THE MYTHOLOGY MINDSET – Issue 2 – 05/07/2023

I came across the mythology mindset early this year as a possible source of human limitations and discussed it with David Miller. He invited me to do this presentation. The following is an introduction to the theory of mindsets – mythological and realistic. The mythology mindset appears to have been a great human strength in the past. It may now be a significant human weakness in this more modern complex world. I’m suggesting we need a blend of both mindsets to flourish.

DESCRIBING MINDSETS

The book that put me onto mindsets is by Steven Pinker, one of my favourite scientists and a prize-winning author. He’s an experimental cognitive scientist and was the Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard when he wrote the 2021 book “Rationality” with the subtitle “What it is , why it seems scarce, why it matters” published by Allen Lane. He has a whole Chapter 10 entitled “What’s Wrong with People?”

The Section – “Two Kinds of Belief: Reality and Mythology”. has Pinker’s descriptions of the two mindsets and they are quoted here in full from pages 299/300. First the “Reality” mindset.

“People divide their worlds into two zones. One consists of the physical objects around them, the other people they deal with face to face, the memory of their interactions, and the rules and norms that regulate their lives. People have mostly accurate beliefs about this zone, and they reason rationally within it. Within this zone, they believe there’s a real world and that beliefs about it are true or false. They have no choice: that’s the only way to keep gas in the car, money in the bank, and the kids clothed and fed. Call it the reality mindset.”

“The other zone is the world beyond immediate experience: the distant past, the unknowable future, faraway peoples and places, remote corridors of power, the microscopic, the cosmic, the counterfactual, the metaphysical. People may entertain notions about what happens in these zones, but they have no way of finding out, and anyway it makes no discernible difference to their lives. Beliefs in these zones are narratives, which may be entertaining or inspiring or morally edifying. Whether they are literally “true” or “false” is the wrong question. The function of these beliefs is to construct a social reality that binds the tribe or sect and gives it a moral purpose. Call it the mythology mindset.”

The problem arises when the mythology mindset ignores the reality mindset. Mindset theory is complex so I have a couple of real-life examples that might help.

I find that the recent Kathleen Folbigg case demonstrates the difference between the mythology and reality mindsets. Most people have the capacity to use both mind sets to some degree. Some have a focus on one or the other. I believe lawyers tend to focus on the mythology mindset whereas the scientists tend to focus on the reality mindset. Scientists were able to overturn the case and Kathleen is now a free woman after 20 years in jail.

I suspect the mythology mindset prevails in the Trump community. I believe our belief systems and mindsets are developed by the narratives we choose because of our nature and its nurturing over the course of our lifetime. To me this explains Donald Trump and his followers. They tend to believe their myths are reality and happily ignore any opposing views. Donald Trump truly believes he can do no wrong. His evidence is his success in life and business, culminating in his ascension into the top job in the land. He also has a belief he can solve all the problems of the world. You only have to listen to him, and you’ll be OK.

THE SCIENCE OF MORALITY

In his 2022 book published by The MIT Press entitled “Changing How We Choose” with the subtitle “The new science of morality” Professor Redish admits this is only the beginning. David Redish is a “Distinguished McKnight University Professor in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of Minnesota. He’s also a poet, playwright, scientist, and author of a number of books. I liked his bit under the heading of Fairness – “One of the most interesting things about morality is that morality is aspirational.” I too think morality is aspirational, that is, something really worth aspiring to.

I haven’t read this book completely. I cherry pick and his theme is the difficulty we have making sound decisions and the role of our belief systems. Our mindsets are just a part of our belief systems. Redish discusses game theory and introduces the assurance game, where working together is better than working apart, and what we can do when we don’t work together. I will be studying this book in further detail in my quest to save the people and the planet.

I believe our morality is a product of our actions which, in turn, are a product of our decisions which are a product of our beliefs and our mindsets, our needs and our feelings and our rational judgements. This is a complex process, but the mindset theory looks like a useful way of analysing the human condition, particularly our human weaknesses. I “pray” others can learn to forgive us our weaknesses and we can learn to forgive the weaknesses of others.

THE MERGING OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

I firmly believe and hope that understanding these mindsets will lead to the unification of religion with science and provide us with a better human narrative. Science and religion both have the betterment of the human condition as a core objective. I have to admit they often fail to do this. The mythology mindset has emerged ever since our species began to talk and we began to share our myths.

Humans are amazing. They’re curious and creative and have a great imagination. The responsibility for social cohesion fell to our religions as we grew from small bands and tribal groups into nation states. The myths of a spiritual world were seductive and gave meaning to life and hope of a heavenly future beyond death. Religious dogma became law until curiosity started the scientific revolution which began to introduce realistic alternatives. The resulting conflict divided religion and science into opposing narratives.

The most divisive aspect seemed to be the existence, or otherwise, of God. Pascal came up with the suggestion that it was better to live as though God existed This became “Pascal’s Wager”. I can see some rationality in this. From my agnostic atheist position, I can see God as a useful cultural tool, to be used as required. Cultural tools are additional to physical tools like the sticks and stones our ancestors used cooperatively to defeat powerful enemies, human and otherwise. Fire was another good tool. The tool of fire also has a cultural element, that is, the knowledge/experience needed to be able to control it.

What I’m suggesting is that cultural tools, like myths, can also be as effective as rocks and sticks. I want to introduce the importance of the overarching narratives we have, personally and collectively, in religions and science. These narratives contain many cultural tools we use mostly automatically without thinking.

Our personal narrative will be a unique collection of the stories we tell ourselves and form our individual morality and belief systems. We are all unique and our personal narratives will be a unique result of our inbuilt traits and experiences. Our inbuilt traits are partly inherited and moulded by our experiences, in particular the collective narratives of our cultures. The tools we select, both physical tools and cultural tools, will depend on our individual traits and personality.

It’s not surprising that those who are religiously inclined have different narratives to those who are scientifically inclined. I’m suggesting this is a human weakness and we need to move towards an appreciation of the narratives of others and perhaps develop a more universal narrative based on our collective wisdom. This could take us toward a less divisive and more cohesive society. I appreciate this would be a huge task, but not impossible. It just may help humanity reach a better level of cooperation which may be needed to deal with the challenges ahead.

SAVING HUMANITY

It is almost certain it will be beneficial for humans to recognise the human tendency to develop one of these two mindsets in preference to the other and that we will tend to become dogmatic about our beliefs. This is the cause of our divisiveness, as we conclude that we are right, and the others are wrong. Consequently, we won’t recognise what we are missing. Those who prefer to think rationally ignore the importance of our emotionality and vice versa. We are not naturally rational, and many tend to rely on how they feel about any particular topic when making decisions. It is the newly emerging scientific types tend to be more rational, but are still largely driven by their emotions. We need both if we are to flourish.

I have long been interested in the weaknesses that exist in the human psyche. The way humanity is going bothers me and many others. Many are ignoring the challenges of global warming, climate change, pollution, and resource depletion. Many intelligent people think there is a real threat of extinction of the human race. The increasing frequency of more extreme weather events suggest we may be in for a chaotic period causing even more weather-related deaths. The problem may be too difficult for us to solve without changes to our lifestyles that could be just as chaotic, if not maybe even more chaotic.

This is so complex and uncertain many are ignoring the potential challenge and we may go beyond tipping points into positive feedback loops from which there is little chance of recovery. The question then becomes who or what lifeforms will survive when the Earth recovers from our human stupidity.

ARE WE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH?

To summarise I think we need to be more understanding of those who think differently from us. We are emotional creatures capable of rational thought. While we might be able to see the value of rationality I suggest we need to recognise our inherent emotional nature.

I welcome your thoughts.

Ken Young
July 2023