# totally depraved



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Here is another example of how hard, maybe impossible, it is to be an honest person:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630142845.htm



> How Social Pressure Can Affect What We Remember: Scientists Track Brain Activity as False Memories Are Formed
> 
> ScienceDaily (June 30, 2011) - How easy is it to falsify memory? New research at the Weizmann Institute shows that a bit of social pressure may be all that is needed. The study, which appears in the journal Science, reveals a unique pattern of brain activity when false memories are formed -- one that hints at a surprising connection between our social selves and memory.
> 
> ...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Oh yeah, I already heard about this.

Or have I...?


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

The point being??? I am curious that's all


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Andante said:


> The point being??? I am curious that's all


Just information.

I think it should encourage cynicism, though. Or, at the very least, skepticism.

As science has increasingly shown us the vileness of our minds, our inherent dishonesty and so on, I think it has vindicated the old religious traditions of the "spiritual warfare" sort. Most of us imagine ourselves to be more or less unbiased, our opinions based on solid reasoning rather than merely post hoc legitimizations of our desires. But that is not what we are. We ought to be that way, but we are so far from it that we have to struggle against ourselves - I have to say against "the sin" in ourselves because I don't think we've developed secular language for this yet. We will of course.

And that's the point. We are not born honest. Our minds and hearts are "fallen," corrupt, vicious, dishonest. We usually don't even realize it. So news like this is useful as a kind of alarm: wake up! Fight the greater jihad. Etc.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

Wow, you have said a mouthful  what is sin? would mankind survive if he was nice, we are all biased. where to start.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

"We are all biased" is the point. I personally don't want to be biased. I want to be objective, honest. The point is, that's not easy. 

I don't literally believe in sin or spiritual warfare, but they are the best concepts I know for this.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I found the report fascinating. It shows how careful police have to be when interviewing witnesses.

I'm not sure it means that we are corrupt & I don't think it has anything to do with spiritual warfare. I don't think it's a question of being 'honest' or not; I think it's self-preservation which we _are_ born with.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

Interesting. I've taken some classes in psychology, among them social psychology, and I find things like conformity and social influence fascinating.


----------



## PhillipPark (Jun 22, 2011)

Seems to almost walk in hand with the common theory of the situation being bigger than the individual.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

karenpat said:


> Interesting. I've taken some classes in psychology, among them social psychology, and I find things like conformity and social influence fascinating.


The old term was 'Brain washing' I think perhaps the modern PC crap is leading towards the same thing heaven help us, whatever you do or say will upset someone you just have to ride it out, then again we are conditioned (brainwashed) all of our life.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

PhillipPark said:


> Seems to almost walk in hand with the common theory of the situation being bigger than the individual.


You must have posted as I was typing mine but you point is very interesting, from an objective point the group is the most important ??? 99% 
But from the individual point the self is most important so we must be conditioned to put the group first. how bl**#y complicated.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I understand the test wanting to show "social reinforcement could act on our amygdala," but Talk Classical is populated by people who listen to a genre of music for which there is little social reinforcement. I wonder, if the test were given to this particular group, if it would produce the same results.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I understand the test wanting to show "social reinforcement could act on our amygdala," but Talk Classical is populated by people who listen to a genre of music for which there is little social reinforcement. I wonder, if the test were given to this particular group, if it would produce the same results.


I'd guess you're underestimating the class and sophistication associated with classical music. I'd be surprised if any of us were never influenced by that.

I'd even hypothesize (let the psychologists test it) that musical tastes are inherently, inevitably, subconsciously, neurologically tied to identity: one's sense of which group(s) one belongs to, and one's sense of how one fits into the group(s). And further, I'd hypothesize that one of the main reasons music feels so important to us is because identity has been so important to our ancestors for tens of thousands of generations.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

"Totally Depraved"... Did you get that from John Calvin? 

It's a major point of Reformed Theology, known as "Total Depravity." This refers to the absolute inability for human beings to be anything good _in and of themselves_ because of an inherent deficiency in our nature, known as _Original Sin_. Man is inherently evil. No one is born innocent, and then becomes corrupt. Just as David wrote in the 51st Psalm, we too are all sinful from birth. Thus, no person can completely hold to their views by their own strength.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

science said:


> I'd even hypothesize (let the psychologists test it) that musical tastes are inherently, inevitably, subconsciously, neurologically tied to identity: one's sense of which group(s) one belongs to, and one's sense of how one fits into the group(s).


I don't think neurology factors in as much as group dynamics. According to Robert Jourdian, "research shows that most people largely make their personal musical choices for reasons that are neither personal nor musical. Rather they listen to conform, taking on music as an emblem of social solidarity with their peers . . . and they carry early preferences right through to the grave." [Music, the Brain, and Ecstacy, Page 263.

The people who listen to classical, at least the ones who frequent this forum, are used to bucking social trends, at least as far as musical preference, and making up their own minds. I think this mindset makes them less susceptible to group manipulation to the degree tested here; that is, that they would allow their brains to override what they perceive as the truth just to fit in.


----------



## Timotheus (Jun 30, 2011)

This is a fine study but the way they talk about it is dumb. It's generally a very sound strategy to update your beliefs about something based on what the majority of people think (provided it isn't very strong--and I doubt it would after watching some video). There's a reason "poll the audience" is a lifeline in that _who wants to be a millionaire?_ show! Calling it "falsifying memory" is silly. Maybe after the contestant changes his answer from B to C based on the audience poll we should say they falsified his memory too.

Thankfully we evolved brains that continually work to incorporate new information. If you design a study right you can show a flaw in the process, but often the "flaw" reveals something more impressive...similar to how most optical illusions reveal interesting features of our eyesight.


----------



## PhillipPark (Jun 22, 2011)

Andante said:


> You must have posted as I was typing mine but you point is very interesting, from an objective point the group is the most important ??? 99%
> But from the individual point the self is most important so we must be conditioned to put the group first. how bl**#y complicated.


Not in that the group is more important than the individual, however, the group influences how the individual acts. People find themselves doing things they normally would not do on their own when group factors come into play (without direct pressure for said action): pathological lying, aggressive behavior, skewing of one's own priorities, ect.

I don't know if I believe this 100%, but it supports a lot of my experiences (e.g. my first time smoking marijuana, confrontation in social environments).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I don't think neurology factors in as much as group dynamics. According to Robert Jourdian, "research shows that most people largely make their personal musical choices for reasons that are neither personal nor musical. Rather they listen to conform, taking on music as an emblem of social solidarity with their peers . . . and they carry early preferences right through to the grave." [Music, the Brain, and Ecstacy, Page 263.
> 
> The people who listen to classical, at least the ones who frequent this forum, are used to bucking social trends, at least as far as musical preference, and making up their own minds. I think this mindset makes them less susceptible to group manipulation to the degree tested here; that is, that they would allow their brains to override what they perceive as the truth just to fit in.


Aren't we part of a community of classical music listeners? Admittedly, a community perceived as an elite minority rather than as the majority - but that must occasionally be part of the attraction.

I don't see how we could have group dynamics without neurons being involved, but that's a less important point.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> "Totally Depraved"... Did you get that from John Calvin?
> 
> It's a major point of Reformed Theology, known as "Total Depravity." This refers to the absolute inability for human beings to be anything good _in and of themselves_ because of an inherent deficiency in our nature, known as _Original Sin_. Man is inherently evil. No one is born innocent, and then becomes corrupt. Just as David wrote in the 51st Psalm, we too are all sinful from birth. Thus, no person can completely hold to their views by their own strength.


Yes, I took the phrase from Calvinist thought on purpose, but really my own theological frame of reference is Byzantine. When I was a Christian, as an Eastern Orthodox, I rejected the doctrines of original sin and total depravity.

But if Calvin was excessively pessimistic, our culture is excessively optimistic.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

science said:


> Aren't we part of a community of classical music listeners? Admittedly, a community perceived as an elite minority rather than as the majority - but that must occasionally be part of the attraction.


I think the difference among this community is, many are attracted to it because they don't have much interaction in the real world with people whose taste in music matches theirs. I don't think they join because they will be perceived as a special/privileged person by their membership. So in that sense, there isn't much pressure to conform to the prevailing tastes of the membership so they can retain their status; on the contrary, many seem to hold to their individual preferences regardless of whether or not their posts are "liked."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I think the difference among this community is, many are attracted to it because they don't have much interaction in the real world with people whose taste in music matches theirs. I don't think they join because they will be perceived as a special/privileged person by their membership. So in that sense, there isn't much pressure to conform to the prevailing tastes of the membership so they can retain their status; on the contrary, many seem to hold to their individual preferences regardless of whether or not their posts are "liked."


You seem to be thinking of an individual's evaluation of specific works, whereas I'm thinking more generally about tastes. Anyway, it appears we're not going to agree about this: I'm not going to consider fans of classical music any sort of exception to human nature, and I don't think we're all that radical or individualistic. In some sub- or semi-conscious way we've judged that classical music will enhance our status in some way or other, and all else follows. We're a self-conscious elite, both from our own perspective and from our societies' perspectives. Even if we were a persecuted minority, choosing to be a member of a persecuted minority is often a way of enhancing status as well.

Anyway, you disagree, so we're stuck here.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think if one looks for the best in human nature they'll find it, if one wants to look for the worst in human nature, one can find that as well. Its all there, it all comes down to what an individual chooses to focus on.


----------



## PhillipPark (Jun 22, 2011)

science said:


> In some sub- or semi-conscious way we've judged that classical music will enhance our status in some way or other


What an odd line of thought.

Question: what about the individual who listens to classical music and has nothing that resembles a status (e.g. a hermit)?


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2011)

PhillipPark said:


> What an odd line of thought.
> 
> Question: what about the individual who listens to classical music and has nothing that resembles a status (e.g. a hermit)?


I think you are both right *science* said the individual judged (thinks) it will enhance status, in *some* circles this would be correct, now in my case it makes not one bit of difference to my status, in fact it could be detrimental amongst the sport people that I associate with, but then they are beer swilling uneducated buffoons


----------



## PhillipPark (Jun 22, 2011)

Andante said:


> I think you are both right *science* said the individual judged (thinks) it will enhance status, in *some* circles this would be correct, now in my case it makes not one bit of difference to my status, in fact it could be detrimental amongst the sport people that I associate with, but then they are beer swilling uneducated buffoons


Yeah I agree with that: it just seemed *science* was trying to say that all listeners of classical music, do so for this very reason.

I can relate to it being detrimental in situations: I don't really discuss my musical tastes with most people because a lot of them think I am pretentious for liking classical music. Go figure.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2011)

PhillipPark said:


> I can relate to it being detrimental in situations: I don't really discuss my musical tastes with most people because a lot of them think I am pretentious for liking classical music. Go figure.


I can sympathise with that I am a jazz fan and that also is thought of as something weird


----------



## rojo (May 26, 2006)

Kinda scary. And to go much further into depravity, one can take things to the level of the Milgram obedience to authority experiments. *shudders*


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Yeah, the Milgram experiments were fundamental to shaping my worldview. So were the Asch conformity experiments.

One of the main ideas from experiments like these is that we're not how we think we are: introspection is a horrible guide to human nature. We more or less think of ourselves the way we want to think of ourselves - except when we're depressed, when we're more realistic.

Based on introspection alone, the fullest thing that any of us can say is that we aren't aware of status considerations motivating our musical tastes, or our religious and political beliefs, or psychosomatic illnesses, _or our memories_, or our choice of beers, or whatever. But there are events taking place backstage of the Cartesian theater.

Whether our judgments (subconscious, semi-conscious, or even fully conscious) about what will enhance our status are correct or not isn't really the point. I think people make errors about this kind of thing all the time, especially in environments (like post-industrial society) that are very much unlike the environments of our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

A good example is most young boys' love of violent games and/or athletics: that would've been extremely useful (and even good for status) in ancestral environments, and that's why the majority of boys prefer those activities through their teens. Only a minority of boys - typically those who (subconsciously or semi-consciously) judge that they cannot succeed as well at such activites - (choose to) prefer other means, such as the nerdiness that, in our counter-intuitive post-industrial societies, would probably turn out better for most of them. A society where the highest-status individuals are laywers and CEOs is not the society that a child's mind has evolved to fit.

Intuitions regarding music, I'd guess, are more reliable. But if they're not, it doesn't matter to the theory.


----------



## Timotheus (Jun 30, 2011)

I suspect a lot of people try out classical music partly because of the status factor. But people rarely stick with something if they don't like it, especially if there's no real status gain.



tdc said:


> I think if one looks for the best in human nature they'll find it, if one wants to look for the worst in human nature, one can find that as well. Its all there, it all comes down to what an individual chooses to focus on.


Very true.


----------

