Update your beliefs often as new information comes in

Every morning I read another chapter of Julia Galef's The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don't, the subject of two previous posts (here and here).

I really liked her "How to Be Wrong" chapter.

Along with most people, I don't enjoy finding out I was wrong about something. But it's a heck of a lot better than continuing on in my wrongness, which keeps me from learning a more complete truth about that thing.

Below you can read excerpts from that chapter.

They're in three sections, dealing with changing your mind frequently, the ease of saying "I was wrong," and viewing beliefs as needing updating rather than being proven wrong or right.

After each section I'll provide an example of how I changed from being a firm believer in an India-based religious organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), to becoming an open-minded atheist.

(1) Changing your mind frequently.
Changing your mind frequently, especially about important beliefs, might sound mentally and emotionally taxing. But, in a way, it's less stressful than the alternative.

If you see the world in binary black-and-white terms, then what happens when you encounter evidence against one of your beliefs? 

The stakes are high: you have to find a way to dismiss the evidence, because if you can't, your entire belief is in jeopardy.

If instead you see the world in shades of gray, and you think of "changing your mind" as an incremental shift, then the experience of encountering evidence against one of your beliefs is very different.

If you're 80% sure that immigration is good for the economy, and a study comes out showing that immigration lowers wages, you can adjust your confidence in your belief down to 70 percent.

It may later turn out that study was flawed, or further evidence may come out showing that immigration boosts the economy in other ways, and your confidence in your belief may go back up to 80 percent or even higher.

Or you may find additional evidence about the downsides of immigration, which could gradually lower your confidence even further below 70 percent. Either way, each adjustment is comparatively low stakes.

This is pretty much how I gradually came to have increasing doubts about whether the teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas were true.

I always had taken a scientific approach to meditation and spirituality. I liked how RSSB also was termed the "science of the soul." So I never considered that this religion was absolutely, positively, 100% true because scientific truths always are open to being modified or proven wrong.

I viewed the RSSB teachings as a hypothesis, an experiment to be conducted within the laboratory of my consciousness. As years, and then decades, went by, I revised my estimate of how likely it was that the RSSB teachings were true.

Because I hadn't started at 100%, but more like 90%, it felt comfortable to reduce that probability downward as I learned more and more about RSSB and had meditation experiences that failed to confirm the science of the soul hypothesis. 

(2) The ease of saying "I was wrong."
A friend of mine named Andrew was surprised when one of his colleagues accused him of never admitting he was wrong. In response, Andrew pointed out two recent occasions on which he had been wrong and readily acknowledged it -- in the company of that very same colleague.

The colleague, whom I'll call Mark, was surprised in turn. He replied, "I guess that's right. Why did I have the opposite impression?" Mark was silent for a minute, reflecting.

Then he said, "You know... I think it's because you never seem embarrassed about it. You're so matter-of-fact, it almost doesn't register to me that you're admitting you were wrong."

It's true. I've seen Andrew acknowledge he was wrong many times, and it usually sounds something like this: "Ah, yup, you're correct. Scratch what I said earlier. I don't believe it anymore." It's cheerful, straightforward, nonchalant.

Mark's implicit assumption was that changing your mind is humbling. That saying "I was wrong" is equivalent to saying "I screwed up" -- something you confess with contrition or sheepishness. Indeed, that's the standard way of thinking about being wrong.

...Scouts reject that premise. You've learned new information and come to a new conclusion, but that doesn't mean you were wrong to believe differently in the past.

I can't say that my shift from embracing RSSB teachings to viewing them as likely being wrong went as smoothly as Andrew's nonchalant manner of acknowledging being wrong.

However, I've never viewed this change as being anything to be ashamed or regretful about. As I've pointed out on this blog many times since I started it in 2004, I've experienced many other shifts in my beliefs.

To offer an example, for eighteen years I was married to a woman who I loved a lot at first, and then not so much. After our divorce, I remarried. Now I've been married for thirty-one years to a woman I loved soon after I met her, and continue to love now.

Similarly, I worked as a health services researcher and planner for quite a few years. Then I realized that I just didn't care anymore about the field that once was so important to me, and moved in a different direction.

Changing our beliefs isn't always easy. But it's less difficult if we hold on to those beliefs lightly enough that we aren't devastated when our beliefs change.

(3) Updating beliefs.
Even the language scouts use to describe being wrong reflects this attitude. Instead of "admitting a mistake" scouts will sometimes talk about "updating." 

That's a reference to Bayesian updating, a technical term from probability theory for the correct way to revise a probability after learning new information.

The way people use the word updating colloquially isn't nearly so precise, but it still gestures at the spirit of revising one's beliefs in response to new evidence and arguments.

...If you at least start to think in terms of "updating" instead of "admitting you were wrong," you may find that it takes a lot of friction out of the process.

An update is routine. Low-key. It's the opposite of an overwrought  confession of sin. An update makes something better or more current without implying that its previous form was a failure. 

This is a nice way of looking upon mistakes. Rather than thinking "I was wrong," we can say to ourselves "I've updated how I look upon this."

Over the years I've been asked by many RSSB devotees how I could possibly have been so wrong about the religion that meant so much to me for such a long tine. I don't understand this perspective.

As noted above, it wasn't that I went from 100% certainty to 100% doubt. I started at maybe 90% certainty that the RSSB teachings were true and steadily updated that probability, mostly downward. So I feel no need to admit "I was wrong" because I never considered myself to be absolutely right.

My iPhone has lots of apps. Almost every day one or more of them get an update. I don't view the maker of the app as having screwed-up when they release an update. Rather, I appreciate that now the app should work better than before.

In much the same way, every day I learn something. I assume this is true for you also. My wife and I enjoy our Apple TV device. We stream a show with it most evenings. 

Until today I was pleased with the device, which I bought five or so years ago, can't remember exactly when. Then I read a review of the updated Apple TV device with an improved remote.

That made me better realize the drawbacks of the device we have now. So this afternoon I ordered the new Apple TV.

I wasn't wrong to have bought the one we have now. I just updated my belief about how good that one was.

Comments

[Appreciative Reader]

Very insightful, the bit about constantly updating one's beliefs and one's worldview.

This would follow, I guess, directly from a scientific outlook, whether applied to larger, more formal, research, or to one's day-to-day life. Evidence-based thinking would, I suppose, necessarily entail updating one's thinking as and when the evidence itself is updated.

While at one level this is obvious, trivial even, nevertheless it is a fact that one does see, every day, in others, how this does not hold. Larger picture, people routinely deride science for its constantly updating, constantly changing, theories. Smaller picture, people very often look upon a discussion/disputation of their ideas as a personal affront/attack. One can only shake one's head in exasperation at this kind of thick-headedness.

But it's great that Julia Galef writes about this, and that you highlight it here, because while we are quick to recognize imbecility in others, no doubt we ourselves are guilty of such idiotic closed-mindedness ourselves, in our own lives, except we aren't aware of it. The solution to this is, obviously: self-introspection, self-examination, alertness as far as one's own thinking, all of this leading to, hopefully, (greater) self-awareness.

Great post. Food for thought.

[Appreciative Reader]

Emerson summed all of this up with admirable brevity long ago, when he said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

-------

I was curious about the context of that quote, and some quick googling produces the entire quote, which goes like this:

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.”

[Spence Tepper]

1. It is the mark of a mature adult to give up a favored opinion when facts prove otherwise.
2. Reason is a Prostitute who will assume any position for a fee.
3. We learn much more from our mistakes than our successes.
4. It's OK to weep the loss of a friend and sing in joy over a new one. There is no shame in that.

[S]

@ "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

@ 2. Reason is a Prostitute who will assume any position for a fee.

Great stuff, guys. Lol

Really enjoying this series of blog posts inspired by ‘The Scout Mindset’.

Not to be too annoying but I have noticed that GSD is very open to considering other people’s perspectives. Like I said, I’m definitely not all in on Sant Mat but at least it’s not hyper dogmatic. Not anymore…

[Manoj]

Update your beliefs often as new information comes in

Along with most people, I don't enjoy finding out I was wrong about something. But it's a heck of a lot better than continuing on in my wrongness, which keeps me from learning a more complete truth about that thing.

Isn't thats so true!!!

Sometimes we can be on the wrong path like the leach riddled GSDs rs cult and we can find it hard to see the "wood from the trees" whilst this perpetrator takes full advantage of our innocence and leaves our soul in such a detrimental scarred state.

The GSD & the rs cult is an App which definitely needs no updating, but a full uninstall !!! Recycle Bin.

[Uchit]

So many believe Gurinder Singh Dhillon is god in human form and a saviour. This allows this parasitic virus to bury deep into your belief system. But if you take a step back out of the box, and exam who this person is with a simple Google search, you will realise that this man is a more like a mafia man hiding behind the mask of a perfect saint. Examine your beliefs closely, and dont be a sheep. GSD, your days are numbered you dirty old man.

[S]

No one can do anything to you. It is a platitude but it will give you more strength than dwelling on negative thoughts.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"Because I hadn't started at 100%, but more like 90%, it felt comfortable to reduce that probability downward as I learned more and more about RSSB and had meditation experiences that failed to confirm the science of the soul hypothesis."

Just in Baba Ji's last Q&A he told someone that they were being too hard on themselves, which also scatters the mind. When Baba Ji said that, I feel that he's saying that the person was on the very cusp of proving this 'science of the soul'. And that their only blockage was that they were beating themself up. Baba Ji finished by reminding us to not to seek results in meditation.

[Dragonslayor]

LIES are most valued by RSSB and GSD. Every aspect of this cult leader and the satanic cult is built on plagerism of other religions and acceptance of all to maximize its net of potential followers, and built on a foundation of lies and deception. The guru who portrays a perfect enlightenment person, is a total HYPOCRITE and doesn't look like he has done a days MEDITATION, given he has over 16 shell companies where he has hand picked head hunted sevadars to run and manage. GSD is far too busy in fraudulent activity and hiding this from the public. His answers to Q and A fall very short of the mark in every single way - it is way better to ask siri or Alexa, or even your cat. These people are desperate for answers and not to be mocked or laughed at amongst the sangat. So you can see TRUTH is where GSD and RssB are NOT.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Most of the world must know of India's crisis at the current moment. Truthfully, the last I read in the news was many RSSB Satsang centers were being donated as medical clinics to help combat covid-19.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/punjab-cm-seeks-support-from-radha-soami-satsang-beas-to-combat-covid-crisis-249964

[WooAnon]

WooDrop #1

Here you go scouts, new information coming in....

https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references

Time to update your beliefs.

Dib dib dib, or what have you.

[🌸]

Brian sad to say that we don’t realize that we know nothing we can keep updating all or any of our beliefs but unless we get the answers from within we are and continually will be groping in the darkness.

[Tendzin]

About RS beliefs, a few thoughts about the mandated vegetarian diet.

1. Gurinder Singh developed diabetes. I may be mistaken, but I think I heard that Charan Singh also had diabetes. If the vegetarian diet is truly natural and good for humans, I don't see how even RS masters can develop a disease that is almost 100% diet-related.

2. I've seen videos of the dera langar where giant vats of vegetable oil are used for cooking. Vegetable oil is a leading cause of diabetes and obesity. India and China are the 2 nations that lead the world in diabetes, and by no coincidence are also the leading users of vegetable oil. And also from dera videos, one can't ignore the increasing size of satsangi physical dimensions.

3. A recent question about the necessity and practicality of veg diet was put to Gurinder, and he responded there was no excuse for satsangis not to eat veg, because "the hippos do it." A human's digestive system has nothing in common with a hippo.

My main point here is that the RS argument for veg diet seems based on faith in karma and not much else. After decades of believing that vegetarianism if not veganism was the optimal human diet, I just no longer believe that anymore.

[um]

Well Tendzin,

It is my opinion that there is no God that is interested in what you eat and how you spend your life.

But .... if you want to achieve certain goals, people have found in the past that it is better to live a certain life. Not only in monasteries but also in sports.

What we eat and when etc, just effects our brain, it is that simple.

It has never been said by any mystic school wherever in the world that their ideas about living, included food, is there to make one happy or to prevent this or that disease.

And Diabetes is not only about fat but also about the amount we eat, the starches and the sugars and the capacity of the body to digest them. After all not ALL indians develop Diabetes. If you eat more than you can burn in a day ... welll.

Before man developed the whee, the farming, the raising of cattle, and even the techniques on how to catch larger animals and to consume them they had to eat.

So before man were hunters, farmers etc how could they stay alive? They only could by eating the fruits etc of the trees, things that need no cooking, fire etc.

Do whatever you like.

[Tendzin]

Um, actually before there were farmers, people were apex predators. Humans primarily ate meat for 2 2 million years before they learned to farm wheat and make chapatis. Also, there's little evidence there is now or ever was anywhere on earth where humans could live on a wild vegan diet.

The RS sects not only teach that vegetarianism is the only moral dietary choice, but they also claim that it's a healthy diet, and far healthier than meat-eating. But if lifelong vegetarian Sant mat gurus are getting diabetes, then I think their claims about veg diet are called into question. "Eating too much" is itself not a cause of diabetes, but eating too many simple carbohydrates is, which is why fairly slim individuals like Gurinder can develop diabetes.

I present all this as relative to the topic of "think for yourself." And speaking for myself, until fairly recently I'd believed since the 70s all the popular beliefs about vegetarianism being the ideal diet. I don't believe them anymore, nor do I even believe the sometimes cited "people are omnivores" line, which kind of skirts the issue. I think now there's no doubt but that animal food is historically and biologically integral to the natural human diet, and that while vegetarianism is certainly possible, it's a sacrifice of one's health for the sake of a moral or spiritual ideal.

[Spence Tepper]

For many decades meat eaters defended and still defend a diet largely based on meat, and in part the excuse for the slaughter of innocent creatures.

What all the vegetarians have shown us over the decades is that a balanced vegetarian diet is better.

From the Pritikin diet, shown to reverse heart disease, to the Mayo diet and the Mediterranean diet, increasing plant based foods and making them the foundation in the diet is now accepted as the mainstay of a healthy diet. Not meat.

The current trend has advocated smaller and smaller quantities of meat in the diet, as studies keep showing the disastrous health consequences of eating mostly meat over a prolonged period.

Even the Ahnold says a plant based diet is better.

https://www.livekindly.co/arnold-schwarzenegger-beyond-meat-almond-milk/

Studies of different cultures all show the same thing. The best health, the longest life expectancy is a diet that is not exclusively vegetarian, but mainly vegetarian.

And so much research has demonstrated that diets that are mainly flesh based are the source of a whole host of diseases including cancer.

"If you eat a lot of red and processed meat, it is recommended that you cut down as there is likely to be a link between red and processed meat and bowel cancer."
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/meat-nutrition/

So, balance is always the answer.

You can screw up any diet.

But if you are interested in health without having to murder quite so many innocent creatures a low carb plant based diet with a healthy proportion of raw foods, and some additional sources (you can get B12 from yeast and cheese, etc) will be a very healthy.

Even fasting, once thought a disaster for Health in the west, is now seen, when supervised and limited, as part of a path to restoring health.

Mainstream science is catching up. But of course the meat industry, and people's addictions will have their influence. People still smoke cigarettes, after all.

[um]

@ Tenzin

Humans are the only species that have the capacity to RE-create their original habitat, what makes it possible for them to survive in places where they by nature could not.

Strip the human from all his inventions and ask yourself where could the human live ... without fire, tools to cut and to hunt and where the difference between the day an noght temperature is not enough to have means to protect him against that temperature drop.
Just think for yourself.

Then inspect whether the human has those physical qualities that have other species that feed themselves on dead bodies and cadavers.

Then focus on a moment on how to eat raw meat ... you see cooking, fire etc are inventions, inventions that were not there to start with for the human. So I would suggest you go to a butcher ask for say a kg of loin meat of your liking and see if and how you are able to swallow it just only using your hands and if you manage to do so see how it tastes.

As you say ...Tenzin think for yourself

They do not prescribe a particular diet other than that the diet be lacto vegetarian. So it is up to each and every person how they eat.

>>I think now there's no doubt but that animal food is historically and biologically integral to the natural human diet, and that while vegetarianism is certainly possible, it's a sacrifice of one's health for the sake of a moral or spiritual ideal. <<

You are free to think whatever you want and there is no god, that is interested in what you eat but if you want to excel in certain activities you have to adapt a proper diet.

P.S.
Many have devaluated old spiritual practices to siting strait, cushions, walking the markets with pieces of paper that mention E-numbers, and doing this or that communal work for free as service to that community and the benefits they suggest for their mental and physical welfare.... so be it

[um]

And Tenzin,

It what cuisine do people eat RAW meat? As far as I know in none. and if they do the raw meat is mechanical cut in such away that the consistency is that of a fruit.

The Inuit do eat raw fish but they can only swallow and digest it because they have developed a special cutting technique. Our tees an molars are not strong enough to cut queer through the raw fibres

A visit to your local butcher or a talk to a chef of an nearby restaurant will inform you about the relation between fibres and the ability to chew them. They will tell you that a wrongly cut meat is chewable as leather..

So what is cooking all about?

Well Tenzin cooking is nothing but an process of giving other wise unpalatable and undigestable food the structure of fruit ....a process by which the fibres are softened and taste is added.

Humans did not start with that knowledge, they developed it by necessity, because their original habitat was changed or they left it.

And it cannot be stressed enough, ...do whatever suits you. You are the only one that is responsible for the use of your body and mind and has to bear the consequences of that use.

If you do not want to meditate, leave it alone. If you want to eat meat do it but please do not find excuses for what you do outside yourself.

[Atule Kedia]

You have not understood teachings of Sant Mat. First of all I see why the conducted experiment of meditation would not yield results immediately for people like you. because either you will immediately write blogs about it, and then you will also gloat with pride to your fellow Satsangis about your success. So it is good you have stopped believing in Sant Mat teachings. Now your this birth will be used to understand teaching more appropriately and in next birth again you will come in contact with Sant Mat Guru and you will be initiated again. after that you progress will be proper and consistent and hopefully you will be not in mood to write any blogs about it anymore... Best...