I only recently learned that most peoples beliefs are not "factual beliefs". Since most of mine are, I thought that's how other people work. I think Popper may have made the same mistake by assuming "correctness" is always the primary value a belief offers.

The other kind of beliefs are "Symbolic beliefs." Symbolic beliefs are not held because they are true, or because they are useful on their own. They're held because they signal that you belong to the tribe. They are similar to the "Alief", which is an automatic unequestioned belief. Most Symbolic beliefs are aliefs, but not all.

Since learning about this I've been trying to identify my own aliefs and symbolic beliefs and question them. It turns out I have more than I'd realized. We probably all do.

▲

gghackernewsgg 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Personally, I consider "belief" from a behavioral perspective: belief is the model of reality one actually operates from.

For example, when I walk on my kitchen floor, I don't have to tell myself: "the floor is structurally sound, it's safe to walk on it." I just walk.

The fact that I just walk can be used to infer an infinite number of implied bleiefs that I've never verbalized until this moment. For example, I believe that:

1. The floor can support my weight.

2. The tiles aren't made of toxic materials.

3. I don't pay $$ by the step.

4. Walking on the floor doesn't cause my wife pain.

5. The floor isn't lava.

To refine my definition: a belief is that which systematically and implicitly guides my expectations, reactions, choices, etc.

In her glass skywalk example, Gendler lays out the definitions roughly so:

1. "I know this skywalk is sturdy and safe" = Belief

2. The hesitancy to cross the skywalk = Alief

But to me:

1. "I know this skywalk is sturdy and safe" = knowledge

2. Hesitancy to cross it = actual belief.

That's why in my vocavbulary it's perfectly fine to say: "I know it. But I don't believe it."

Similarly, if someone says, "I totally believe that planes are safe, but I'm terrified of flying", then I will think to myself: "nope; you totally don't believe that planes are safe."

▲

mapontosevenths 2 days ago | parent [-]

That's an interesting perspective. It all starts to get a little too semantics oriented for my taste, but I think the basic idea you're proposing is that the beliefs live in what the neuro-folks would call the default mode network, where-as knowledge lives in some higher function part of the brain like the cortex.

Regardless of the mechanisms, I think we're agreed that it's important not just to examine your priors, but to be aware that there ARE priors in the first place.

	▲	gghackernewsgg 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I think we're agreed that it's important not just to examine your priors, but to be aware that there ARE priors in the first place. Yes, absolutely. And I think there's a practical extension to my framing that goes beyond semantics. When there's a seemingly irresolvable conflict between knowledge and belief, i.e. reason says “yes" while the heart says “no”, simply doing the thing a few times will often resolve the tension. That's the practical advantage I see in my framing: 1) In Gendler's framing, the cerebral and emotional aspects are presented as two different modes of cognition. Belief is thinking, while Alief is just another type of thinking about some other stuff. Taken too far or misinterpreted, this can encourage overanalysis. 2) In my framing, belief is fundamentally about how I operate. So when my reason has exhausted its arguments but I'm still not convinced, as long as my knowledge seems reliable, I know that forcing a behavioral change could be all that's needed to turn me into a believer.

▲

pdonis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I only recently learned that most peoples beliefs are not "factual beliefs".

I think this greatly underestimates the number of completely mundane, innocuous factual beliefs that everyone, or at least everyone who is able to get through their lives without serious mishap for any length of time, has to have. For anyone in that position, most of their beliefs have to be factual beliefs, and have to be true at least to a good enough approximation to allow them to function. We tend to ignore such beliefs in discussions like this, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

▲

mrguyorama 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

These unstated beliefs make up a lot of "Common Sense", which is reliably invoked as a means of outing someone for not being in the same "Tribe".

There's no such thing as "Common Sense", and every single niche, culture, demographic, etc has their own set of things that "Everyone knows"

	▲	mapontosevenths a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure why, but this feels like something Heinlein would have said. It's a solid point either way.