Munger Interview

[alwaysinvert]

I've been reading a ton about religion lately. It's pretty interesting. If you guys are interested, you might want to read more about Chris Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

Try Spinoza instead. Since all the basic tenets of Langans 'theory' were stolen from there, why not go to the main source.

 

I'll read more. Have you guys looked into Ian Stevenson's work at all?

 

By the way, have you personally read his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe?

No, I couldn't really be bothered.

 

Firstly, all of the warnings signs are blinking when it comes to Langan. He seems more of a self-promoter than a serious thinker. His wordings seem to be far too obfuscating to be a mere coincident - doesn't pass the smell test. Secondly, he presupposes the biblical God in his theory, which sets up the whole thing to be circular reasoning. The rest seems, like I said, to be pretty much lifted from the 17th century, albeit from brilliant sources. Couple this with the fact that no real philosophers or any oher kind of intellectuals have bothered with his ideas and I call bullshit.

 

And no, that Malcolm "Igon value" Gladwell has another explanation for Langan's obscurity doesn't really bother me.

 

Don't you think it'd be wise to read before you give such definitive opinions?

I don't think I'm being definitive at all, but I just don't have time to waste reading up on every oddball who claims to have some extraordinary insight. Just like I don't have time to go to the moon to prove that it's not made of cheese or go check out the perpetuum mobile that Joey McLunatic stores in his garage. So I am waiting for some reputable people to say something nice about Langan's work before digging into it (not that I think that will happen in a million years since I as someone who only has intermediate knowledge of philosophy spotted glaring logical holes in CTMU in about 10 seconds), just like in most other instances when it comes to science or other subjects of which I am no expert.

 

That said, I have given Langan a fair amount of my time (far more than he deserves tbf), read a dozen or so articles about him, read his wikipedia page, watched a documentary featuring him and read Outliers. The reason why I have done that though is not because of his theory but because I thought there was something fishy about him. And much seems to point to that he, while surely very smart, is more of an expert on IQ tests and a good self-promoter rather than the smartest man in the world who happens to have a groundbreaking theory of everything. And here are some incentives for you:

 

On January 25, 2008, Langan was a contestant on NBC's 1 vs. 100, where he won $250,000.

[enoch01]

I would join a religion, maybe, if they would strip out all the superstition.  It's a tall order, I'll admit.

 

What is "superstition"?

 

An example would be a spirit impregnating a virgin.  Tough to sell me on that.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand.  What do you think is sufficient to label something a "superstition"?  It has to be more than just something that is "tough to sell you on", right?  There's lots of things that are at first tough to sell people on, but later we might think are true (e.g. a round earth, the incompleteness theorems, theory of general relativity).  Are you saying it's only a matter of perspective, or an objective quality?

 

No worries if you don't want to answer (this is an investment board after all).  I've had similar conversations before with people who use the term, and am just curious.

 

Thanks.

 

 

This is how I view it.

 

A father has a daughter.  He promises her to another man in marriage -- he represents her to this man as a virgin.  She gets pregnant before the wedding. 

 

A spirit did it!  She is still a virgin.  The story protects the good family name. 

 

It's tough to sell me on this kind of a story.  I am more prone to believe that she had sex out of wedlock, and that's how she got pregnant.  Others will fall (due to supernatural beliefs) for the line that a spirit did it.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "supernatural beliefs", or what you assume they could cause, but suppose the story is true (we are a curious, impartial, and tolerant bunch on this board).  I at least wonder what the daughter would believe, and what you would call her belief?

 

What do you think is sufficient to label something a "superstition"?  It has to be more than just something that is "tough to sell you on", right?

 

The role that a "spirit" plays in making a woman pregnant makes it a superstition from where I stand.

 

But of course ultimately it really doesn't matter where anybody stands, right?  It only matters whether something is true or not.

 

 

Here is how Encyclopedia Britannica defines superstition -- I'm going to put the parts in bold that I find relevant:

 

belief, half-belief, or practice for which there appears to be no rational substance. Those who use the term imply that they have certain knowledge or superior evidence for their own scientific, philosophical, or religious convictions. An ambiguous word, it probably cannot be used except subjectively. With this qualification in mind, superstitions may be classified roughly as religious, cultural, and personal

 

Well we both agree that it would be strange to believe something if it isn't rational (ie, have "rational substance").  But just in the example you gave, there's probably at least one party who would have some pretty damn good rational substance for believing what they believe, even if some hacks on a message board debate about it 2,000 years later.  So "superstition" I think just depends on what evidence people have explored, and really isn't anything innate to a belief.

 

I'll heed Parsad's advice and drop it now...

[ERICOPOLY]

But of course ultimately it really doesn't matter where anybody stands, right?  It only matters whether something is true or not.

 

It matters where I stand on the issue because I am the one labeling it as a superstition.  Were I to take a different stance on the matter, it may cease to be a superstition.  Concrete evidence, such as if God speaks to me directly, would make me argue vehemently that it's a reality.  Of course, when do you know for sure when you are talking to God or just crazy?  At any rate, I believe this is why I find it to be superstition but the people who purport to have the ear of God disagree.

 

From Encyclopedia Brittanica's definition of superstition once again:

 

belief, half-belief, or practice for which there appears to be no rational substance. Those who use the term imply that they have certain knowledge or superior evidence for their own scientific, philosophical, or religious convictions. An ambiguous word, it probably cannot be used except subjectively. With this qualification in mind, superstitions may be classified roughly as religious, cultural, and personal

 

 

[Rabbitisrich]

Enoch1, if you are starting an inference by assigning some high probability to the virgin birth story (

probably at least one party who would have some pretty damn good rational substance for believing what they believe

), then your statement is correct. But the whole trick is that initial assignment of probability!

 

Of course, looking back at one specific instance of a birth, there are various possibilities. It could have been a spontaneous virgin birth, or an alien impregnation, or an affair through wedlock (for the sake of this argument, no offense intended). How do you decide between the possibilities? The scientific method doesn't lead you directly to the anwer. It only provides relative frequencies. You would look for an explanation that requires the least conjectured inputs to result in that birth.

 

It can be frustrating because we are used to looking for answers that improve explanatory power, but that is the nature of seeking an explanation for a given event. Did your parents leave gifts for you on Christmas? Or did Santa Claus embed directions into their minds while existing in a state that is invisible to detection? Both are possible, but one explanation is much simpler.

 

[meiroy]

Parsad wrote that we are all here of the buffet-religion.  I think that it's true, interestingly though, IMHO, the connection to other religions is by contrast.

 

In Buffet-religion the idea is to be aware of your biases and emotions, do not let them control, do not just believe in it, and so on. In religion, on the other head, it seems to be the other way around; embrace your belief, biases and emotion.

 

Now, I'm not saying the latter is bad, maybe that's the true way for happiness. Perhaps each way fits its own goals.

 

As for virtue, this word seems to be highly connected to "morals".

 

There are those who would said that moral in essence is a secular word. That moral behavior can only exist when it is applied to all mankind, regardless of their religion, race,sex etc.

 

My question would be to those that claim that religion is necessary for virtuous individuals:

 

By religion, do you mean ANY religion or your own specific religion which has to be followed in some specific way?  There are religions out there that allow minors to be married, 4 wives to one man, a virtue act would be to kill those who do not believe the same religion. Or, in other words, a virtue only applies to those of the same religion, because those who do not follow it are not really "human", or worthy of our moral behavior.

 

If it's not "any religion" but a "specific religion" than a name has to be given and used in the argument, otherwise it's somewhat meaningless.

 

 

 

 

 

[seshnath]

Gents as often seems to be the case, you have taken my statements out of context. If you re-read what I said, it was "to a certain degree the lack of interest in religion" - I myself am not a super religious person. But you all jumped on it as though I was the next Glenn Beck.

 

Religion has both good and bad aspects, but the key tenets underlying the abrahamic religions have been extremely important to the development of compassion and a sense of community in societies. And this has been lost by the new generation.

 

I will agree that marriage is a more important factor, but you must remember that the institution of marriage derived from the abrahamic religions.

 

I apologise if I offended any of you...

 

Moore - no offense.  You should google for marriage and hindu next time - it predates all abrahamic institutions, if I am not wrong.

[Guest Hester]

Gents as often seems to be the case, you have taken my statements out of context. If you re-read what I said, it was "to a certain degree the lack of interest in religion" - I myself am not a super religious person. But you all jumped on it as though I was the next Glenn Beck.

 

Religion has both good and bad aspects, but the key tenets underlying the abrahamic religions have been extremely important to the development of compassion and a sense of community in societies. And this has been lost by the new generation.

 

I will agree that marriage is a more important factor, but you must remember that the institution of marriage derived from the abrahamic religions.

 

I apologise if I offended any of you...

 

Moore - no offense.  You should google for marriage and hindu next time - it predates all abrahamic institutions, if I am not wrong.

 

The native north and south Americans, as well as many other societies disconnected with the people of the abrahamic religions also had marriage type rituals. I think crediting marriage to the Abrahamic religions is like crediting slavery to the Abrahamic religions. They were early adopters and advocates of both, but by no means invented or solely adopted the two acts. Plenty of other cultures had both.

[moore_capital54]

To sum up the exchange between me and Moore Capital for those too busy or apathetic (understandably) to read the whole thing.

 

Moore: We're losing our religion which is causing a decline in the health of our society.

 

Hester: A lack of religion cannot possibly be destroying society because the least religious societies are doing fine and the most religious ones are struggling.

 

Moore: No you're wrong, because religiosity has nothing to do with societal health.

But the fact that you even question my religious assertions proves that a lack of religion is causing a decline in the health of our society.

 

Hester: Ummmm.......

 

 

(I can do strawman too)

 

I see it differently, To sum up our debate I would present the debate in the following context:

 

 

Moore: After watching the Munger interview and him discussing a loss of virtue in society, I agree, my feelings are that the new generation does not have the thirst for virtue, and is probably due to the decline in the institution of marriage and the lack of interest in religion (those were my words verbatim).

 

The Rest of the Board: Oh no crazy Moore has done it again, made a sensational statement!!! Your crazy! and wrong!! Were all atheist, religion is for illogical troglodytes!!!@@

 

Hester : Who cares about religion and its thousand of years of positive influence on the structure, culture and improvement of humanity, the loss of this dated ritualistic and superstitious bunch of hogwash doesn't seem to have any effect on the world, look at Estonia! Viva la Science! Who wants to live in Congo!?!? The most religious place

 

Moore: You are assuming that religion and poverty are a function of each other they are not. The point of the debate is virtue, not prosperity, I was simply proving that your list of most religious countries have very little in common (other than ranking very high on levels of suicide). The crux of the debate is virtue which you can read more about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue

 

My position remains: a decline in religion has contributed, in a sense to a loss of virtue, but more importantly, a decline in the institution of marriage.

 

Hester: Ummmm.......You and your crazy strawman arguments!!! Your nuts moore!

[alwaysinvert]

In closing let's take at look at your 5 least religious countries in closer detail so I can prove that religiosity has nothing to do with their standing as a prosperous society:

 

5. Czech Republic -

4. Norway

3. Denmark

2. Sweden

1. Estonia

 

When I look at these Countries, I see absolutely nothing special, with the exception that 4 of them were some of the easiest Countries for the Nazi's to occupy with almost no resistance (that is another thing too, atheist societies tend to have less heart in battle, because war is so illogical isnt it?).

 

I see absolutely nothing special economically with Estonia for example (your first place winner) having less GDP per capita than Greece... and Norway as you know does not belong in any comparison due to their hydrocarbon endowment.

First of all, Sweden never was invaded by the Nazis and Estonia was occupied by Soviet. Secondly, you don't think that the easy occupation of the other ones has more to to with their small size than anything else? Or are you going to say that the oh-so-atheist France kneeled over for the same reesons? Thirdly, all these countries (with the possible exception of Estonia) were just about as religious as mosts of the Western world back in the early 40s.   

[moore_capital54]

In closing let's take at look at your 5 least religious countries in closer detail so I can prove that religiosity has nothing to do with their standing as a prosperous society:

 

5. Czech Republic -

4. Norway

3. Denmark

2. Sweden

1. Estonia

 

When I look at these Countries, I see absolutely nothing special, with the exception that 4 of them were some of the easiest Countries for the Nazi's to occupy with almost no resistance (that is another thing too, atheist societies tend to have less heart in battle, because war is so illogical isnt it?).

 

I see absolutely nothing special economically with Estonia for example (your first place winner) having less GDP per capita than Greece... and Norway as you know does not belong in any comparison due to their hydrocarbon endowment.

First of all, Sweden never was invaded by the Nazis and Estonia was occupied by Soviet. Secondly, you don't think that the easy occupation of the other ones has more to to with their small size than anything else? Or are you going to say that the oh-so-atheist France kneeled over for the same reesons? Thirdly, all these countries (with the possible exception of Estonia) were just about as religious as mosts of the Western world back in the early 40s. 

 

Yes I know that did you not read me say "4 of the 5 countries"??? Geez...

[turar]

When I look at these Countries, I see absolutely nothing special, with the exception that 4 of them were some of the easiest Countries for the Nazi's to occupy with almost no resistance (that is another thing too, atheist societies tend to have less heart in battle, because war is so illogical isnt it?).

 

Yeah, and when the only formally atheist nation in the world (Soviet Union) was later invaded by the Nazis, Germans got their asses handed to them on the plate. Not to mention that Europe was probably a lot less atheistic in 1939 than it is now.

[alwaysinvert]

In closing let's take at look at your 5 least religious countries in closer detail so I can prove that religiosity has nothing to do with their standing as a prosperous society:

 

5. Czech Republic -

4. Norway

3. Denmark

2. Sweden

1. Estonia

 

When I look at these Countries, I see absolutely nothing special, with the exception that 4 of them were some of the easiest Countries for the Nazi's to occupy with almost no resistance (that is another thing too, atheist societies tend to have less heart in battle, because war is so illogical isnt it?).

 

I see absolutely nothing special economically with Estonia for example (your first place winner) having less GDP per capita than Greece... and Norway as you know does not belong in any comparison due to their hydrocarbon endowment.

First of all, Sweden never was invaded by the Nazis and Estonia was occupied by Soviet. Secondly, you don't think that the easy occupation of the other ones has more to to with their small size than anything else? Or are you going to say that the oh-so-atheist France kneeled over for the same reesons? Thirdly, all these countries (with the possible exception of Estonia) were just about as religious as mosts of the Western world back in the early 40s. 

 

Yes I know that did you not read me say "4 of the 5 countries"??? Geez...

And supercatholic Poland put up a hell of a fight with their cavalry :D

 

Btw, Estonia is probably the greatest growth story in Europe for the last 20 years, possibly with the exception of Ireland, a country which doesn't have Russia as a neighbour. So yeah, after more than half a century of communist rule and being occupied for most of their history, Estonia's economy is pretty damn impressive.

 

But I take it you've never been there and seen the tons of skyscrapers that have been erected in the capital which has less than 0.5 million inhabitants. Tallinn also has free wifi covering pretty much all of the city core. To me they have done a marvellous job since their independence. Also, their politics, like Finland's, is based far more on consensus and cooperation since they still have an outer enemy to actually worry about. You should visit some time and learn about the country. It will get you further than sweeping statements, I promise.

 

Oh, and as for the suicide rate. Hungary is above all those five countries in that respect. Are they atheist too?

[ERICOPOLY]

I wonder if China has any hope given that it is 60-70% agnostic/atheistic (at least that's what Wikipedia says).

 

 

[Guest]

Things I admire about religious people (really religious - not Newt Gringich religious), at least from my limited experience, they seem to be happier and stay married longer. The nonreligious people seemed to get divorced more often and, by and large, are less happy. Although, superficially they do seem happy. Again, this is based on a very small sample size.

 

Now according to the following data, the happiest countries also tend to be the least religious.

 

Top 5 http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/06/where-are-the-worlds-happiest-countries/

 

Denmark

Finland

Norway

Netherlands

Canada

 

[Rabbitisrich]

Things I admire about religious people (really religious - not Newt Gringich religious), at least from my limited experience, they seem to be happier and stay married longer. The nonreligious people seemed to get divorced more often and, by and large, are less happy. Although, superficially they do seem happy. Again, this is based on a very small sample size.

 

 

 

The problem isn't just a small sample size, but also a comparison of "really" religious people to the non-religious. So many ways to skew your impression, from survivorship to poor specification.

[Guest]

Things I admire about religious people (really religious - not Newt Gringich religious), at least from my limited experience, they seem to be happier and stay married longer. The nonreligious people seemed to get divorced more often and, by and large, are less happy. Although, superficially they do seem happy. Again, this is based on a very small sample size.

 

 

 

The problem isn't just a small sample size, but also a comparison of "really" religious people to the non-religious. So many ways to skew your impression, from survivorship to poor specification.

 

That is true. I'm just a confused guy right now. :P

[Guest Hester]

You say religion gives people virtue. Do you mean just your religion or any religion? Or most but not all religions? Or just the major contemporary religions?

 

The thing about religion is, only 0-1 of them can be true. So once you pick one (or none), you are by default saying that all the other ones are false and the followers are deluded. There are about 1.5 billion muslims and over 2 billion christians. Those two religions contradict each other. Therefore, at least one of them is false, and at least a billion half people are utterly wrong about the nature of reality.

 

Thus, if you are saying that even the false religions give societies virtue, that strikes me as akin to saying that delusion is a great thing.

 

In that case I think you need to give all ideologies that attempt to answer religious like questions the virtue label. Is belief in astrology virtuous?

 

Another thing, does belief that you will get to bang 72 virgins all day long after you die if you strictly abide by the Quran virtuous? Does a biblical based idea that we should literally stone gays and adulterers a virtue?

 

Now you can say I am cherry picking the worst parts of religion, but if you say that then you are saying; Only the good parts of religion make people virtuous, which is obvious. Good ideas are good. In that case, why not just try to use logic and take the good ideas from most religions, and get rid of the rest. I think this is what most atheists/agnostics try to do, save those who are non-religious because religion contradicts their other irrational/dangerous ideologies (like North Korea).

 

 

[Guest Hester]

Things I admire about religious people (really religious - not Newt Gringich religious), at least from my limited experience, they seem to be happier and stay married longer. The nonreligious people seemed to get divorced more often and, by and large, are less happy.

 

Although I don't think getting married and staying married is always a virtue, the data seems to suggest that atheists at worst get divorced about as much as the general population.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm

 

 

The Barna Research Group, an evangelical Christian organization that does surveys and research to better understand what Christians believe and how they behave, studied divorce rates in America in 1999 and found surprising evidence that divorce is far lower among atheists than among conservative Christians - exactly the opposite of what they were probably expecting.

 

11% of all American adults are divorced

25% of all American adults have had at least one divorce

 

 

27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce

24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced

 

 

21% of atheists have been divorced

21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced

24% of Mormons have been divorced

25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced

29% of Baptists have been divorced

24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced

 

 

27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced

26% of people in the West have been divorced

19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced

 

[Guest]

You say religion gives people virtue. Do you mean just your religion or any religion? Or most but not all religions? Or just the major contemporary religions?

 

The thing about religion is, only 0-1 of them can be true. So once you pick one (or none), you are by default saying that all the other ones are false and the followers are deluded. There are about 1.5 billion muslims and over 2 billion christians. Those two religions contradict each other. Therefore, at least one of them is false, and at least a billion half people are utterly wrong about the nature of reality.

 

 

Actually, in Islam, Hester, you can still go to heaven if you believe in other religions (at least Abrahamic ones).

 

http://www.islamicbookstore.com/books-the-qur-an-holy-qur-an-in-arabic--its-translations-and-commentaries.html

 

"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

 

Also, thank you for the marriage statistics. :)

 

By the way, here is something interesting I came across earlier (yes, it's a bit of fun to think about, too).

 

Predication for the end of the world:

 

physicist Frank Tipler says around 2057 (based on the "Singularity").

Issac Newtown said about 2060.

 

 

[turar]

And then there's an officially recognized religion of file-sharing in Sweden, called Kopimism. :)

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16424659

[Guest]

Oh yeah, check this one out!

 

http://matrixism.org/

 

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrixism

[turar]

Not to be outdone of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jediism

:)

Lots of virtue too.

[Guest]

I thought this was interesting.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poem_of_the_Man_God

 

"Given that the joint visibility of these stars is uncommon, in 1992 Purdue University physicist Lonnie VanZandt analyzed these events to estimate a date for the event described.[17] Jupiter has roughly a 13 year cycle as it is seen against the background of the stars. Mars has an orbital period of 23 months, while Venus is almost cyclic, appearing every two years at about the same location, but advancing 2 and half months each time.[18][19] Using a computer planetary simulation system, VanZandt noted that the only possibilities for the observation Valtorta described during the month of March would be AD31 and AD33. After considering other elements in the narrative VanZandt concluded that the date AD31 had to be rejected, leaving March AD33 as the only possibility. Given that according to the narrative the Night at Gadara was one year before the Crucifixion of Jesus, the observation places the date of Good Friday during April AD34.[20] According to VanZandt the estimation of the joint observability of these three stars and the position of the moon during that time would have been almost impossible without a computer system."

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Inspired by the thought, my colleagues and I ran an experiment at the University of California, Los Angeles. We took a group of 450 participants, split them into two groups and set them loose on our usual matrix task. We asked half of them to recall the Ten Commandments and the other half to recall 10 books that they had read in high school. Among the group who recalled the 10 books, we saw the typical widespread but moderate cheating. But in the group that was asked to recall the Ten Commandments, we observed no cheating whatsoever. We reran the experiment, reminding students of their schools' honor codes instead of the Ten Commandments, and we got the same result. We even reran the experiment on a group of self-declared atheists, asking them to swear on a Bible, and got the same no-cheating results yet again.

 

This experiment has obvious implications for the real world. While ethics lectures and training seem to have little to no effect on people, reminders of morality—right at the point where people are making a decision—appear to have an outsize effect on behavior.

 

Another set of our experiments, conducted with mock tax forms, convinced us that it would be better to have people put their signature at the top of the forms (before they filled in false information) rather than at the bottom (after the lying was done). Unable to get the IRS to give our theory a go in the real world, we tested it out with automobile-insurance forms. An insurance company gave us 20,000 forms with which to play. For half of them, we kept the usual arrangement, with the signature line at the bottom of the page along with the statement: "I promise that the information I am providing is true." For the other half, we moved the statement and signature line to the top. We mailed the forms to 20,000 customers, and when we got the forms back, we compared the amount of driving reported on the two types of forms.

 

People filling out such forms have an incentive to underreport how many miles they drive, so as to be charged a lower premium. What did we find? Those who signed the form at the top said, on average, that they had driven 26,100 miles, while those who signed at the bottom said, on average, that they had driven 23,700 miles—a difference of about 2,400 miles. We don't know, of course, how much those who signed at the top really drove, so we don't know if they were perfectly honest—but we do know that they cheated a good deal less than our control group.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304840904577422090013997320.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

[Rabbitisrich]

This is related:

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/5b6qld7wqgelj345/

 

Finally, in Study 3, participants who were told of an alleged ghost in the laboratory were less likely to cheat on a competitive task than those who did not receive this supernatural prime.

 

There was another study where participants who had been directed to think of deceased relatives were less likely cheat. The effect held even for people who expressed disbelief in the afterlife. I'm trying to find the study but am getting a lot of cheating spouses results.