(2) ... reinforces belief through the insufficient justification effect. The fact that everyone else is singing probably promotes belief through the bandwagon effect, even if the majority opinion is falsely assumed because of the false consensus effect. Though experiencing music and singing in groups is already likely to stir strong feelings even in non-religious settings, individuals may falsely attribute these feelings to "the presence of the holy spirit" because of patternicity.
(1) I went to a Christmas church service with my family tonight and did something similar to bias bingo. Observing the service from a social psychological perspective was actually really interesting. I noticed that almost aspect of the service exploits a combination of psychological phenomena known to generate belief. Consider the act of singing songs, which is a major part of most if not all church services. Simply singing songs that affirm the beliefs of a religion likely generates and ...
Christmas is coming soon so I might just be forced to end up in church. Perhaps I will make this bingo board and have everything checked off and then place it in the offering plate. ^^
"Cognitive bias is a well documented phenomenon that is more than capable of generating beliefs in the human mind which have no external validity. Such brazen exploitation of human bias cannot testify of any sort of truth because it is, by it's very nature, deceptive and dishonest. Any organization which genuinely poses truth of any kind would never resort to such manipulation because the truth would objectively speak for itself." Brilliant!
Religion and ANY other dogmatic, unquestioning worship of a leader or belief system (a la, Kim Jung-il) always leads to a warped view of reality. If I confided to a Christian that I believed wands like those from the H Potter series were once real, he/she would laugh and question my sanity - & they would correct to do so. But if I ask if a stick could of been turned into a snake by Moses, or if the dead were brought back to life by a Jewish carpenter, they happily will babble away for hours.
Dude, I love your videos, but the plural of biases is NOT pronounced Bi-AH-seez, it's pronounced bi-AH-siz.
The plural of basis IS pronounced BAY-seez, but the plural of base is pronounced BAY-siz. Same deal.
I blame Carl Sagan, he did similar things with pronunciation. Making faux-Latin plurals out of Anglo-Saxon or Anglicised Latinate words like turning Pre-MI-siz into pre-MI-seez.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This video is cognative bias. Everything is pulled into a nice conclusion at the end when we have heard no arguments from the other side. Jumping to conclusions and by giving them 'fancy labels' doesn't mean what the speaker argues is true. On the other hand you made some good arguments-- too bad they were so biased.
Justin... they aren't just "fancy labels." They are the actual technical terms used by social psychologists. Each of these effects carries a demonstrable capacity to skew beliefs and behavior. There are whole mountains of experimental data on this stuff.
However, to be fair, this video is admittedly "just for the lol's." If you want a serious argument, then watch the entire Psychology of Belief series. There is very little joking around in those.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Except..... PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE IN GENERAL DOES NOT GO OUT OF ITS WAY TO DISPROVE RELIGION, YOUR OWN BIAS IS ALSO INVOLVED IN COMMITTING US TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IN A PRIDEFUL WAY. I GUESS I GET SOME POINTS ON MY BOARD AS WELL.
Great video. I was trying to look up more about the "Ego Identity Bias", but I couldn't find anything searching for it online. Is it called something else? Or could you provide a link to somewhere?
I could not find an official name for this bias, so I made one up. The basic idea is that people tend to tie their self-esteem into random, external things, which is very demonstrable (see "basking in reflected glory" for example). So I just based it loosely on this idea.
@AntiCitizenX It seems a good term for the would be (Religious) Identity Crisis. Oaks causes a religious identity crisis by asking parents to encourage their children to superglue their identity with church activity.
@AntiCitizenX It seems a good term for the would be (Religious) Identity Crisis. Oaks causes a religious identity crisis by asking parents to encourage their children to superglue their identity with church activity.
Can you add a link to that bingo card. Also I am currently having problems in a debate with a guy who asserts his belief is based on faith but so too is evolution. He clearly doesn't understand it and resists looking at the evidence. If you point any out he scoffs and proclaims that it doesn't prove anything. Strictly speaking he's right. Science doesn't prove anything Theories are validated the more they resist falsification. I mention all this, because Oaks makes that fallacy straight up @1:06
YOU MUST KNOW THAT those who criticize your "style" are those shallow idiots who are looking for that "style over substance" that would stroke their own vanity & corroborate their own "testimonies": at YOUR expense!
(You are a "bad dog" because of the way you "sound"!)
On the otherhand, I hear both assertiveness and a bit of humor, in your voice!
There's also standard "brainwashing" in this talk. I like the "pride" statement (that it's bad). Nothing can be a more natural source of pride in a person than to think for themselves and arrive at a correct idea. To denigrate pride is equivalent to saying "Don't trust yourself--that makes you a BAD person. You're only GOOD when you trust me."
@eNRGy27 It would be a good game, to play a video in real time and have fallacies numbered so participants can test their skill at identifying fallacies 'on the fly' as it were, by pushing the number for that fallacy. Even more interesting if you had participants fill in a survey identifying their demographic by religion / world view / philosophical sympathies etc. Then correlate the data for who understands what fallacies.
I suggest you watch the "Psychology of Belief" series. It summarizes many of the classic experiments that demonstrate the empirical nature of psychology.
@Neo2234 You have demonstrated the "Belief Bias" where you dismiss the evidence and make a statement of the validity of the proposition based purely from your own existing opinions and belief.
I know. Wanting to know how the mind works is just a horrible idea ain't it?
"It seems to put everything into a category and a definition for everything."
Oh noes! If they go and define things people are going to start understanding what they mean. Good grief have they no common decency? And don't even get me started on categories. Just give me a good old pot to lump everything into. Next they'll be trying to make distinctions between fantasy and reality :(
@Neo2234 Do you like philosophy? The fallacies are epistemology. This is about finding out whether arguments are valid.
Areas of research or areas of knowledge like philosophy, psychology and the like are about describing things. As such, they need to categorize and provide definitions. This isn't a weakness, it is a strength. Perhaps its not the field of knowledge but the definitions and categories that you dislike.
The humor here is ok for me. I suspect that the narrator here, like me, is so exasperated with the seemingly inextinguishable presence of destructive human biases that he used a humorous approach just to get some relief from the world-endangering manifestations of biases used so easily by emotional predators to gain power over others: Make the people afraid, give them someone to blame, and then promise to protect them if they just follow the dictates of their fearless leaders. Insidious. Awful.
Inducing your own bias by the sophomoric use of sarcastic tones in your voice is really annoying to mature adults. Your approach is interesting and I think there is value in contrasting theories in psychology with religion, but you present them as facts when they are, in fact, theory. You betray a bit of naivety when you place Buddhism in with you set of religions cited, when Buddhism is not a religion, per se'. It is a dialectic, inviting investigators to think for themselves.
My tone has long since lightened up after making this video (you're not the first to complain, and I'm certain you won't be the last). If you want "proof" of the biases, then watch the "Psychology of Belief" series. Every single one is experimentally demonstrable.
This comment would be an example of the "straw man argument".
Having admitted the "approach" as "interesting" and with "value", you then choose to focus on the video creator showing "naivety" for classifying Buddhism as a religion (it is), as well as implying ignorance for placing weight on mere "theories" (such as gravity). These statements serve as bedrock for any person to safely lay their biases onto, misleading supporters into assuming a "theory vs fact" dichotomy.
@lollolllolllll This video suggests that adherents to possibly false belief systems use psychological manipulation to generate belief. Is Buddhism a belief system that has some false ideas in it? Quite possibly. And do Buddhists use these kind of techniques to manipulate people? It certainly seems possible; I wouldn't rule it out, given that there are millions of Buddhists.
You have an interesting approach, however, there are problems in your observations because most of the Biases you name are theories, not facts. Additionally, you demonstrate a lack of properly vetting your information when you throw Buddhism into the set of religions cited. Buddhism is not a religion, it is a dialectic, inviting the investigator to think for themselves to reach conclusions.
@lollolllolllll "Just a theory and not a fact" is the same logic used by creationists, and it fails miserably. Theories (good ones, at least, and not anything from Freud :-P), are based in data and empirical evidence. They can be falsified, tested, replicated, and changed when disconfirming evidence presents itself. Science is self-correcting, unlike religion. These "mere theories" permeate and have been tested to the point of reasonable agreement among professionals. Practically fact, actually.
I think I actually have a phobia of the insufficient justification fallacy, and have had one years before I even knew what it was, since I was a kid. I've never been bothered by nudity and so often refuse to close the door when I go to the bathroom for fear that repetition of that action will make me ashamed of my body or something. I hate listening to most music because it will get stuck in my head and that actually makes me feel like I'm being brainwashed from mantras repeating in my head
Inducing your own bias by the sophomoric use of sarcastic tones in your voice is really annoying to mature adults. Your approach is interesting and I think there is value in contrasting theories in psychology with religion, but you present them as facts when they are, in fact, theory. You betray a bit of naivety when you place Buddhism in with you set of religions cited, when Buddhism is not a religion, per se'. It is a dialectic, inviting investigators to think for themselves.
Awesome, awesome, awesome video. It is nice to see such free and logical criticism of religion, and the fact that is one of Oak's talks makes it all the more satisfying for me. These men are NEVER questioned and very rarely criticized in the church(due to the instilled bias into the minds of the members i'm sure). Your vids are a HUGE breath of fresh air!! Sadly, members are so brainwashed into staying away from "antimormon literature" that most will never let themselves watch anything like this
I sense a few biases in this video as well. perhaps association bias and anchoring bias in some parts. Condescending tones are usually a breeding ground for bias. I'm not saying he's any less of a manipulative bastard, but this video isn't exactly clean of fallacy and bias either.
I never claimed that I was free of bias. The only difference between me and Oaks is that I happily admit this about myself and try to correct for it. Oaks, on the other hand, is openly exploiting cognitive bias under the pretense that it represents a reliable avenue to truth. This would not be so bad if he could at least back himself up with physical evidence, but even this is lacking.
He probably believed Bill Clinton, too, because the latter "testified" (bore testimony?), over and over and over that he "did not have sex with that woman": thus, a "testimony" of Clinton's own "innocence" was had, in the bearing [repeating] of it: ad nauseum
I like your phrase....'bucketful of nonsense'. LOL
That Oaks is a real DIPSTICK. (There is little to keep me from calling him a worse name, where "Stick" is substituted with another, but shorter word, that begins with "S".)
Oaks also was a Mission Prez. for the LDS Crutch; and, his mission statement was this: "I am here to give the filipino people MORMON CULTURE"
(Which translates, easily, into UTAH CULTURE)
Nevermind giving them the gospel of Jesus Christ: Utah culture will do, nicely!
I can agree with this video in theory but I disagree with the condescending tone in which it is delivered. It would be more effective and more open to discussion if it was delivered in a less angry and bitter tone.
If you consider this video seriously then you also have to consider the members of the church as victims of brainwashing. I dont see any reason to accuse and attack victims. And while it is directed as a reprimand towards Oaks it is also directed towards the LDS church in general.
Part of the tone has to do with how I used to record into my mics. To avoid pops, I placed the mic a couple of feet away and practically yelled into them, which tends to come off as a loud bark. Since then, I've stopped doing that, and my recent videos sound much better.
Even so, in the age of information, there is no excuse for allowing one's self to be so openly brainwashed. You really have to be willfully stupid to go along with much of this stuff.
I just watched your video and while I, in recent years, have come to realize that all of what you said was true it was interesting to see it put like that. I especially appreciated the part about testimonies and how you will gain a testimony by bearing it. It's a concept that even as a child I struggled with. Basically they are selling their congregation on the idea that the more you say something out loud the more true it becomes. In other words the more you tell a lie the more you believe it.
A "testimony" is like a "mantra": the more you keep telling it, the more you begin to believe it. Rather like Bill Clinton trying to convince himself (and others) that he "...did not have sex with that woman". Just keep repeating a lie often enough and you will begin to believe it, yourself: like Elder Paul H. Dunn did, some years ago.
bravo bravo bravo . this is one of the best & most important videos i have ever seen . you have contributed substatially to betterment of the human race .
not to annoying, but i like your videos and would like them to be solid. i remember this talk and the mental gymnastics i did over it. his first problem seems less easy to pin down. the definition of love you gave is objectively verifiable but the definition itself is subjective. love may indeed by subjective. however the existence of god or a vision is not subjective. what i see is a non sequitur rather than a false definition. what bias that leads to im not as sure.
The same can be said about every word in the English language. However, once you finally pin the idea down into what love is and what love isn't, it becomes measurable (at least in principle).
But yeah, it's not really a bias, but a fallacy. This was only my first video, so try not to hold it up to too high of a standard :)
I wonder how many years psychologist/psychiatrists were planted in my ward building/ in the mormon church... while myself and my sisters were being abused...and didn't action...
I don't know who you are, but this video changed my life. The whole concept of keeping external factors separate from your identity helped me realize the cognitive dissonance I was feeling. Thank you so much.
Man, great information. Really excellent and well done - I'd send it on to LDS friends, except the tone is so condescending that an LDS listener could only be insulted, and that's unfortunate as they should hear this. Any chance of a voice-over redo (in the style of ThermainTrees or Qualiasoup)?
It's kind of hard to play a game like "Bias Bingo" without being condescending. The very nature of the game itself is designed to mock people. However, I would recommend the "Psychology of Belief" series instead (especially part 2 for all your Mormon friends). These are much more instructionally-focused.
I got kick out of this video, but the whole time watching it I noticed that going to church to play Bias Bingo is itself a bias. Let's see, I checked off "stereotype" and "confirmation bias" on my board. It is, at the very least, an a priori approach.
While back home for the holidays, I attended church, expecting a small-minded, bigoted sermon. But it was actually a pleasant one about the family. It may have not been the greatest speech, but given my own bias, it seemed like Shakespeare.
So that was you! I was arguing with a man on a bus the other day and I said "Most buses smell like dog pee" at which point he yelled "Confirmation bias" followed by "Bingo! I win!" I was confused but now it all makes sense. You watch arguments between friends/family from the sidelines playing bias bingo, don't ya? Someone goes to another; "You shouldn't do that!" and you go "Is-ought fallacy! BINGOOO!" You should do that. I have this mental image of a skit with you and a friend arguing . . .
No, but maybe I should MAKE it happen on a bus . . .
Actually, since a select few biases are typically repeated over & over rather then a diverse, non-repetitive line-up; another idea . . . The bias drinking game.
Ad Hominem 1 drink
Strawman 2 drinks
Confirmation bias 3 drinks
Post Hoc ergo Procter Hoc 4 drinks
Argument Ad Populum 5 drinks
False dichotomy 6 drinks
Circular reasoning finish bottle
It'd be a race against time to win before you're too wasted to correctly identify biases anymore
Tell me, is the Strawman argument worth 2 drinks because it is usually repeated twice? Are you assigning a relative value to each of these biasses?
I see where most Mormons, on YouTube, quickly resort to the Ad Hominem type of response. This must be the one that is easiest for them to do. You probably have to be a "Mormon Judge" (like Oaks with his juris doctor robes), to get to False dichotomies, as a way of preserving and perpetuating mor(m)on bias
@orlovna2 I tried to list them in order of most common. If you had to finish the bottle for each Ad Hominem, for example then you might be drunk in minutes
In light of this, I think I should have put fewer drinks for false dichotomy
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."- Albert Einstein.
Einstein points out that he supported no particular view, the quote which you initially used, came before Edwin Hubbles discovery, with this, one might assume through context that Einsteins views fall into the category of 'agnostic', but it's open to interpretation. what can be said is that whoever made that poster, made it with error, against Alberts wishes, which with your knowledge of that error or not, falls into the category of confirmation bias. not trying to argue, just pointing that out
You make a valid point. But I would argue that there exist some very loose uses of the word "atheism" that even include this view. For example, I frequently encounter people who reject religion outright, but still like to believe in "something bigger." Yet for all intents and purposes, I don't think it is unfair to call these folks atheists anyway in the purely practical sense.
Like you said, its open to interpretation. I just thought the poster was cool. :)
in the poster for atheism, there's Albert Einstein. having once taken an interest in his life, i was curious what his personal beliefs were, and i'll point out from what i understand of him, he never disavowed the existence of a God(s), but neither did he claim to be religious. so what strikes me as being somewhat ironic, is that you're using confirmation bias, and false information to make a point in this video.. other than that, it's pretty informative
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
In other words, Albert became very "spiritual" about scientific discovery.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
And now Albert openly denies the existence of a personal God. Whenever he spoke of "God," he always meant something akin to "the basic laws of nature." You can't get much more atheistic than this.
Psychological manipulation though? I'm not sure. Mormonism calls upon its adherents to find for themselves, to be inquisitive. Just my take. I know you'ld probably disagree AntiCitizen though.
The LDS church certainly does call upon its members to "find out for themselves." But the problem I am trying to address is the standard of "evidence" tehy employ. For example, as the video shows, Oaks says that "a testimony is gained by bearing it." This is a perfect example of manipulation because it works great for generating belief in anything. Yet Oaks would not hesitate to credit "the spirit" for something that happens naturally. Real knowledge does not work that way, and he knows it.
Well, what if you saw an angel? Then you'd have your evidence, but wouldn't really be able to explain it very well... Theology is just a hard beast to slay my friend.
Depends on the angel and how I saw it. Does the angel correspond to how angels are described in any religious text? Am I sober? Dreaming? Near-death? Did other people see the angel too? Did I capture the angel on camera? Does the angel return? Does the angel share any information I could not have gleamed on my own?
All of these things matter, and determine the overall reliability of the experience.
They obviously do, but that's not what I asked. You saw an Angel. Let's just leave it at that. You saw one. PERIOD. It is TRUTH and absolutely happened. But you can't possibly explain it to anyone. I say this because to me, psychology lacks solidity. It is the only science that is heavily criticized for not being, at times, very scientiffic at all.
Who criticizes psychology as being unscientific? No reputable scientist I know of says this. In fact, just watch my series on "Psychology of Belief." You'll see at least a dozen peer-reviewed experiments, complete with controls and everything.
In the beginning of this video, the first bias was was how love can indeed be messured by linking committment, pasion, and intimacy being tools to measure it. But the problem is in the control-- two couples can have the same thing on paper and still feel every differently about their relationships. So I woudn't be so discrediting to the speaker for stating that it can't be measured. What you are comparing is a different school of thought, not a right answer of his "wrong" answer.
[two couples can have the same thing on paper and still feel every differently about their relationships]
No one ever said it was perfect. All I said is that love for one's spouse is a reasonably quantifiable metric. Actual measurements may be difficult to obtain, but not impossible.
Furthermore, Neo Freudians criticize Freudians, and Biologists mock them both in the scientiffic world. Psychology offers things that can't be testable using the scientiffic method ALOT... and therefore can't be labeled science. But then again, I suppose I'm showing my own bias in that statement... I will say this though-- I thoroughly enjoyed the video, I'm majoring in Sociology and want to be a psychologist in the furture and this is a great way to learn.
[Psychology offers things that can't be testable using the scientiffic method ALOT]
Social psychology is a surprisingly experimental science. Again, watch my "Psychology of Belief" series to see some classic experiments in action. They have controls and everything. Arbitrarily declaring social psychology as "unscientific" is just wrong.
allow me to butt in... I spoke with a mormon bishop a while bask who claimed that 'science is a philosophy'... these type of christians will negate all science and scientific inquiry...scary
[ You saw an Angel. Let's just leave it at that. You saw one. PERIOD]
This is like asking what you would do if you killed a man. The question is meaningless without context. Was it murder? Self-defense? Accidental? War-time?
Ok, so one man see's an angel-- lets take mohammad for example-- and it tells him "the truth" about God and that he needs to lead a people because they need to be saved. I just can't imagine there being another way of that man from that point spreading his gospel than what we see in religions today. If I saw an Angel, and knew it was true and felt I needed to bring "God's" church to this "heathen" world, I'd imagine I'd be at a pulpit somewhere doing the same thing that we see all the time.
The key words here are "I knew it was true." If I knew it was a genuine angel, then I would be naturally inclined to spread the word. But this is a very tall order. I could see an angel right now and not be convinced, because such events can happen without supernatural intervention. This is why you need more than just the angel. You need a sober mind, multiple witnesses, and reproducibility before considering the supernatural likelihood.
And to discredit that this type of thing didn't happen by using "biases" to make the point only would demonstrate our own "bias" that averts us from the truth. I'm a friend to religion. There is such thing as "Spiritual Well-Being" and it is an important thing to have for many people who have the ability to put trust in a higher power and then feel benefited from it. I don't really know why I went on that rant-- but I guess I just feel the need to explain why I sympathize with people...
The first step is to study social psychology. Pretty much any college level textbook will have pages of information on each bias, including descriptions of the experiments that demonstrate each effect. It is really fun stuff to read if you ever find the time.
Wow!! What a great presentation!! I'll have to see it a few more times to get into my head! lol!! how can you learn to pick up the biases from others when they are uttered? It seems you really have to pay uundivided attention but even then it seems there is no asurance of discovering it when it's said
Well done video. Are you a psychology student/professional? I am in awe at how well you are able to categorize these biases. I knew of most of those you mentioned, but I still lack the experience necessary to categorize them on the fly.
Sorry, but most of the papers you see are not freely available on the web without some kind of special access. If you want your own copies, you have to go to your local library and request them yourself. If you have access to a university library system, you might be able to do it all online and have them email you a .pdf via inter-library loan and such. A Google search for the author/title periodically works, but it is very hit and miss.
Here's the problem with their logic. It's known as a double-bind.
"I received a personal confirmation and know it to be true." This is irrational in that the prerequisite to receiving this confirmation is to suspend one's reasoning. They claim to have done that still claim logic and reasoning as the basis of their knowledge. The real question is how is that knowledge remotely possible when they suspended the means for it to begin with?
Alas, I'm a former Christian youth minister and my knowledge on Mormonism is inadequate to join the conversation. I will say that the Mormons I have met tend to be far more honest and loving than "mere" Christians -- but of course that's just a casual observation. Haven't met one I didn't like yet in fact.
Of course this gives no credence to the theology, but at least I can respect those who embrace it. Same with many "mere" Christians, but not to the same degree.
No one ever said that Mormons are bad neighbors. But just because they tend to be polite folk in public doesn't mean their beliefs have any correspondence in reality, nor does it mean their methods of generating such belief are anything but outright manipulative. It is also a very bad precedent, because it encourages belief without scrutiny, and when you question a Mormon's belief, that polite neighborly-ness tends to vanish very quickly.
Mormonism is also a health hazard. LDS worshippers have much higher prostate cancer rates than the norm due to their approach towards sex and particularly masturbation. This doesn't mean they're bad people, but the beliefs are verifiably harmful.
Yup. I came upon the same conclusion myself, but didn't know of any direct evidence to back it up. A quick Google search verified this statement and my dad had prostate cancer while I was on my mission. I hope I don't get it!
Nothing anyone ever said made me gain the testimony I had. That came straight from God to me, through His Spirit, and that's because I asked Him. You can discredit this if you want, but I won't deny what I know to be true.
I know it to be true because the Holy Spirit testified to my Spirit that it was such in an unmistakeable way. One can only understand such after having felt it, for the natural man can not know things spiritual, for they are spiritually discerned.
I prayed and fasted.
He told me through the power of the Holy Ghost, as he did to the apostles and Christians of old.
So when the Holy Spirit testified to you, did it also explain why there's no evidence to support the Book of Mormon, why Joseph Smith married women who were already married, and why there are at least 4 different accounts of the First Vision each written by Joseph Smith?
Let me guess, once you received the answer you wanted, that was it, end of experiment, no further effort required or need to answer those other troubling questions huh? "I feel good therefore, it must be true! All done!"
Through my own research on those very questions, I came to see that what critics claimed was either half true or just false. There is quite a bit of evidence, linguistic for instance, to support the BOM as an ancient Hebrew document. All the accounts work together. No one tells the same powerful experience exactly the same. See Paul's visit by Jesus for example. Good reasoning, and the Holy Ghost to back it up above all, is what gives me the testimony i have today.
I would like to see some of this linguistic evidence. Do you have a source?
In particular, I am curious by what logic are we supposed to think that an ancient American document has any trace of Hebrew in it. The plates were supposedly written in reformed Egyptian, and the continent would have already been populated with people who didn't speak a shred of Hebrew. Where on Earth is this coming from? And how would people generations later (like Alma/Moroni) retain this language?
Also note the hebraisms, such as "plates of brass" instead of simply writing brass plates or "taxed with a tax." Someone writing for a nineteenth century artist would not write in such a way. "It came to pass" is taken from the Hebrew Hâyâh.
In the original manuscripts of the BOM, some of the texts grammar needed to be changed to do the "if-and" clause, the Hebraic equivalent of the english if then clause.
I have heard the chiasmus argument, and it is compelling. For example, Chiasm exists in the Bible, and the Bible is not necessarily a Hebrew document (many earliest sections are written in Aramaic and Greek). It is also hugely subjective to the point that a dedicated search will inadvertently turn up chiasm even where none was intended. And besides, unless you believe in the global migration hypothesis, Lehi's group would have been the only Hebrew-speakers in America
Lehi came from Jerusalem, and took the learning of the Jews and language of the Egyptians with him. Therefore, 'reformed egyptian came about, just as other reformed languages. English is really 'reformed' latin if you think about it.
I am curious. Do you believe that Lehi's group are the sole decedents of modern American Indians? Or do you believe that folks were already here in the Americas and Lehi's group inter-mingled with them?
I do not. We know that before Lehi's group there were the Jaredites, and the Book of Mormon never says that there weren't other people allready there from what I can tell. It would be quite reasonable to me that there were others. The record, of course, deals with the Nephites in particular due to God's dealings with them.
Okay, so you accept that Lehi inter-mingled with the natives. Good.
Unfortunately, this raises the problem of how the heck Lehi's group could possibly have any lasting linguistic effects. Unless all the Hebrew stuff is limited strictly to 1-2 Nephi, you have only doomed your own case. Imagine a Lithuanian family immigrating to the US. Do you really expect them to keep records in their native language beyond the first generation? Yet the BoM records span hundreds of years! Please explain.
I never said that they intermingled, only that they could have also been around. Indeed, from what i can tell, the area of where the Nephites were was not as big as some think it was. There are quite a few places with people of many different backgrounds, and they have kept their languages for a long time. Look at a place like the Balkans. Many ethnic groups, yet they are for the most part keeping their culture intact.
There's some big problems with the limited geography theory. Here's a few:
1. Zelph who served under "the great prophet Onandagus who was known from Cumorah or Eastern Sea to the Rocky Mountains". Zelph's remains were found by the Illinois river and he was a white lamanite no less. Eastern Sea to Rocky Mountains doesn't sound very limited plus if Zelph was a white lamanite, he must have had purer Israelite DNA even between 350 and 400 AD. Notice how Cumorah and Eastern Sea are interchangeable
Next is Book of Mormon scripture that says this land should be "kept from other nations" 2 Nephi 8-9. Seems to indicate that Nephites and Lamanites were the only people there. As such there was no one around to intermarry or alter their DNA.
Joseph Smith in D&C referes to Native Americans in Missouri as Lamanites. If their DNA was wiped out would they even be Lamanites? If my great-great-great grandmother was Indonesian, I wouldn't claim myself to be Indonesian.
"I never said that they intermingled, only that they could have also been around."
How do you justify a belief on the grounds of "could have" reasoning? Lehi's group was barely a couple-dozen at most. How exactly does such a small group give rise to a population of millions without intermixing with the locals? The founder effect is a very real phenomenon that you can't avoid.
Be careful not to just posit plausible scenarios, either. When you suggest a way things could have been, you have to back it up with more than simply "it could have happened." You need positive evidence in your favor to indicate such events in the first place, plus a logically coherent framework that is consistent with other things we know to be true.
Yes, it "could have happened," but without a serious evidential base on which to stake your claim, it more likely didn't happen.
"...it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
...Inasmuch as those shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves.
2nd Nephi 1:8-9.
Posses the land unto themselves. There's nothing about "share the land with other blokes".
(2) ... reinforces belief through the insufficient justification effect. The fact that everyone else is singing probably promotes belief through the bandwagon effect, even if the majority opinion is falsely assumed because of the false consensus effect. Though experiencing music and singing in groups is already likely to stir strong feelings even in non-religious settings, individuals may falsely attribute these feelings to "the presence of the holy spirit" because of patternicity.
nichtmuttersprachler 1 month ago
(1) I went to a Christmas church service with my family tonight and did something similar to bias bingo. Observing the service from a social psychological perspective was actually really interesting. I noticed that almost aspect of the service exploits a combination of psychological phenomena known to generate belief. Consider the act of singing songs, which is a major part of most if not all church services. Simply singing songs that affirm the beliefs of a religion likely generates and ...
nichtmuttersprachler 1 month ago
Christmas is coming soon so I might just be forced to end up in church. Perhaps I will make this bingo board and have everything checked off and then place it in the offering plate. ^^
TheLuckySaGe 1 month ago
I have a testimony of this video. I know that its true.
exmo74 1 month ago
I like that - my beliefs aren't part of my self :)
lunchboxboy 2 months ago
"Cognitive bias is a well documented phenomenon that is more than capable of generating beliefs in the human mind which have no external validity. Such brazen exploitation of human bias cannot testify of any sort of truth because it is, by it's very nature, deceptive and dishonest. Any organization which genuinely poses truth of any kind would never resort to such manipulation because the truth would objectively speak for itself." Brilliant!
GiveCourage 2 months ago 3
Comment removed
preston159 3 months ago
there's a job for the narrator of this video available over at the game show network
vendingdudes 5 months ago
Religion and ANY other dogmatic, unquestioning worship of a leader or belief system (a la, Kim Jung-il) always leads to a warped view of reality. If I confided to a Christian that I believed wands like those from the H Potter series were once real, he/she would laugh and question my sanity - & they would correct to do so. But if I ask if a stick could of been turned into a snake by Moses, or if the dead were brought back to life by a Jewish carpenter, they happily will babble away for hours.
ToolFan68 6 months ago
Dude, I love your videos, but the plural of biases is NOT pronounced Bi-AH-seez, it's pronounced bi-AH-siz.
The plural of basis IS pronounced BAY-seez, but the plural of base is pronounced BAY-siz. Same deal.
I blame Carl Sagan, he did similar things with pronunciation. Making faux-Latin plurals out of Anglo-Saxon or Anglicised Latinate words like turning Pre-MI-siz into pre-MI-seez.
COEXISTential 6 months ago
@COEXISTential As long as we're striving for correctness, biases IS the plural.
grant50 1 month ago
@grant50 Fair call, the 'of' shouldn't have been there - fortunately I was trying to correct the pronunciation, not the spelling :D
COEXISTential 1 month ago
@COEXISTential Spoken like a gentleman.
grant50 1 month ago
@grant50 You're kind to say.
COEXISTential 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is cognative bias. Everything is pulled into a nice conclusion at the end when we have heard no arguments from the other side. Jumping to conclusions and by giving them 'fancy labels' doesn't mean what the speaker argues is true. On the other hand you made some good arguments-- too bad they were so biased.
justafrinian 7 months ago
@justafrinian
Justin... they aren't just "fancy labels." They are the actual technical terms used by social psychologists. Each of these effects carries a demonstrable capacity to skew beliefs and behavior. There are whole mountains of experimental data on this stuff.
However, to be fair, this video is admittedly "just for the lol's." If you want a serious argument, then watch the entire Psychology of Belief series. There is very little joking around in those.
AntiCitizenX 7 months ago 15
Oh my God...awesome!..comedy and debunking! reminds me a little of potholer54's style re science
670Kiester 7 months ago 3
Great great video. For personal reasons, I liked that you used a lot of mormon examples.
jaekae8 8 months ago 2
Also, your sarcastic tone is funny. It reminds me of the God Delusion.
poppy2584 10 months ago 2
Wow, the idea of tying identity with beliefs...so eye-opening!!! Thanks.
poppy2584 10 months ago 4
Comment removed
poppy2584 10 months ago
Comment removed
poppy2584 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Except..... PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE IN GENERAL DOES NOT GO OUT OF ITS WAY TO DISPROVE RELIGION, YOUR OWN BIAS IS ALSO INVOLVED IN COMMITTING US TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IN A PRIDEFUL WAY. I GUESS I GET SOME POINTS ON MY BOARD AS WELL.
ChildePC 10 months ago
@ChildePC
"PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE IN GENERAL DOES NOT GO OUT OF ITS WAY TO DISPROVE RELIGION"
Actually, they do.
"YOUR OWN BIAS..."
Then don't listen to me. Listen to the evidence. And if there is no evidence, then reject the belief.
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AntiCitizenX Bias hell, you made an ass out of yourself.
ChildePC 9 months ago
I have probably watched this video 30 times by now, and linked it all over the place. This and your many other videos are magnificent.
bjjolley 10 months ago 11
@bjjolley
Thank you!
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago 4
The 2 great christian virtues: Hypocrisy and Dishonesty.
holio84 10 months ago 3
Great video. I was trying to look up more about the "Ego Identity Bias", but I couldn't find anything searching for it online. Is it called something else? Or could you provide a link to somewhere?
iamwikipedia 11 months ago
@iamwikipedia
I could not find an official name for this bias, so I made one up. The basic idea is that people tend to tie their self-esteem into random, external things, which is very demonstrable (see "basking in reflected glory" for example). So I just based it loosely on this idea.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX It seems a good term for the would be (Religious) Identity Crisis. Oaks causes a religious identity crisis by asking parents to encourage their children to superglue their identity with church activity.
JesusSmithExmo 10 months ago
@AntiCitizenX It seems a good term for the would be (Religious) Identity Crisis. Oaks causes a religious identity crisis by asking parents to encourage their children to superglue their identity with church activity.
JesusSmithExmo 10 months ago
Can you add a link to that bingo card. Also I am currently having problems in a debate with a guy who asserts his belief is based on faith but so too is evolution. He clearly doesn't understand it and resists looking at the evidence. If you point any out he scoffs and proclaims that it doesn't prove anything. Strictly speaking he's right. Science doesn't prove anything Theories are validated the more they resist falsification. I mention all this, because Oaks makes that fallacy straight up @1:06
skepticoz 11 months ago
YOU MUST KNOW THAT those who criticize your "style" are those shallow idiots who are looking for that "style over substance" that would stroke their own vanity & corroborate their own "testimonies": at YOUR expense!
(You are a "bad dog" because of the way you "sound"!)
On the otherhand, I hear both assertiveness and a bit of humor, in your voice!
Keep up the good work!
orlovna2 11 months ago
Well done video.
There's also standard "brainwashing" in this talk. I like the "pride" statement (that it's bad). Nothing can be a more natural source of pride in a person than to think for themselves and arrive at a correct idea. To denigrate pride is equivalent to saying "Don't trust yourself--that makes you a BAD person. You're only GOOD when you trust me."
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
This should be an iphone app.
eNRGy27 1 year ago
@eNRGy27 It would be a good game, to play a video in real time and have fallacies numbered so participants can test their skill at identifying fallacies 'on the fly' as it were, by pushing the number for that fallacy. Even more interesting if you had participants fill in a survey identifying their demographic by religion / world view / philosophical sympathies etc. Then correlate the data for who understands what fallacies.
skepticoz 11 months ago
RE: Out group. Also ad hominem poisoning the well.
awatson945 1 year ago
My name is Mike from LA Although there busizz4me.info
piyangasadamli 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My name is Mike from LA Although there busizz4me.info
pdisanyaka 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be a part of worlds no 1 Russian dating women #leefoxnow.info#
llouutyrttree 1 year ago
My name is Mike from LA Although there busizz4me.info
amodiyadisanyaka 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bbw need sexy guy naneedj.info
darseeify 1 year ago
Comment removed
Neo2234 1 year ago
@Neo2234
I suggest you watch the "Psychology of Belief" series. It summarizes many of the classic experiments that demonstrate the empirical nature of psychology.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@Neo2234 You have demonstrated the "Belief Bias" where you dismiss the evidence and make a statement of the validity of the proposition based purely from your own existing opinions and belief.
jasonx1972 1 year ago
@Neo2234
"I can't stand Psychology"
I know. Wanting to know how the mind works is just a horrible idea ain't it?
"It seems to put everything into a category and a definition for everything."
Oh noes! If they go and define things people are going to start understanding what they mean. Good grief have they no common decency? And don't even get me started on categories. Just give me a good old pot to lump everything into. Next they'll be trying to make distinctions between fantasy and reality :(
skepticoz 11 months ago
Comment removed
Neo2234 11 months ago
@Neo2234 Do you like philosophy? The fallacies are epistemology. This is about finding out whether arguments are valid.
Areas of research or areas of knowledge like philosophy, psychology and the like are about describing things. As such, they need to categorize and provide definitions. This isn't a weakness, it is a strength. Perhaps its not the field of knowledge but the definitions and categories that you dislike.
iBlindGame 11 months ago
The humor here is ok for me. I suspect that the narrator here, like me, is so exasperated with the seemingly inextinguishable presence of destructive human biases that he used a humorous approach just to get some relief from the world-endangering manifestations of biases used so easily by emotional predators to gain power over others: Make the people afraid, give them someone to blame, and then promise to protect them if they just follow the dictates of their fearless leaders. Insidious. Awful.
brewepau 1 year ago
I've lost track of how many times I've revisited this. The summary at the end is absolutely phenomenal. Well done.
bjjolley 1 year ago
I need to find some of these cards and hand them out during fast and testimony meetings.
ursowrng 1 year ago
Inducing your own bias by the sophomoric use of sarcastic tones in your voice is really annoying to mature adults. Your approach is interesting and I think there is value in contrasting theories in psychology with religion, but you present them as facts when they are, in fact, theory. You betray a bit of naivety when you place Buddhism in with you set of religions cited, when Buddhism is not a religion, per se'. It is a dialectic, inviting investigators to think for themselves.
lollolllolllll 1 year ago
@lollolllolllll
My tone has long since lightened up after making this video (you're not the first to complain, and I'm certain you won't be the last). If you want "proof" of the biases, then watch the "Psychology of Belief" series. Every single one is experimentally demonstrable.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago 4
@lollolllolllll
This comment would be an example of the "straw man argument".
Having admitted the "approach" as "interesting" and with "value", you then choose to focus on the video creator showing "naivety" for classifying Buddhism as a religion (it is), as well as implying ignorance for placing weight on mere "theories" (such as gravity). These statements serve as bedrock for any person to safely lay their biases onto, misleading supporters into assuming a "theory vs fact" dichotomy.
;)
pandaman27 1 year ago
@lollolllolllll This video suggests that adherents to possibly false belief systems use psychological manipulation to generate belief. Is Buddhism a belief system that has some false ideas in it? Quite possibly. And do Buddhists use these kind of techniques to manipulate people? It certainly seems possible; I wouldn't rule it out, given that there are millions of Buddhists.
iBlindGame 11 months ago
Your sarcastic theatrics are annoying.
You have an interesting approach, however, there are problems in your observations because most of the Biases you name are theories, not facts. Additionally, you demonstrate a lack of properly vetting your information when you throw Buddhism into the set of religions cited. Buddhism is not a religion, it is a dialectic, inviting the investigator to think for themselves to reach conclusions.
lollolllolllll 1 year ago
@lollolllolllll "Just a theory and not a fact" is the same logic used by creationists, and it fails miserably. Theories (good ones, at least, and not anything from Freud :-P), are based in data and empirical evidence. They can be falsified, tested, replicated, and changed when disconfirming evidence presents itself. Science is self-correcting, unlike religion. These "mere theories" permeate and have been tested to the point of reasonable agreement among professionals. Practically fact, actually.
ThePTB 1 year ago
Oh and I might actually play this game with my friends, and watch youtube. Sounds like a fuck load of fun!
roxasroks 1 year ago
This guy isn't funny.
roxasroks 1 year ago
I have noticed how religion takes control of a person's mind but my neighbor who is not religious also cuts his friggin lawn three times a week!
Something else is at work here, too...
I appreciate your effort in making these scary movies and look forward to seeing you in hell. Keep up the dangerous and important work.
BigBusinessMistakes 1 year ago
I think I actually have a phobia of the insufficient justification fallacy, and have had one years before I even knew what it was, since I was a kid. I've never been bothered by nudity and so often refuse to close the door when I go to the bathroom for fear that repetition of that action will make me ashamed of my body or something. I hate listening to most music because it will get stuck in my head and that actually makes me feel like I'm being brainwashed from mantras repeating in my head
technologysucks 1 year ago
What is really sad is to see five and six year olds at testimony meeting regurgitating this bullshit to a mass of adults and peers. SIG HEIL!!!
(Ahhh, now that the children are indoctrinated, time to relax... where the hell is my valium and porn??!!??!!!)
mikjon1978 1 year ago 4
@mikjon1978
You should watch my "psychology of belief" series. You might recognize a few LDS quirks in there as well.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Inducing your own bias by the sophomoric use of sarcastic tones in your voice is really annoying to mature adults. Your approach is interesting and I think there is value in contrasting theories in psychology with religion, but you present them as facts when they are, in fact, theory. You betray a bit of naivety when you place Buddhism in with you set of religions cited, when Buddhism is not a religion, per se'. It is a dialectic, inviting investigators to think for themselves.
lollolllolllll 1 year ago
Awesome, awesome, awesome video. It is nice to see such free and logical criticism of religion, and the fact that is one of Oak's talks makes it all the more satisfying for me. These men are NEVER questioned and very rarely criticized in the church(due to the instilled bias into the minds of the members i'm sure). Your vids are a HUGE breath of fresh air!! Sadly, members are so brainwashed into staying away from "antimormon literature" that most will never let themselves watch anything like this
mikjon1978 1 year ago
On. The. Fucking. Nose. I love you.
effinboy 1 year ago
I sense a few biases in this video as well. perhaps association bias and anchoring bias in some parts. Condescending tones are usually a breeding ground for bias. I'm not saying he's any less of a manipulative bastard, but this video isn't exactly clean of fallacy and bias either.
Exarian 1 year ago
@Exarian
I never claimed that I was free of bias. The only difference between me and Oaks is that I happily admit this about myself and try to correct for it. Oaks, on the other hand, is openly exploiting cognitive bias under the pretense that it represents a reliable avenue to truth. This would not be so bad if he could at least back himself up with physical evidence, but even this is lacking.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago 6
@AntiCitizenX Ah, I see. I just got a slightly hypocritical vibe from the video for a bit, but it was probably a false alarm.
Exarian 1 year ago
At the end of your video you say, "....because the truth would objectively speak for itself".
Interestingly, I have taught that "truth has legs and can stand on its own [feet]."
So, truth does not "need" (vz., is not a crippled dependent needing..) Oaks to "prop it up".
Oaks--then--becomes like that Old Testament Uzziah guy, who reached out to prop up the Ark of the Covenant and was killed.
Why God hasn't fried (or otherwise destroyed) Oaks for doing the same thing, is beyond me. LOL
orlovna2 1 year ago
Chief Justice Dallin Oaks is weirder than weird!
He probably believed Bill Clinton, too, because the latter "testified" (bore testimony?), over and over and over that he "did not have sex with that woman": thus, a "testimony" of Clinton's own "innocence" was had, in the bearing [repeating] of it: ad nauseum
orlovna2 1 year ago
I like your phrase....'bucketful of nonsense'. LOL
That Oaks is a real DIPSTICK. (There is little to keep me from calling him a worse name, where "Stick" is substituted with another, but shorter word, that begins with "S".)
Oaks also was a Mission Prez. for the LDS Crutch; and, his mission statement was this: "I am here to give the filipino people MORMON CULTURE"
(Which translates, easily, into UTAH CULTURE)
Nevermind giving them the gospel of Jesus Christ: Utah culture will do, nicely!
orlovna2 1 year ago
I can agree with this video in theory but I disagree with the condescending tone in which it is delivered. It would be more effective and more open to discussion if it was delivered in a less angry and bitter tone.
If you consider this video seriously then you also have to consider the members of the church as victims of brainwashing. I dont see any reason to accuse and attack victims. And while it is directed as a reprimand towards Oaks it is also directed towards the LDS church in general.
krisandrachel 1 year ago
@krisandrachel
Part of the tone has to do with how I used to record into my mics. To avoid pops, I placed the mic a couple of feet away and practically yelled into them, which tends to come off as a loud bark. Since then, I've stopped doing that, and my recent videos sound much better.
Even so, in the age of information, there is no excuse for allowing one's self to be so openly brainwashed. You really have to be willfully stupid to go along with much of this stuff.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
I just watched your video and while I, in recent years, have come to realize that all of what you said was true it was interesting to see it put like that. I especially appreciated the part about testimonies and how you will gain a testimony by bearing it. It's a concept that even as a child I struggled with. Basically they are selling their congregation on the idea that the more you say something out loud the more true it becomes. In other words the more you tell a lie the more you believe it.
melr384 1 year ago
@melr384
If you liked that part specifically, then I recommend you watch my "Psychology of Belief Part II" video.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@melr384
A "testimony" is like a "mantra": the more you keep telling it, the more you begin to believe it. Rather like Bill Clinton trying to convince himself (and others) that he "...did not have sex with that woman". Just keep repeating a lie often enough and you will begin to believe it, yourself: like Elder Paul H. Dunn did, some years ago.
orlovna2 1 year ago
bravo bravo bravo . this is one of the best & most important videos i have ever seen . you have contributed substatially to betterment of the human race .
franktufaro 1 year ago
not to annoying, but i like your videos and would like them to be solid. i remember this talk and the mental gymnastics i did over it. his first problem seems less easy to pin down. the definition of love you gave is objectively verifiable but the definition itself is subjective. love may indeed by subjective. however the existence of god or a vision is not subjective. what i see is a non sequitur rather than a false definition. what bias that leads to im not as sure.
ororc 1 year ago
@ororc
[the definition itself is subjective]
The same can be said about every word in the English language. However, once you finally pin the idea down into what love is and what love isn't, it becomes measurable (at least in principle).
But yeah, it's not really a bias, but a fallacy. This was only my first video, so try not to hold it up to too high of a standard :)
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
excellent vid
I wonder how many years psychologist/psychiatrists were planted in my ward building/ in the mormon church... while myself and my sisters were being abused...and didn't action...
however, I do appreciate the presentation
mellifluouschinook 1 year ago
This video highlights just how devious Oaks really is. Thinking about it makes me shudder.
boydslittlefactory 1 year ago
I don't know who you are, but this video changed my life. The whole concept of keeping external factors separate from your identity helped me realize the cognitive dissonance I was feeling. Thank you so much.
wamerocity 2 years ago 22
@wamerocity
I'm glad you enjoyed it! If you liked this video, you'll probably love my "Psychology of Belief" series.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
@wamerocity Critical thinking is wonderful! I'm glad to hear it changes lives. Here's another video that may do just this:
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 11 months ago
I prefer the Cognitive Bias drinking game.
newsradiohead 2 years ago
brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!
cranchman 2 years ago
Very good. Funny thing is no Mormon would ever listen to it because of their bias! Crack up. Thanks
Balla1965 2 years ago
Man, great information. Really excellent and well done - I'd send it on to LDS friends, except the tone is so condescending that an LDS listener could only be insulted, and that's unfortunate as they should hear this. Any chance of a voice-over redo (in the style of ThermainTrees or Qualiasoup)?
bjjolley 2 years ago
It's kind of hard to play a game like "Bias Bingo" without being condescending. The very nature of the game itself is designed to mock people. However, I would recommend the "Psychology of Belief" series instead (especially part 2 for all your Mormon friends). These are much more instructionally-focused.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
THis is a really good point and I totally thought the same thing. SOmeone should do that as this could be a helpful tool for Mormons
Balla1965 2 years ago
I got kick out of this video, but the whole time watching it I noticed that going to church to play Bias Bingo is itself a bias. Let's see, I checked off "stereotype" and "confirmation bias" on my board. It is, at the very least, an a priori approach.
While back home for the holidays, I attended church, expecting a small-minded, bigoted sermon. But it was actually a pleasant one about the family. It may have not been the greatest speech, but given my own bias, it seemed like Shakespeare.
graphicalex 2 years ago
This. Is. Brilliant.
z1freerider 2 years ago
BIIIINGOOO!!! lol I loved that..
Letsmakeasamich 2 years ago
So that was you! I was arguing with a man on a bus the other day and I said "Most buses smell like dog pee" at which point he yelled "Confirmation bias" followed by "Bingo! I win!" I was confused but now it all makes sense. You watch arguments between friends/family from the sidelines playing bias bingo, don't ya? Someone goes to another; "You shouldn't do that!" and you go "Is-ought fallacy! BINGOOO!" You should do that. I have this mental image of a skit with you and a friend arguing . . .
technologysucks 2 years ago
Your friend: You're just being jealous of me
You: Strawman fallacy! "crosses off square" Man, you do that so often! It's like every day, more often then not.
Your friend: Confirmation bias! Anyway, what about that thing YOU always do. It's not natural
You: Naturalistic fallacy! BINGO!
Your friend: Dammit, and I just needed one more square to win
technologysucks 2 years ago
@technologysucks
lol... Did that really happen to you on a bus? I would be very impressed if my Bingo card was actually catching on with people.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
No, but maybe I should MAKE it happen on a bus . . .
Actually, since a select few biases are typically repeated over & over rather then a diverse, non-repetitive line-up; another idea . . . The bias drinking game.
Ad Hominem 1 drink
Strawman 2 drinks
Confirmation bias 3 drinks
Post Hoc ergo Procter Hoc 4 drinks
Argument Ad Populum 5 drinks
False dichotomy 6 drinks
Circular reasoning finish bottle
It'd be a race against time to win before you're too wasted to correctly identify biases anymore
technologysucks 2 years ago 2
I like it! :D
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
@technologysucks
LMAO
Tell me, is the Strawman argument worth 2 drinks because it is usually repeated twice? Are you assigning a relative value to each of these biasses?
I see where most Mormons, on YouTube, quickly resort to the Ad Hominem type of response. This must be the one that is easiest for them to do. You probably have to be a "Mormon Judge" (like Oaks with his juris doctor robes), to get to False dichotomies, as a way of preserving and perpetuating mor(m)on bias
orlovna2 1 year ago
@orlovna2 I tried to list them in order of most common. If you had to finish the bottle for each Ad Hominem, for example then you might be drunk in minutes
In light of this, I think I should have put fewer drinks for false dichotomy
technologysucks 1 year ago
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."- Albert Einstein.
jamesdt1980 2 years ago
Einstein points out that he supported no particular view, the quote which you initially used, came before Edwin Hubbles discovery, with this, one might assume through context that Einsteins views fall into the category of 'agnostic', but it's open to interpretation. what can be said is that whoever made that poster, made it with error, against Alberts wishes, which with your knowledge of that error or not, falls into the category of confirmation bias. not trying to argue, just pointing that out
jamesdt1980 2 years ago
@jamesdt1980
You make a valid point. But I would argue that there exist some very loose uses of the word "atheism" that even include this view. For example, I frequently encounter people who reject religion outright, but still like to believe in "something bigger." Yet for all intents and purposes, I don't think it is unfair to call these folks atheists anyway in the purely practical sense.
Like you said, its open to interpretation. I just thought the poster was cool. :)
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
@AntiCitizenX
right on :)
jamesdt1980 2 years ago
in the poster for atheism, there's Albert Einstein. having once taken an interest in his life, i was curious what his personal beliefs were, and i'll point out from what i understand of him, he never disavowed the existence of a God(s), but neither did he claim to be religious. so what strikes me as being somewhat ironic, is that you're using confirmation bias, and false information to make a point in this video.. other than that, it's pretty informative
jamesdt1980 2 years ago
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
In other words, Albert became very "spiritual" about scientific discovery.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
And now Albert openly denies the existence of a personal God. Whenever he spoke of "God," he always meant something akin to "the basic laws of nature." You can't get much more atheistic than this.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Mormons biased? *shocked* ;D
Ya, we are biased. Aren't we all!
Psychological manipulation though? I'm not sure. Mormonism calls upon its adherents to find for themselves, to be inquisitive. Just my take. I know you'ld probably disagree AntiCitizen though.
Hope all is well.
StorminMormin91 2 years ago
The LDS church certainly does call upon its members to "find out for themselves." But the problem I am trying to address is the standard of "evidence" tehy employ. For example, as the video shows, Oaks says that "a testimony is gained by bearing it." This is a perfect example of manipulation because it works great for generating belief in anything. Yet Oaks would not hesitate to credit "the spirit" for something that happens naturally. Real knowledge does not work that way, and he knows it.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Well, what if you saw an angel? Then you'd have your evidence, but wouldn't really be able to explain it very well... Theology is just a hard beast to slay my friend.
JRM008 1 year ago
@JRM008
Depends on the angel and how I saw it. Does the angel correspond to how angels are described in any religious text? Am I sober? Dreaming? Near-death? Did other people see the angel too? Did I capture the angel on camera? Does the angel return? Does the angel share any information I could not have gleamed on my own?
All of these things matter, and determine the overall reliability of the experience.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
They obviously do, but that's not what I asked. You saw an Angel. Let's just leave it at that. You saw one. PERIOD. It is TRUTH and absolutely happened. But you can't possibly explain it to anyone. I say this because to me, psychology lacks solidity. It is the only science that is heavily criticized for not being, at times, very scientiffic at all.
JRM008 1 year ago
@JRM008
Who criticizes psychology as being unscientific? No reputable scientist I know of says this. In fact, just watch my series on "Psychology of Belief." You'll see at least a dozen peer-reviewed experiments, complete with controls and everything.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
In the beginning of this video, the first bias was was how love can indeed be messured by linking committment, pasion, and intimacy being tools to measure it. But the problem is in the control-- two couples can have the same thing on paper and still feel every differently about their relationships. So I woudn't be so discrediting to the speaker for stating that it can't be measured. What you are comparing is a different school of thought, not a right answer of his "wrong" answer.
JRM008 1 year ago
[two couples can have the same thing on paper and still feel every differently about their relationships]
No one ever said it was perfect. All I said is that love for one's spouse is a reasonably quantifiable metric. Actual measurements may be difficult to obtain, but not impossible.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
Furthermore, Neo Freudians criticize Freudians, and Biologists mock them both in the scientiffic world. Psychology offers things that can't be testable using the scientiffic method ALOT... and therefore can't be labeled science. But then again, I suppose I'm showing my own bias in that statement... I will say this though-- I thoroughly enjoyed the video, I'm majoring in Sociology and want to be a psychologist in the furture and this is a great way to learn.
JRM008 1 year ago
[Psychology offers things that can't be testable using the scientiffic method ALOT]
Social psychology is a surprisingly experimental science. Again, watch my "Psychology of Belief" series to see some classic experiments in action. They have controls and everything. Arbitrarily declaring social psychology as "unscientific" is just wrong.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@JRM008
allow me to butt in... I spoke with a mormon bishop a while bask who claimed that 'science is a philosophy'... these type of christians will negate all science and scientific inquiry...scary
mellifluouschinook 1 year ago
@JRM008
[ You saw an Angel. Let's just leave it at that. You saw one. PERIOD]
This is like asking what you would do if you killed a man. The question is meaningless without context. Was it murder? Self-defense? Accidental? War-time?
CONTEXT, man!
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
Ok, so one man see's an angel-- lets take mohammad for example-- and it tells him "the truth" about God and that he needs to lead a people because they need to be saved. I just can't imagine there being another way of that man from that point spreading his gospel than what we see in religions today. If I saw an Angel, and knew it was true and felt I needed to bring "God's" church to this "heathen" world, I'd imagine I'd be at a pulpit somewhere doing the same thing that we see all the time.
JRM008 1 year ago
[If I saw an Angel, and knew it was true]
The key words here are "I knew it was true." If I knew it was a genuine angel, then I would be naturally inclined to spread the word. But this is a very tall order. I could see an angel right now and not be convinced, because such events can happen without supernatural intervention. This is why you need more than just the angel. You need a sober mind, multiple witnesses, and reproducibility before considering the supernatural likelihood.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
And to discredit that this type of thing didn't happen by using "biases" to make the point only would demonstrate our own "bias" that averts us from the truth. I'm a friend to religion. There is such thing as "Spiritual Well-Being" and it is an important thing to have for many people who have the ability to put trust in a higher power and then feel benefited from it. I don't really know why I went on that rant-- but I guess I just feel the need to explain why I sympathize with people...
JRM008 1 year ago
Blast, I realize I left a comment virtually identical to another 5 month old response. Guess I'm not so original. Still, it was a damn good point! :p
NoAntecessor 2 years ago
Very interesting, didn't know you can classify it all like that o__o
Hard to classify too what he is trying too, for me as well. (Then again english is only a third language for me D= )
CommS007 2 years ago
The first step is to study social psychology. Pretty much any college level textbook will have pages of information on each bias, including descriptions of the experiments that demonstrate each effect. It is really fun stuff to read if you ever find the time.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Wow!! What a great presentation!! I'll have to see it a few more times to get into my head! lol!! how can you learn to pick up the biases from others when they are uttered? It seems you really have to pay uundivided attention but even then it seems there is no asurance of discovering it when it's said
GnosisMan50 2 years ago
I grew up in the LDS church and figured out these slants of logic for myself, definitely happy to see them documented on the web.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
The best part is all of these religions claim they hold the truth.
matt5112 2 years ago
Well done video. Are you a psychology student/professional? I am in awe at how well you are able to categorize these biases. I knew of most of those you mentioned, but I still lack the experience necessary to categorize them on the fly.
Oorloghondje 2 years ago 8
Don't worry. I had to look them up as well in order to make the video :)
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Dear AntiCitizenX:
Could you please consider providing links to the appropriate papers quoted in your video?
If you could, you would be doing an even greater service to all who care to learn.
Thank you.
amoxtlacatl 2 years ago
Sorry, but most of the papers you see are not freely available on the web without some kind of special access. If you want your own copies, you have to go to your local library and request them yourself. If you have access to a university library system, you might be able to do it all online and have them email you a .pdf via inter-library loan and such. A Google search for the author/title periodically works, but it is very hit and miss.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
very well made video. I enjoyed it.
heyethan 2 years ago
It was very entertaining...
THELDSLIFE 2 years ago
Did you at least learn anything? Anything you would care to discuss?
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Great analysis; I'd never heard of about a third of those terms.
JBSauce 2 years ago
Here's the problem with their logic. It's known as a double-bind.
"I received a personal confirmation and know it to be true." This is irrational in that the prerequisite to receiving this confirmation is to suspend one's reasoning. They claim to have done that still claim logic and reasoning as the basis of their knowledge. The real question is how is that knowledge remotely possible when they suspended the means for it to begin with?
dfwsunking 2 years ago
Interesting way of looking at it.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Alas, I'm a former Christian youth minister and my knowledge on Mormonism is inadequate to join the conversation. I will say that the Mormons I have met tend to be far more honest and loving than "mere" Christians -- but of course that's just a casual observation. Haven't met one I didn't like yet in fact.
Of course this gives no credence to the theology, but at least I can respect those who embrace it. Same with many "mere" Christians, but not to the same degree.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
No one ever said that Mormons are bad neighbors. But just because they tend to be polite folk in public doesn't mean their beliefs have any correspondence in reality, nor does it mean their methods of generating such belief are anything but outright manipulative. It is also a very bad precedent, because it encourages belief without scrutiny, and when you question a Mormon's belief, that polite neighborly-ness tends to vanish very quickly.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Of course I agree with you, sheerly on the basis of the 'origin' of Mormonism, which of course is J/C theology. I was merely making an observation.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Mormonism is also a health hazard. LDS worshippers have much higher prostate cancer rates than the norm due to their approach towards sex and particularly masturbation. This doesn't mean they're bad people, but the beliefs are verifiably harmful.
Kthonix 2 years ago
Really? Never new that... wow. Perhaps God hates the prostate. Damn evolution and its... mandatory seed-spreading... vile... filth... ;)
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Yup. I came upon the same conclusion myself, but didn't know of any direct evidence to back it up. A quick Google search verified this statement and my dad had prostate cancer while I was on my mission. I hope I don't get it!
jedhunsaker 2 years ago
Reason burger lathered in PWN-sauce.
Well done sir.
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
Lol... nice metaphor :)
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Nothing anyone ever said made me gain the testimony I had. That came straight from God to me, through His Spirit, and that's because I asked Him. You can discredit this if you want, but I won't deny what I know to be true.
StorminMormin91 2 years ago
Questions: How do you know it to be true? How did you ask God? How did God tell you?
charkopolis 2 years ago
I know it to be true because the Holy Spirit testified to my Spirit that it was such in an unmistakeable way. One can only understand such after having felt it, for the natural man can not know things spiritual, for they are spiritually discerned.
I prayed and fasted.
He told me through the power of the Holy Ghost, as he did to the apostles and Christians of old.
StorminMormin91 2 years ago
Okay, more questions ...
In what way is the power of the holy spirit unmistakable?
Are you sure that one must experience to understand?
Define "natural man".
What exactly did he tell you (through the power of the holy spirit)?
charkopolis 2 years ago
I would further like to add:
1) In what way is a message from the Spirit discernible from your own intrinsically self-deceptive bias as a human being?
2) What makes the Mormon testimony from the Spirit more reliable than the spiritual experiences provided by other faiths?
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
So when the Holy Spirit testified to you, did it also explain why there's no evidence to support the Book of Mormon, why Joseph Smith married women who were already married, and why there are at least 4 different accounts of the First Vision each written by Joseph Smith?
Let me guess, once you received the answer you wanted, that was it, end of experiment, no further effort required or need to answer those other troubling questions huh? "I feel good therefore, it must be true! All done!"
dfwsunking 2 years ago
Through my own research on those very questions, I came to see that what critics claimed was either half true or just false. There is quite a bit of evidence, linguistic for instance, to support the BOM as an ancient Hebrew document. All the accounts work together. No one tells the same powerful experience exactly the same. See Paul's visit by Jesus for example. Good reasoning, and the Holy Ghost to back it up above all, is what gives me the testimony i have today.
StorminMormin91 2 years ago
I would like to see some of this linguistic evidence. Do you have a source?
In particular, I am curious by what logic are we supposed to think that an ancient American document has any trace of Hebrew in it. The plates were supposedly written in reformed Egyptian, and the continent would have already been populated with people who didn't speak a shred of Hebrew. Where on Earth is this coming from? And how would people generations later (like Alma/Moroni) retain this language?
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
A hebrew form of writing called chiasmus.
Also note the hebraisms, such as "plates of brass" instead of simply writing brass plates or "taxed with a tax." Someone writing for a nineteenth century artist would not write in such a way. "It came to pass" is taken from the Hebrew Hâyâh.
In the original manuscripts of the BOM, some of the texts grammar needed to be changed to do the "if-and" clause, the Hebraic equivalent of the english if then clause.
StorminMormin91 2 years ago
Sorry. Meant crowd and not artist...
XD
StorminMormin91 2 years ago
I have heard the chiasmus argument, and it is compelling. For example, Chiasm exists in the Bible, and the Bible is not necessarily a Hebrew document (many earliest sections are written in Aramaic and Greek). It is also hugely subjective to the point that a dedicated search will inadvertently turn up chiasm even where none was intended. And besides, unless you believe in the global migration hypothesis, Lehi's group would have been the only Hebrew-speakers in America
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
oops... I meant, "un-compelling."
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Lehi came from Jerusalem, and took the learning of the Jews and language of the Egyptians with him. Therefore, 'reformed egyptian came about, just as other reformed languages. English is really 'reformed' latin if you think about it.
Oral and written.
StorminMormin91 2 years ago
I am curious. Do you believe that Lehi's group are the sole decedents of modern American Indians? Or do you believe that folks were already here in the Americas and Lehi's group inter-mingled with them?
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
I do not. We know that before Lehi's group there were the Jaredites, and the Book of Mormon never says that there weren't other people allready there from what I can tell. It would be quite reasonable to me that there were others. The record, of course, deals with the Nephites in particular due to God's dealings with them.
StorminMormin91 2 years ago
Okay, so you accept that Lehi inter-mingled with the natives. Good.
Unfortunately, this raises the problem of how the heck Lehi's group could possibly have any lasting linguistic effects. Unless all the Hebrew stuff is limited strictly to 1-2 Nephi, you have only doomed your own case. Imagine a Lithuanian family immigrating to the US. Do you really expect them to keep records in their native language beyond the first generation? Yet the BoM records span hundreds of years! Please explain.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
I never said that they intermingled, only that they could have also been around. Indeed, from what i can tell, the area of where the Nephites were was not as big as some think it was. There are quite a few places with people of many different backgrounds, and they have kept their languages for a long time. Look at a place like the Balkans. Many ethnic groups, yet they are for the most part keeping their culture intact.
StorminMormin91 2 years ago
There's some big problems with the limited geography theory. Here's a few:
1. Zelph who served under "the great prophet Onandagus who was known from Cumorah or Eastern Sea to the Rocky Mountains". Zelph's remains were found by the Illinois river and he was a white lamanite no less. Eastern Sea to Rocky Mountains doesn't sound very limited plus if Zelph was a white lamanite, he must have had purer Israelite DNA even between 350 and 400 AD. Notice how Cumorah and Eastern Sea are interchangeable
dfwsunking 2 years ago
Next is Book of Mormon scripture that says this land should be "kept from other nations" 2 Nephi 8-9. Seems to indicate that Nephites and Lamanites were the only people there. As such there was no one around to intermarry or alter their DNA.
Joseph Smith in D&C referes to Native Americans in Missouri as Lamanites. If their DNA was wiped out would they even be Lamanites? If my great-great-great grandmother was Indonesian, I wouldn't claim myself to be Indonesian.
dfwsunking 2 years ago
"I never said that they intermingled, only that they could have also been around."
How do you justify a belief on the grounds of "could have" reasoning? Lehi's group was barely a couple-dozen at most. How exactly does such a small group give rise to a population of millions without intermixing with the locals? The founder effect is a very real phenomenon that you can't avoid.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Be careful not to just posit plausible scenarios, either. When you suggest a way things could have been, you have to back it up with more than simply "it could have happened." You need positive evidence in your favor to indicate such events in the first place, plus a logically coherent framework that is consistent with other things we know to be true.
Yes, it "could have happened," but without a serious evidential base on which to stake your claim, it more likely didn't happen.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
"...it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
...Inasmuch as those shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves.
2nd Nephi 1:8-9.
Posses the land unto themselves. There's nothing about "share the land with other blokes".
NoAntecessor 2 years ago
That does not mean there could be other nations there. the Americas are a vast land.
It was referring to any who were righteous on the land, that they would posess that land and not have it overrun by enemies.
Also, don't foget the nephites weren't the only ones there. The Mulekites, Jaredites, etc.
StorminMormin91 2 years ago