Collective self-deception

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
Post Reply
Reuben
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:01 pm

Collective self-deception

Post by Reuben » Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:44 pm

Nerdy stuff I'm reading today: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self ... #ColSelDec

Individual self-deception is exactly what you would think, but happens at a lower level than you would think. Human information collection, memory, recall, and reasoning can all be unduly influenced by high-level motivations. Sometimes this is actually good, such as when it helps us turn our aspirations into reality. Sometimes it's very bad, such as when it locks us into abusive situations.

The body of philosophical and psychological literature on individual self-deception is impressive and illuminating. The same isn't true of collective self-deception yet. The page I linked to has some great stuff, though, which is very applicable to the church.

From the link:
This said, relative to solitary self-deception, the collective variety does present greater external obstacles to avoiding or escaping self-deception, and is for this reason more entrenched.
For example, Robert Trivers (2000) suggests that ‘organizational self-deception’ led to NASA’s failure to represent accurately the risks posed by the space shuttle’s O-ring design, a failure that eventually led to the Challenger disaster. The organization as a whole, he argues, had strong incentives to represent such risks as small. As a consequence, NASA’s Safety Unit mishandled and misrepresented data it possessed that suggested that under certain temperature conditions the shuttle’s O-rings were not safe. NASA, as an organization, then, self-deceptively believed the risks posed by O-ring damage were minimal. Within the institution, however, there were a number of individuals who did not share this belief, but both they and the evidence supporting their belief were treated in a bias[ed] manner by the decision-makers within the organization. As Trivers (2000) puts it, this information was relegated “to portions of … the organization that [were] inaccessible to consciousness (we can think of the people running NASA as the conscious part of the organization).” In this case, collectively held values created a climate within NASA that clouded its vision of the data and led to its endorsement of a fatally false belief.
An analogous fault in the organization of the church is how upper management is insulated from feedback from the rank and file by their bishops and stake presidents, by policy. This structural fault is compounded by the fact that such lower managers are restricted by policy to be men who fit the Mormon mold, are chosen for their loyalty, and function as both judge and counselor. This is part of what makes the church's "consciousness" (to use Trivers's analogy) selectively deaf to members when they give critical feedback that the church is wrong about something.

Well, that and just plain arrogance, and authoritarian tradition and doctrine.
Learn to doubt the stories you tell about yourselves and your adversaries.

ap1054
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:00 pm

Re: Collective self-deception

Post by ap1054 » Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:51 pm

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Collective self-deception

Post by slavereeno » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:24 pm

Reuben wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:44 pm
An analogous fault in the organization of the church is how upper management is insulated from feedback from the rank and file by their bishops and stake presidents, by policy.
Ok, then what culpability does the leadership of said group hold, particularly when they claim to be led by an omniscient God. Because my apologist TBM friends/family are just blaming "policy." Could "doctrine" also hold such powers of self deception.

Also, is it just me or has anybody else over their transition grown to loath the word "doctrine"?

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Collective self-deception

Post by Palerider » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:02 pm

I think policy/tradition grow out of doctrine or the way a leader might interpret that doctrine.

Don't native tribes have more's that have grown out of their beliefs?

Regarding LDS "doctrine" or dogma, I came to the conclusion that it really doesn't exist except in the minds of true believers.

For example, from a Catholic point of view:

"In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed."

The implication above is that doctrine might change but revealed dogma must be believed as originally revealed and as originally understood.

However, in the LDS faith ANY revealed principle is considered subject to change if acted upon by the current living prophet. So "dogma" doesn't exist. Only a current and ever changing doctrinal interpretation of "revealed principles" exists.

Thus, a living (male) human being IS the one true dogma in the LDS faith. He IS the doctrine.

Thus the axiom that defining LDS doctrine is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

Reuben
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: Collective self-deception

Post by Reuben » Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:02 pm

The cited paper by Trivers (2000) on self-deception, which contains a description of the Challenger disaster in those terms:

http://courses.washington.edu/evpsych/T ... AS2000.pdf

My favorite paragraph so far:
There is thus a close analogy between self-deception within an individual and self-deception within an organization, both serving to deceive others. In neither case is information completely destroyed (all 12 engineers at Thiokol, which built the O-ring, voted against flight that morning). It is merely relegated to portions of the person or the organization that are inaccessible to consciousness (we can think of the people running NASA as the conscious part of the organization). In both cases the entity’s relationship to others determines its internal structure of information. In a non-deceitful relationship information can be stored logically and coherently. In a deceitful relationship information will be stored in a biased manner the better to deceive others—but with serious potential costs. Note, however, that it is the astronauts who suffered the ultimate cost, while the upper echelons of NASA—indeed, the entire organization minus the dead—may have enjoyed a net benefit (in employment, for example) from their casual and self-deceived approach to safety.
This is exactly the explanation of the behavior of the LDS church I've been looking for.
Learn to doubt the stories you tell about yourselves and your adversaries.

Reuben
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: Collective self-deception

Post by Reuben » Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:14 pm

slavereeno wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:24 pm
Reuben wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:44 pm
An analogous fault in the organization of the church is how upper management is insulated from feedback from the rank and file by their bishops and stake presidents, by policy.
Ok, then what culpability does the leadership of said group hold, particularly when they claim to be led by an omniscient God. Because my apologist TBM friends/family are just blaming "policy." Could "doctrine" also hold such powers of self deception.
Do your apologists conveniently forget that the leaders are responsible for setting policy?

IIRC, experts in organizational behavior say that an organization's leaders are about 85% culpable for problems on the ground.

I've been wondering about doctrine myself. Leaders tell followers what to do. Who tells them? What and who are they actually responsible to? In the church, if it's not God, it's past leaders and doctrine. The exmos who blame Joseph Smith for everything might be on to something.
Last edited by Reuben on Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Learn to doubt the stories you tell about yourselves and your adversaries.

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Collective self-deception

Post by slavereeno » Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:24 pm

Reuben wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:14 pm
Do your apologists conveniently forget that the leaders are responsible for setting policy?
Oh yes, but only when it supports their argument. When they disagree with anything, or when you point out any ill in the church, its definitely somebody's fault, but never a) the Q15 b) God or c) Joseph Smith. They are even fine throwing the occasional 70 or past profit under the bus to make it work in their minds. You know, the "foibles of men" and such. Mostly is all of us lowly peons gumming up the perfect doctrine. :roll:

dogbite
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 1:28 pm
Location: SLC

Re: Collective self-deception

Post by dogbite » Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:13 am

He got the o ring analysis wrong. The engineers agreed the flight shouldn't go. Management was afraid of another delayed flight, the PR and funding problems. Management said go and scrounged up a dissenter to give them the excuse to say go.

User avatar
græy
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:52 pm
Location: Central TX

Re: Collective self-deception

Post by græy » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:37 pm

Man, I wish I had more time to be logged into NOM and follow these threads closer. This is good stuff!
slavereeno wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:24 pm
Also, is it just me or has anybody else over their transition grown to loath the word "doctrine"?
After reading Harrell's This is my Doctrine, I'm convinced the church has no "True" doctrine at all. There are no known "Eternal" truths. None.

It is ALL subject to change and ALL subject to rebranding from doctrine to policy and from policy to doctrine whenever it is convenient or beneficial to the church.

Even the big things like the nature of the godhead, or the attributes of God himself. They have never been fixed or revealed as 100% knowable truth. They are worked out over time via the abstract feelings of whoever managed to maneuver there way to the top of the priesthood food chain.

But those big things are the basis for everything else. All doctrine crumbles to "guesses in the dark" when you look close enough.
Palerider wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:02 pm
However, in the LDS faith ANY revealed principle is considered subject to change if acted upon by the current living prophet. So "dogma" doesn't exist. Only a current and ever changing doctrinal interpretation of "revealed principles" exists.

Thus, a living (male) human being IS the one true dogma in the LDS faith. He IS the doctrine.
This! We'll written Palerider!
Well, I'm better than dirt! Ah, well... most kinds of dirt; not that fancy store-bought dirt; that stuff is loaded with nutrients. I can't compete with that stuff. -Moe Sizlack

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Collective self-deception

Post by slavereeno » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:43 pm

græy wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:37 pm
It is ALL subject to change and ALL subject to rebranding from doctrine to policy and from policy to doctrine whenever it is convenient or beneficial to the church.
This, over and over again, they just move stuff around to make the worldview work.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests