We believe everything we read

Rene Descartes (1596–1650) thought that when we're told a proposition, we would first comprehend what it meant, then consider it, and finally accept or reject it.

Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) disagreed: he thought that we first passively accept a proposition in the course of comprehending it, and only afterward actively disbelieve it if upon consideration we reject it.

Descartes' suggestion sounded more logical and intuitive, so that's what most philosophers have assumed true, but as of the 21st century the evidence is in: Spinoza was right.

Gilbert, Tafarodi, Malone paper: You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read. See www.greaterwrong.com/posts/TiDGXt3WrQwtCdDj3/do-we-believe-everything-we-re-told?hide-nav-bars=true

A takeaway: you may believe something outrageous if you're told it while distracted with some other cognitive work, so that your normal filters never apply.

• Here is a point in favor of decoupling over contextualizing (Communication cultures): reserve the mental space for your filters to actually do their job, so that you don't let pass an insane sub-proposition.
• Be more careful when you expose yourself to unreliable information, especially if doing something else at the time. Don't glance at that newspaper in the supermarket…

l

What links here

• Human heuristics, biases and fallacies
• Do We Believe Everything We're Told?