Let's just say that the people who conducted this study have never seen my office.

(Image © PDQ Services)

Comments

[taj]

Nor mine. Or my sock drawer, for that matter. Not to mention the car.

Perhaps I should take this to mean I am a liberal at my most basic "neuronal level," and am just lying to myself. I was told in high school once that my neurons never fired on all cylinders...maybe that has something to do with it.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Nor Bill Buckley's, for that matter.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQwNzBlYTMyYzhjMWVlZTFjMjRmZDJhNGZiMzhjYmQ=

I'd say that right there is conclusive proof that the scientists were out to lunch.

[Matt]

I'd think a cluttered desk or office has a lot more to do with how busy you are in general and also how lazy you are when you're not busy.

That being said, I'm pretty cluttered.

[taj]

Matt,

You mean there's such a thing as "not busy?" I never got that memo. Must be somewhere in the clutter.

[Jason Taylor]

So what they are saying is that clean desks reveal that you are a coward and so does being a conservative?
And people with cluttered desks are less fearful and more eager to explore new things? Like the writer who has a cluttered desk.
The article is clearly written in a self-serving fashion and one wonders about the study.
And where exactly does he get "Conservatives have a greater fear of death?"

[Matt]

It could be argued that if you're commenting on blogs then you're not busy...

[Jason Taylor]

It could be argued that if you are commenting on blogs you are not busy. But it could equally be argued that you are looking for something to be busy at.

[taj]

Matt...

...touche. ;-)

[Jason Taylor]

Or it could simply be argued that if you have a clean desk, that means you are comfortable with computers. I certainly don't have an uncluttered E-mail. It is stuffed with,"I am an African exile that possesses a secret treasure" spam, that I never bothered to remove. However the desk is uncluttered.
The reason for that is that I write with a computer, but can't write with my hand which is shaky. And don't like typewriters which are an unnecessary waste of paper.
One could as easily say the writer of the article is "uncomfortable with progress" because he prefers paper.
Which shows that such studies are affected by multitudes of factors.

[Steve (SBK)]

There are many interpretations.
Some people can't attend to detail - they are frazzled. Some people don't like to think about death. Some people like to experiment with drugs that mute the visceral reactions to thinking about death. Some people are content with their lot. Some people have ordered minds, others don't. Etc.
It did seem to be written in "a self-serving fashion".

[Steve]

Well, my take will be a bit of a departure from the cheekiness of the thread so far.

Over the last couple years I have made it a goal to familiarize myself with the psychological subspecialty of bias, judgment, and decisionmaking. There is far to much to condense into a few paragraphs, but I could sum it up in two sentences (drum roll, please):

"People are not rational, no way, no how."

A corollary to that is that "most people are wrong about most things most of the time."

The article referenced above is another example of what I speak. People's beliefs are more chosen than formed, and most decision making is emotionally driven.

There is only one reason I bring this up. Almost all Christian apologetics is designed to appeal to rational people, on the assumption that they are making informed objective decisions based on the best available evidence. Psychology says "NOT!" (There's a pretty darned good scriptural case for that as well).

However.....this research also presents great opportunity for an entirely new direction of apologetics. This direction, if it were developed, could specifically focus in on all the emotion-driven thinking, cognitive biases, and other factors that really determine what people choose to believe.

(note, this is a complete different subject fromthe rules of logic)

Is anyone out there interested in this?

[LeeQuod]

Steve wrote: "Is anyone out there interested in this?"

I am. I've believed for a long time that creation/evolution is more about dignity and self-worth (argued that way from both sides) than it is about the facts.

Plus, I feel strongly that the most effective apologetics is that which causes the person to react with both their head AND their heart.

But first (obligatory tie to the original topic) I need to clean off my work area. I think I still have a sign that says "A Neat Desk Is A Sign Of A Sick Mind", if only I could find it...

[Jason Taylor]

The problems with Steve's assumption that "people are not rational no way, no how" are manifold. One is of course that that weakness applies to Steve. Two is that it is an ad hominem against the entire human race and has the same weakness of all ad hominems which is that proving desire for a conclusion is not the disproof of the conclusion or for that matter a disproof of it's rationality. Three is that it is a circular argument. If, Steve earlier said in another thread, all events in the mind are "impulses" then of course all opinions are caused by impulses. Which means exactly what?
Furthermore, the argument is unfalsifiable and reductionistic. As every decision that is made has a close enough relation to an emotion to be connected to it, one can always say it is the cause. But as emotions are going on all the time the point is meaningless. One must prove it is the only cause to say that humans are irrational. One could just as easily say what I am writing is simply clusters of pixel points and has no other meaning. Because of course it is after all clusters of pixel points.

[Steve]

Jason, Jason, Jason....

It is not and never was my assumption. Please begin reading. Here are your assignments:

"How we know what isn't so" by Thomas Gilovich

"A mind of its own" by Cordelia Fine

"The psychology of judgment and decision making" Scott Plous

"Don't believe everything you think" Thomas Kida

"Mistakes were made (but not by me)" Carol Tavris

"Heuristics and biases" Thomas Gilovich

& for good measure:

"Myths, lies, and downright stupidity: Get out the shovel - why everything you know is wrong" by John Stossel.

Once you are familiar with the mountains of research on the subject, you might be up to a serious discussion of it.

[LeeQuod]

Steve, Steve, Steve....

Being right doesn't absolve you from being a good example of how to argue with both forcefulness AND civility.

And I speak as one who has learned the hard way.

[Chris]

I can't wait for the next in-depth ersatz study positing a comprehensive diagnosis of one's personality, character traits and projected lifetime carbon footprint based upon which digit is used in nose picking and whether it's rotated clockwise or counterclockwise, to include in which hemisphere one lives.

Good grief, Charlie Brown!

I wonder how *I* could get some six-figure government grant to perform that study? Hmm.... I must have the phone number somewhere on this desk...

[Steve (SBK)]

I'm interested in this.

I think emotional bias plays a very large role in people's argumentation. i.e. reason is used as a tool to defend their emotional disposition (which is why the internet is sometimes such a great place to get nothing accomplished).

I'll probably try and read some of those suggestions Steve. Thanks.

At the same time, I think people can be shown the incongruity of their stance with the help of reason. But, maybe Jesus was on to something when he said they would know us by our love (not our rhetoric).

[Steve]

LeeQuod,
You are completely right. I was in a rush to get out the door, fired that post off without time to reflect, regretted it after I sent it, and I apologize, Jason.

Back to the original subject, the thesis Jason disputes, I contend, is totally consonant with the Scriptural view of man. If you'd like to hear it, I could show why, but I don't want to drag this on.

Steve (SBK): If you pick up any of those books, the best ones to start are:

"How we know what isn't so"
"A mind of its own"
"Mistakes were made"

"Heuristics and Biases" is highly technical.
"Don't believe everything you think" is a good followup to "How we know", if you have a thick enough skin to not get annoyed by the author's political biases.

Scott Plous's book is too expensive, but otherwise a great book.

For a super-quick, and free, intro, follow this link on Wikipedia:

List of cognitive biases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

[Pinon Coffee]

Seriously. I wonder how many conservatives they really studied, and what kind they were....

The conservatives I know may be morally tidy, if you want to put it that way (I wouldn't have), but I really don't think it applies to their desks particularly well!

[rsg]

Gentlemen,

Following this line of commentary I am reminded of the saying "Follow the Money".....

Marketers make and generate billions on the idea that people believe they are rational, yet make their decisions emotionally. I have certainly found that to be true in my business.

I witnessed to my sister for years, but it was not until I got to her emotions in a two hour sobbing phone call that she accepted Christ for her savior. Thank God it appears a real conversion.

Personally, I fancy myself a logical person, but am daily struck by how many of my decisions are actually emotional. This brings up a tangental issues, does the Lord lead us through our head or our hearts?.........

[Mita]

Frankly, I would like to know who funded that study since I am in need of some extra cash... I seem to have misplaced all of mine. I thought I left it on my desk, but I can't figure out which pile it is in. Anyway, if anyone knows where I can get some funding for my own, independent study, please email me asap at pilesofcash4me@wannamakeabundle.con