WHY YOU CAN'T HELP BELIEVING EVERYTHING YOU READ

I found this article on the Internet and i found that it was very interesting because it showed how we may not be able to select the information that we have in front of us. This is contrary to the lessons this week that we had that showed that we are able to censor specific information.

In this piece, the author described two schools of thought in social psychology- that of Descartes and Spinoza. I find that it is hard to decide which of the two is right or may be right. This is because understanding a stimuli or believing it may be totally different things but they do overlap heavily so it’s hard for me to really put a finger on who’s right.

Anyway, another thing that i also found worthy of note was the experiment that was mentioned by the webpage. This study, conducted by Gilbert et. al. (1993) showed that our perceptions can change due to novel stimuli and the intensity. For example, those who gave statements that explaining their crimes and why they did it got a smaller sentence than other people. In the case of believing someone or something, our perceptions are based on intensity of the stimuli. I also found that the introduction of some stimuli changed the focus of people who were supposed to be concentrating on another stimuli, like the robbers’ statements, instead. Instead of concentrating on the statements and deciding by the facts alone, the subjects were interrupted by the colour of the words and the ‘excuses’ and stuff that was also given.

That way, i think that even though we are supposed to avoid and refine the stimuli we receive, we cannot because our minds will be forced to believe it first. Or am I wrong? I will appreciate any comments or opinions from anybody.

Citations:
picture of Descartes (left) and Spinoza edited by author from original article on www.spring.org.uk
Gilbert et. al. (1993)
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/09/why-you-cant-help-believing-everything-you-read.php