
Believing What You Don’t Believe - bootload
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/believing-what-you-dont-believe.html
======
ansible
Reads like a Less Wrong post:

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/)

With people, it seems often to be the case that the fast system is used to
make a decision, and then the slow system is used to justify the decision
after the fact.

------
ssivark
There are things that science can never "prove wrong", because they aren't set
up as falsifiable hypotheses (eg: lucky charm hats). The best that science
could do is establish a lack of correlation (assuming a certain set of control
factors). Interpreting the result of such an experiment is strongly a function
of your null hypothesis (or bayesian prior). It is only by applying the law of
the excluded middle that one "reasonably" concludes that a lack of indication
is an indication of there being no correlation.

Also, the cost of wearing a lucky hat is negligible compared to the happiness
gained from your team's victory (and often adds to the atmosphere/excitement).
That is why people can "believe" in things that could reasonably be dismissed.

------
ikeboy
Why can't the explanation for lucky charms be that the other fans are wearing
them, and so it's in style, and you gain status by wearing one?

That would make wearing them rational.

------
known
Your Beliefs Don't Make You A Better Person, Your Behavior Does.

------
DyslexicAtheist
also from a SW developers POV: [http://blog.valbonne-
consulting.com/2014/09/24/flow-the-addi...](http://blog.valbonne-
consulting.com/2014/09/24/flow-the-addiction-behind-programming/)

