Haircut
24 Sep 2008
I had a badly needed haircut over the weekend (just a trim, really). It was the first haircut I got since I've been back in NY.
At any rate, the woman who was cutting my hair was....interesting. She was reading a book on the history of astrology, and, although the book was purportedly written by a PhD and gave all appearances of being an academic study for the average reader, I got the impression that it was a little on the dodgy side. I suppose I should look up more about it online just to be fair. It was all about how astrology used to be considered the height of scientific, and how these great leaders (Nero, Augustus, Alexander, Napoleon, Socrates, etc) would use astrology to guide them. But I got the impression the author was sort of leaning towards saying, "isn't it a shame that now it's seen as so silly, when clearly better minds than ours believed in it and used it successfully." At any rate, that's certainly how Jessica was interpreting it. She was telling me all about several related things. Astrology. How I should only get my hair cut during a full moon (to make it thick) or a new moon (to make it grow fast). I should beware of hot showers because they could kill me (the pores open up and then you go outside and all sorts of terrible bacteria go into the open pores, and then the cold closes the pores with the death trapped inside). Hurricanes are caused by sun flares entering holes in the atmosphere. And once man is finished destroying the earth, the rich billionaires will use spaceships to fly to other planets. Also, Sarah Palin is an evil, crazy bitch.
What was so fascinating to me was that she was right about many things (there are holes in the atmosphere, heat causes pores to open, rich billionaires currently fly to space), but then used these facts to draw what I would consider incorrect conclusions. How do people draw conclusions from things? Do they just "feel" right? Do they seem to inherently make sense based on the handful of facts we know—for instance, if I know that heat causes pores to open, and if I know that there is bacteria all around and that it can cause illness, would it be pretty natural for me to say, "Oh! I never thought of that, but it makes total sense!" when told a theory like her own? Do you mainly draw inferences when your existing knowledge fits a theory? Or is there something more that goes on?
Of course, there was also something terribly disconcerting in the encounter. Because not only did she believe these things (harmless enough in itself...not everyone has to be right all the time, and, frankly, I'm glad that people are often wrong, including myself), but she was getting really, really riled up talking about them. I got the feeling that if one of these space flying billionaires or Sarah Palin or George Bush walked in the salon right then she would have taken her shears and stabbed them right in the eye. One of the things that I am most moved to understand is whether there is a way for people to temper what they believe with their decisions to act on those beliefs. At what point does a person cross the line into becoming a zealot? How can one stay true to their deepest beliefs without becoming a fascist? How does one balance the need to be right with the need to be just, in other words? For that matter, how does one balance the need to be just with the need to be just?
4 Comments
Leesa
30 Sep 2008 4:42 pm
Haha. In that case, I should only take hot showers. If I took cold ones, only then would my pores close since it's so insanely hot here. It's so hot here, that when the temperature gets down to the lower 80s, the kids tell me it's cold and wear coats to school.
I'll have to time my next haircut better, cause I would love to have thicker hair.
On a quasi-related note, my class here will always be capped at 29. Nine is a lucky, full number. 30 is unlucky because zero is empty. That was the actual explanation given to me when I expressed concern last year about the class size becoming absurdly large.
I think that people believe these things because:
1) It's written by a person with authority (PhD) without taking into account whether that person's arguments are sound - someone who is an academic should know what he's talking about, right? (BTW, I know where I can buy you any diploma you may want on my next trip to Bangkok in December.)
2) When people don't understand natural phenomena they will find/invent/accept explanations to make sense of them - I think it stems partially from a lack of knowledge (whether the knowledge is known or available is another matter) AND laziness. It doesn't take much effort to NOT question the logic of an assumption or NOT challenge existing notions. The reason we do learn more is because we do challenge accepted wisdom, or take a close enough look to find holes in our beliefs. To say that those things from her book make sense is to completely rely on a limited set of "facts," even ignoring other data that is available and to create causal relationships where none exist (perhaps because there are some facts in the premises?). I don't know if it's natural, but it's easy. And it's comforting to have "answers."
Alexis
30 Sep 2008 6:51 pm
Yes, I definitely agree with many of your points about "needing" answers, trusting authority, laziness, etc. I guess when I ask "How do we come to believe the things we believe?" I'm actually asking on a pretty in-depth level. I would love to really get in and study cognitive science, or the sociology of belief, or the actual process of learning in a very consistent way.
Leesa
1 Oct 2008 3:51 am
If you do find out any answers to your questions, I'm hoping we'll be able to read them here. I certainly don't have the know-how to answer the questions on that level.
Alexis
1 Oct 2008 9:42 am
Well, it wouldn't be for a while I don't imagine! But I am applying for grad school again and hopefully I might be able to go next year.
But I think I would still put the answers on the blog.