth has proved itself to be more interesting and fascinating than anything we'd ever be able to imagine.
Just survey historic human thinkers on "What is the sun?" and the results will be "It's a god.", "Yup, it's a god.", "It's the torch of the gods", etc..

Nobody had ever come up with the idea that the sun was, in fact, a gigantic furnace of nuclear fusion -
transmuting elements and creating the very matter we're made of.
Stable in a precarious balance between the explosive energy created from these reactions,
and the crushing force of gravity trying to compress it together..

That's a lot more interesting to me than claiming it's a god.

You chose something already consistent with your beliefs. Purely for the sake of conjecture, how would you feel if God appeared and announced that everything in the Bible is true; that he really is a trickster and all of science is bogus? Would you find that to be personally devestating?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems to be a fundamental trait of human nature that we try to retain the beliefs we form rather than taking on new ones every day.

If true, then what might be the best path to happiness? And, more specifically, how do we as a society address irrational beliefs that may be critical to people's happiness? To what end do we destroy rainbows?

 

[waht]

One of the basic human needs, aside from food, breathing, sex, that was identified is the feeling of importance in relation to other people, and being respected.

I think as a result, when one is proved wrong, it subconsciously says you are not being worthy. In group environment it can screw up your reputation permanently as other people will perceive you as being weak, and perhaps you will not get promoted. I noticed there are some people who are very perceptive to subtle reputation changes, and will do anything to uphold it.

 

[madness]

If true, then what might be the best path to happiness? And, more specifically, how do we as a society address irrational beliefs that may be critical to people's happiness? To what end do we destroy rainbows?

I'm not sure which irrational beliefs you are referring to, but unless they are causing harm to anyone I would leave them alone. I'm sure in 1000 years people will look back and say many commonly held beliefs today are irrational, just like we do to people from 1000 years ago. I can't help but accept that every single thing I believe might be wrong, and I think I might be happier I didn't think this way.

I suppose two possible ways to be happy are to either have solid faith in your beliefs or to take the Feynman type approach mentioned above and be happy to not understand and enjoy the mystery. If, for example, a Christian surrounds themselves with other Christians and involves themselves with Christian activities, then there is not much chance that someone like Richard Dawkins will come and try to upset them by debunking their beliefs, and they should remain fairly happy.

 

[apeiron]

I have often wondered if faith, fantasy, or even delusions, are, on the average, critical to happiness. Frankly, some of the happiest people that I've known were and are people that I consider to be the least in touch with reality.

Speaking psychologically, the real need people have here is to smoothly predict their worlds. Being able to anticipate, and thus control your world, removes stress and anxiety, promotes feelings of reward and contentment. This has been called "flow experience". It is why people enjoy sports, music and other kinds of skilled action so much. We can get into something and just do it.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199707/finding-flow

People also experience flow in their social worlds - when all is predictable and controllable.

Given this, we can see how false beliefs about reality, like religion or whatever, make people happy to the extent they make the world seem predictable and controllable. If prayer gives you an illusory of control over what is actually not a very controllable reality, then people will cling to it, and the social structures that foster such illusions.

Other people also find comfort in science for the same reason of course. Global warming and peak oil troubling you? Take comfort in the dream we can invent our way out of our problems.

So this is not a religion vs science deal. Plenty of people have a deluded faith in what they think of as the scientific view - because they have chosen to be selective about the science they believe.

The key here again is flow. The ability to predict and control the world we know.

So we can be generally happy and content if we keep the scale of what we know quite small (the wider problems you don't think about can't trouble you as you live in your small bubble of prediction and control).

And if we enter that larger world of scientific knowledge, then again we will be happy to the degree we can accurately predict the world and exert some measure of control over our lives as a result. So knowing about peak oil and global warming is very troubling. But there is then comfort in making what seem sensible preparations.

Of course, those actually doing this are currently treated as cranks with a "foolish faith". But I've met some happy preppers recently. In the flow. :tongue:

 

[Studiot]

An interesting adjunct to this is the decline of science in schools and the swing of
Alven's cosmological pendulum towards magic.

I'm sorry to say that all too often the snazzy scientist reinforces this response in ordinary folks, or even scientists in other disciplines, with a 'it's beyond your pay grade son' type of explanation.

With my feet firmly planted in the applied camp I am well used to and therefore comfortable with the notion
'We know this is not the correct explanation of the mechanism, but we need a working overall model to enable useful calculations'

 

[Evolving?]

I'll quote Feynman:

"I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." [snip] It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts." [snip]

I agree! Understanding the beauty in an object or phenomenon, a flower, a rainbow etc. can only add to their beauty and the fascination I might derive from them.
I'd certainly never ignore a rainbow because I know it is 'only droplets of water' creating that brilliant colour display.
I appreciate blue sky more, now that a native of England pointed out that it is much bluer here than there.

 

[rewebster]

I think 'knowing the truth' depends on how much the previous 'truth' was important to you and your security in your existence.

If, for example, someone you didn't know came up to you, or while waiting in line, and told you that someone had just stolen a hundred (or 100K) from him and slept with his/her wife/husband, you may have some sympathy for his situation.

But, if it happened to you, you would have different feelings about the situation just after you were told.

The people who lived in the Love Canal area before they knew about what was buried under them, more often than not, lived normal lives.

So, I think 'happiness' deals more with the fewest fears to one's security being present, plus the presence of thought that 'all is just about as good as it can be' without the anxiety of something good or bad 'may' happen to you, those close to you, or your possessions.

I think 'knowing the truth' makes some people happy, if knowing the truth doesn't detract from their beliefs of what makes them happy and secure to begin with.

In a way, it's a wonder why more people aren't Buddhists.

 

[Kerrie]

I have often wondered if faith, fantasy, or even delusions, are, on the average, critical to happiness. Frankly, some of the happiest people that I've known were and are people that I consider to be the least in touch with reality.

While I agree with this statement, I couldn't help but think about the temporary "happiness" addicts experience when they are in the midst of their addiction. This may be a matter of the definition of happiness however.

It seems that, again, on the average, people don't really want to know the truth about something; they just want to be right. They want their belief confirmed.

I think those who take this state of mind to the extreme are no longer seeking truth, but an affirmation to validate the little confidence they have in themselves.

Another twist on this idea: I once knew someone whose wife didn't understand what causes rainbows. So, one day he explained it to her. According to his wife, he ruined rainbows for her. Years later she was still slightly angry about it. I found this to be quite striking.

This is a sad little story in my opinion! The very fact that nature has the means to produce something so beautiful and appealing to us is in itself an act of something beyond our comprehension.

by Radou: Basically, it's all a matter of how open/closed minded you are.

I completely agree, a very simple thing that is determined by our own free will.

 

[cesiumfrog]

You chose something already consistent with your beliefs. Purely for the sake of conjecture, how would you feel if God appeared and announced that everything in the Bible is true; that he really is a trickster and all of science is bogus? Would you find that to be personally devestating?

This is the same as the Love Canal example. Sure, in the short term, information can be disruptive. But isn't it obvious that in the long term it would probably be more devastating to have remained ignorant of the one true religion? Wouldn't you rather knowingly having to move house now than to gradually acquire inexplicable chronic disease? Relativists certainly wouldn't want it suppressed if recent telemetry data had disproved GR.

I think I often find rainbows and the like even more fascinating than do those who have not learned the beauty of the underlying mechanism.

It does seem as though the science of happiness is either underdeveloped or not effectively communicated.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is the same as the Love Canal example. Sure, in the short term, information can be disruptive. But isn't it obvious that in the long term it would probably be more devastating to have remained ignorant of the one true religion? Wouldn't you rather knowingly having to move house now than to gradually acquire inexplicable chronic disease? Relativists certainly wouldn't want it suppressed if recent telemetry data had disproved GR.

Love Canal is an example of a proactive response to a threat. In most cases of belief, as far as the individual is concerned, we are talking about beliefs that do no harm. What someone believes usually matters very little to anyone but that person. Where I think we do have a problem is at scale and over time. While the beliefs of any particular person usually have little to no significance to the rest of us, there is plenty of evidence to show that science and rational thought serve us well as a society. We [the global community, on the average] have a far better life that any generation before. We know to go to the doctor if we get sick. We don't blame illness on evil spirits [though I have always thought that "evil spirits" is a pretty good description of infectious bacteria! So maybe we just found a better name]. We know how to treat our drinking water so that it's safe to drink. We make air conditioners and refrigerators so that we can be comfortable and eat well. We have learned to produce food in sufficient quantities to feed most of the world. We all know that, on the average, science and rational thought makes life better for everyone. I think we all agree on that. However, I don't think even scientists are immune to this problem of faith. Consider for example the words of Max Planck

“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."

- Max Planck

So he seems to be saying that faith never dies, just the faithful, even in science. So what exactly do people like Dawkins hope to achieve?

It does seem as though the science of happiness is either underdeveloped or not effectively communicated.

I love the suicide warnings associated with anti-depressants. Yes, I would say we have a bit to learn.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While I agree with this statement, I couldn't help but think about the temporary "happiness" addicts experience when they are in the midst of their addiction. This may be a matter of the definition of happiness however.

Hmmmm, in fact, in principle, doesn't science tell us that happiness can be reduced to biochemistry? Isn't this why drugs work in the first place? And how far can we take it? In principle, isn't a mother's love of her child reduced by science to hormones and brain evolution?

This is a sad little story in my opinion! The very fact that nature has the means to produce something so beautiful and appealing to us is in itself an act of something beyond our comprehension.

But the entire point of science IS to comprehend it. You seem to be using ethereal concepts to defend the very opposite.

I completely agree, a very simple thing that is determined by our own free will.

I wonder if the problem is deeper than that. Consider for example the quote that I use for the header in the S&D guidelines.

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed.

- A. Einstein

Einstein seems to be saying that life itself is found in the mystery of things, not the explanations. He seems to suggest that, were science to be completed and the entire universe explained, we would be as good as dead. Surely he as much as anyone could appreciate the beauty of science. But he still believed that mystery is critical. Yet he could not believe that God plays dice? If you ask me, the whole business is downright paradoxical! I guess we only want the mysteries that we like.

Our brains have evolved with only the most rudimentary understanding of the world around us. Almost everything that we know has been learned in a brief moment of human history. Sometime I wonder if, on the average, our brains have evolved such that we can adapt well to this age of science and information. A review of typical internet sites is not encouraging!

 

[madness]

I saw a book based on psychology that claimed happiness is largely in-built. People tend to have a base-level of happiness, which they can fluctuate around but generally return to. For example, someone who wins the lottery will become very happy for a while and then settle back to their normal happiness level, and the similarly for someone who becomes disabled. I'm not sure how seriously to take this idea, but I think there is some truth to it. I'm sure through practices such as meditation/cognitive therapy (positive thinking etc.) someone could chance their happiness level - self-willed neuroplasticity is a well documented phenomenon.

 

[Kerrie]

Einstein seems to be saying that life itself is found in the mystery of things, not the explanations. He seems to suggest that, were science to be completed and the entire universe explained, we would be as good as dead. Surely he as much as anyone could appreciate the beauty of science. But he still believed that mystery is critical.

Do you think it is possible for our brains to even comprehend complete science? The "simpler" explanations (such as the rainbow) of course is something we have the capability of understanding. It would seem that our minds are designed (by 'what' is the big mystery ) to rationalize, understand, dissect, label how our world functions. It seems more likely we will always find another mystery to mull over before we are content with the answers because it is in our nature.

Another Einstein quote I like:
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

 

[brainstorm]

Another Einstein quote I like:
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

Nice quote. An important point about this is that curiosity isn't geared toward seeking lies or obfuscation. I forget where I read it but this writer said that the problem with lying is that even when it's done with the best intentions, it is still basically like saying that you have a right to more access to reality than the person you're lying to or withholding truth from.

When someone wants to be kept in the dark because they think ignorance is bliss, they are asking something that is unfair to ask. They are asking you to protect them from knowledge that is not going to go away because you don't tell them. It's one thing to want people not to talk about something because you don't want to hear about - another thing to expect people to deny their knowledge on your account.

Probably the worst thing, imo, is when people don't want to subject their knowledge to questioning because they are afraid it might be false. This is usually because they benefit in some way from maintaining belief in something that is simply untenable in the long run. When lots of people insist on maintaining a lie because it suits them, the question is whose detriment does the lie work in? What right to people have to benefit from untruths that cause problems for someone else?

 

[cesiumfrog]

What right [do] people have to benefit from untruths that cause problems for someone else?

Interesting angle. (Seems to express a motivation driving the likes of Dawkins.)

 

[brainstorm]

Interesting angle. (Seems to express a motivation driving the likes of Dawkins.)

The funny thing is that people are often not lying maliciously, because they have convinced themselves that their deceit doesn't affect anyone else. "What they don't know won't hurt them" is the typical thought justification, I think. Ironically, if something really wouldn't hurt/affect someone else, why would you hesitate to tell them about it?

 

[phizo]

Speaking psychologically, the real need people have here is to smoothly predict their worlds. Being able to anticipate, and thus control your world, removes stress and anxiety, promotes feelings of reward and contentment. This has been called "flow experience". It is why people enjoy sports, music and other kinds of skilled action so much. We can get into something and just do it.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199707/finding-flow

People also experience flow in their social worlds - when all is predictable and controllable.

Given this, we can see how false beliefs about reality, like religion or whatever, make people happy to the extent they make the world seem predictable and controllable. If prayer gives you an illusory of control over what is actually not a very controllable reality, then people will cling to it, and the social structures that foster such illusions.

Other people also find comfort in science for the same reason of course. Global warming and peak oil troubling you? Take comfort in the dream we can invent our way out of our problems.

So this is not a religion vs science deal. Plenty of people have a deluded faith in what they think of as the scientific view - because they have chosen to be selective about the science they believe.

The key here again is flow. The ability to predict and control the world we know.

So we can be generally happy and content if we keep the scale of what we know quite small (the wider problems you don't think about can't trouble you as you live in your small bubble of prediction and control).

And if we enter that larger world of scientific knowledge, then again we will be happy to the degree we can accurately predict the world and exert some measure of control over our lives as a result. So knowing about peak oil and global warming is very troubling. But there is then comfort in making what seem sensible preparations.

Of course, those actually doing this are currently treated as cranks with a "foolish faith". But I've met some happy preppers recently. In the flow. :tongue:

I think you need to factoring the cost of being wrong to your calculations.

Take religion for example, many people may derive a lot of happiness from it, so that for them may be a benefit. Equally many people may derive a lot of happiness from lot having a religion.

I am not to sure how to quantify and compare the two views and the happiness involved if each group were to be right.

Then you have to consider the cost to each group if they are wrong, that, to me, seems to be a simpler calculation.

So it is a question of balancing risks and costs, if there is no cost to being wrong it does not really matter whether you are right or wrong.

Science falls down a little in this area because it puts too much value on getting the 'right' answer rather than the consequences of being wrong.
When the costs of being wrong are essentially infinite it does not matter too much what the right answer is, however likely it is, well for some people anyway.

If for example I said. "if the next key you press on your keyboard is z, you will die instantly", would you do it?

Maybe you wouldn't die and that's almost certain, but then again why take the risk?
There is no real point is there? There is no real cost in not pressing it?

Hands up who pressed after reading this! (if your still alive - lol - it will be interesting to see who never posts again!)

 

[phizo]

I saw a book based on psychology that claimed happiness is largely in-built. People tend to have a base-level of happiness, which they can fluctuate around but generally return to. For example, someone who wins the lottery will become very happy for a while and then settle back to their normal happiness level, and the similarly for someone who becomes disabled. I'm not sure how seriously to take this idea, but I think there is some truth to it. I'm sure through practices such as meditation/cognitive therapy (positive thinking etc.) someone could chance their happiness level - self-willed neuroplasticity is a well documented phenomenon.

I think there is something in the brain which 'eats up' happiness. Some drugs prevent the chemical which eats up happiness from working. We normally return to a base level I believe.

I think happiness is like a rubber band, it always returns to normal with no forces exerted on it.

 

[phizo]

To answers the OP question, truth definitely does not make you happy, it depends on the truth obviously. Some truths will make you happy, some sad, some no difference.

 

[DanP]

Speaking psychologically, the real need people have here is to smoothly predict their worlds. Being able to anticipate, and thus control your world, removes stress and anxiety, promotes feelings of reward and contentment. This has been called "flow experience". It is why people enjoy sports, music and other kinds of skilled action so much. We can get into something and just do it.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199707/finding-flow

People also experience flow in their social worlds - when all is predictable and controllable.

I don't agree with this view of flow. Flow is a form of intrinsic motivation, characterized by
complete immersion, no self-evaluation, perfect control without conscious effort to be in control - when automaticites match any behavioral demand. In many ways a flow state is a deindividuation of self.

Social situations in the world at large, even if they are predictable and controllable, do not meet the criteria IMO. You may feel better if you think you are in control, and if you think you can predict, but it's a far cry from flow.

 

[apeiron]

Social situations in the world at large, even if they are predictable and controllable, do not meet the criteria IMO. You may feel better if you think you are in control, and if you think you can predict, but it's a far cry from flow.

Why do people enjoy dancing, dinner parties and other social occasions where they "lose themselves" in the flow?

It is true that the notion of flow emphasises such a good fit with activity that it largely is about automaticism. But your habits are "you" just as much as your attentive level processes. And both habits and attention are anticipatory-based processing.

But if you have a better definition of what makes people happy, let's hear it.

 

[DanP]

Why do people enjoy dancing, dinner parties and other social occasions where they "lose themselves" in the flow?

It is true that the notion of flow emphasises such a good fit with activity that it largely is about automaticism. But your habits are "you" just as much as your attentive level processes. And both habits and attention are anticipatory-based processing.

Dancing is a good example of an activity which can lead to a state of flow. So it's playing music, high performance sports or doing sex with someone you are very well attuned to. Acting on a stage. And probably a plethora of other activities.

But not a dinner party IMO. I didn't whiteness any dinner party where a somebody is in complete control without being in "control" and whatever behavioral demand arise are completely met by automaticites. Besides, in most social situations (mob behavior / team sports ... and other several isolated situations excluded) humans will not de-individualize, they remain self aware. Their social self is too important to let loose in a social situation.

Yes, 2 participants to such a dinner may find flow while dancing there. If they are both extraordinary skilled , technically attuned to each other and they enjoy dancing. But as soon as they return to the others in society, flow is gone IMO. The social self comes and rears its ugly head.

But if you have a better definition of what makes people happy, let's hear it.

Genetics. This doesn't mean some thing do not make you happier and some sadder, you will gravitate in the some bounds from a certain level for the best part of your life.

 

[apeiron]

But not a dinner party IMO. I didn't whiteness any dinner party where a somebody is in complete control without being in "control" and whatever behavioral demand arise are completely met by automaticites. Besides, in most social situations (mob behavior / team sports ... and other several isolated situations excluded) humans will not de-individualize, they remain self aware. Their social self is too important to let loose in a social situation.

Yes, 2 participants to such a dinner may find flow while dancing there. If they are both extraordinary skilled , technically attuned to each other and they enjoy dancing. But as soon as they return to the others in society, flow is gone IMO. The social self comes and rears its ugly head.

OK, let's get back to what I actually said, not what you misunderstood.

The emphasis here is on anticipation - a predictable world. And so a controlled one. This does not have to be your personal control. It could be society that is in control or nature that is in control.

The question is about why false beliefs would make people happy. Well it is obvious that ritual and prayer and religion give some people comfort because it says someone is looking out for you and is in control. You too can have control over the uncontrollable through your prayers. The whole ritual is designed to create a state of comfortable predictability.

You are chosing to focus on the ways modern western society stresses individual autonomy and so flow experiences fall back to this strictly personal level. How good you are on the tennis court, dance floor or work place. People pay for synthetic flow experiences like going to football matches or concerts or churches.

If people are unhappy, if the social self raises its ugly head as you say, then isn't it because they lack flow with their social environment?

Genetics. This doesn't mean some thing do not make you happier and some sadder, you will gravitate in the some bounds from a certain level for the best part of your life.

Genetics has an influence of course. But the OP was about the more specific question of why religious false belief can make people happy. So a nurture rather than nature issue. Unless you are arguing some people are just wired to "be religious" - which still wouldn't tackle the happiness aspect.

 

[DanP]

OK, let's get back to what I actually said, not what you misunderstood.

The emphasis here is on anticipation - a predictable world. And so a controlled one. This does not have to be your personal control. It could be society that is in control or nature that is in control.

The question is about why false beliefs would make people happy. Well it is obvious that ritual and prayer and religion give some people comfort because it says someone is looking out for you and is in control. You too can have control over the uncontrollable through your prayers. The whole ritual is designed to create a state of comfortable predictability.

You are chosing to focus on the ways modern western society stresses individual autonomy and so flow experiences fall back to this strictly personal level. How good you are on the tennis court, dance floor or work place. People pay for synthetic flow experiences like going to football matches or concerts or churches.
.

IMO going to a concert or churches is not a state of flow. It is indeed a state of de-individualization , and therefore most likely very useful for recreation but I wouldn't call it flow. IMO a concert is closer to mob behavior psychology then flow. Same for most church experiences. Flow is intrinsic. Requires autonomous control of the practitioner IMO. Not control of "god" , nature, society or the mob at a concert.

Some religious rituals may allow the practitioner to enter flow. Some praying rituals , eastern meditation techniques , zen rituals and similar.

 

[apeiron]

Flow happens at both individual and group level according to the guy who invented the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)#Group_flow

I only use the term because most people "get it" quite easily. If you want to debate the definition, take it up with Csíkszentmihályi.

 

[DanP]

Flow happens at both individual and group level according to the guy who invented the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)#Group_flow

I only use the term because most people "get it" quite easily. If you want to debate the definition, take it up with Csíkszentmihályi.

I know some of Csikszentmihaly's work. I won't take it with him, but with you, because your usage is what bothered me , not his.

Yes, flow does happen to individuals within groups. It can happen to players in a football team for example. But it's not collective. It's *individual*. It doesn't happen to the group, it happens to the individuals.

 

[apeiron]

I know some of Csikszentmihaly's work. I won't take it with him, but with you, because your usage is what bothered me , not his.

Yes, flow does happen to individuals within groups. It can happen to players in a football team for example. But it's not collective. It's *individual*. It doesn't happen to the group, it happens to the individuals.

And I could respond by challenging your notion of individuals and groups.

What is an individual? You think people aren't social creatures - that is shaped socioculturally? What is your theory here?

Mine is based on Vygotskean psychology and social constructionism. Do you have a theory here or just opinions?

So this is a systems perspective - one based on hierarchy theory and semiotics. Which is why I would talk about the property of autonomy instead of "individual". And both individual people and groups can display autonomous behaviour - acting as one. It is not a property tied to a single scale of organisation.

So be bothered by my useage. But respond with theory-based views rather than more general opinion.

 

[DanP]

And I could respond by challenging your notion of individuals and groups.

What is an individual? You think people aren't social creatures - that is shaped socioculturally? What is your theory here?

Mine is based on Vygotskean psychology and social constructionism. Do you have a theory here or just opinions?

So this is a systems perspective - one based on hierarchy theory and semiotics. Which is why I would talk about the property of autonomy instead of "individual". And both individual people and groups can display autonomous behaviour - acting as one. It is not a property tied to a single scale of organisation.

The fact the self and self awareness are undoubtedly social constructs does not have too much relevance in this case.

Groups do not behave. Individuals within a group may act in a synchronized manner, and their behavior may be influenced by grouping. Yet a group does not take a life of it's own, it does not obtain a new mind, independent of the motivations and behaviors of the individual members.

Even the most basic functions of an efficient group (let's say a football team) relay ultimately on individual cognition, even if it's distributed, and on the behaviors and motivations of the individuals.

We are not Borg.

 

[apeiron]

Groups do not behave. Individuals within a group may act in a synchronized manner, and their behavior may be influenced by grouping. Yet a group does not take a life of it's own, it does not obtain a new mind, independent of the motivations and behaviors of the individual members.

Take that up with your sociology, anthropology and social psychology professors. I can't really debate this with you as you keep confusing what is being said.

Who said that the different levels of mind or autonomy should be independent. The model is that they are inter-dependent.

Although, once you get into the detail of a systems view, there is a tell-tale polarisation that must occur (for it to be a system). The local scale must act by way of additive construction, the global by way of top-down constraint.

So as I've mentioned elsewhere, an important tension that human social systems have to equilibrate is local competition vs global co-operation.

But this is indeed getting into the details where the argument might become interesting to me (rather than a sterile to and fro). At the moment, you are not picking up these critical nuances.