Ritual and Superstition Compensate for Lack of Control

[fringekitty]

Seeing patterns where none exist and other superstitious behaviors may be compensating for a lack of control according to a recent study: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95296627. Of course, the study does not take into consideration

Comments

[sisalfish]

I'm a ritualist in several earth-based religious groups. Some people do, indeed, come to it for control - especially teenagers. I can truly understand why a teenager would long for more control of things, and fall in love with the idea that "magic" will make things happen.

But the groups I'm in are emphasizing changing yourself, rather than the world, and if used for that purpose, ritual opens a lot of doors to growth and change. When someone comes in wanting to do magic to control their environment, I'm always interested to see if they do, indeed, come to a day many spiritual seekers come to, when you realize the results you get are directly related to the personal work you're willing to risk doing.

[fringekitty]

Self-control is the best control. Stepping outside of the discussion of religion for a moment, natural leaders, who don't need tactics of intimidation to lead, tend to have great self-control that draws others to them in appreciation. Contrast that with bullies who have little self-control and gain their followers through threats of violence or disenfranchisement from the group. The natural leader gains true respect, while the bully mistakes fear for respect in the misguided attempt to control everything else but themselves.

[autopoetic]

And, of course, your "Of course" caveat is one of major significance.

A standard intellectual move when the materialist mind approaches religion. It's a pretty short and snappy argument, actually:

P1 Religion = "superstitious practices that make no sense" (definition)
P2 Any religious practice that makes sense fails to count as religious. (from P1)
C All religion makes no sense (from P1 & P2)

QED, suckers.

[fringekitty]

The write-up about this study certainly seems to imply a few major biases along the lines of your elegant "proof" above. I would have liked to have seen how the researchers defined superstition, pattern and religion.

[fringekitty]

Thanks for the Catherine Bell link. I was unfamiliar with her.

[psiumbreon]

I've got my rituals, but I definitely do them for fun and not superstition.

[fringekitty]

I think it would be wonderful if more people felt free to do this.

[sisalfish]

Thinking on it further - I'm also tripping on the phrase "seeing patterns where none exist". Discerning patterns can be subjective - Einstein saw patterns I can't. I don't think I'd want to say to anyone: Oh, there's no pattern there. You're wrong.

[fringekitty]

I had a major problem with that phrase, too. As a child, (heck, even as an adult) I enjoyed the game of finding shapes in the clouds, stars and even tree bark, anything with texture. However, this "game" does prime us to find workable patterns, patterns of meaning that can be used to identify and predict. Einstein was one of many who could do this. He also gained a great deal of insight from his dreams, another area of study frequently dismissed as "unscientific," which is confounding considering how many discoveries are inspired that way.

[sisalfish]

I work a lot with "right brained ways of knowing" - trance, ritual. I understand that may not seem in keeping with the scientific bent of this list (as I understand it), but I've had to find a lot of scholarly stuff to back up why right brained ways of knowing work and are useful, to get certification in some areas I study. We're taught to make lists, to think linearly for problem solving - to analyze upside and downside, etc. But I have found combining that kind of knowing, with the kind that comes from dream, meditation, ritual, give me a much more complex pattern, and a much more complete picture.

[ugly_boy]

Your example is actually a classic example of such (false) pattern-seeking. Our brain is conditioned to look for patterns and familiar shapes, and this isn't a bad thing or a weakness necessarily. And you are right, it is this same ability that allows us to elucidate real patterns, like Einstein and so many others have done, and do every day. But there are instances where people "see" a pattern when presented with truly random data. Here are some interesting examples with sounds, not sights.

Whoa, there

[lynn_p]

I think the author of the study is falsely conflating the recognition of patterns and "believing in illusions and conspiracies." Seeing forms in things such as clouds or static has very little to do with recognizing patterns. Patterns emerge from seeing repeated images, such as in a sunflower, on wallpaper or on a carpet.

To quote Phillip Ball, author of The Self-Made Tapestry: Pattern Formation in Nature, (Oxford University Press, 1999) "...pattern might be regarded as a regularly repeating array of identical units [and] form is a more individual affair."

Anyway, people who recognize patterns, whether they be in physics, mathematics, art, music, etc. are "seeing the world as it really is." Patterns and symmetry really are just about everywhere.

Re: Whoa, there

[fringekitty]

The study does seem reveal a few major biases. Equating pattern recognition with folly and ritual with superstition are pretty glaring.