Reddit mentions of Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases

so how can you not know about bayes theroem, or different reasoning skills? i'm quite happy to say that its a personal interest of mine. i enjoy reading articles and books on psychology, i'm far from an expert in the field... but i know enough not to go around screaming about biases and balance in a public forum where it promises to have none of those.

And yes there are people who have done research into this kind of thing...

https://www.amazon.com/Judgment-under-Uncertainty-Heuristics-Biases-ebook/dp/B00D2WQFP2?ie=UTF8&keywords=judgment%20under%20uncertainty%20heuristics%20and%20biases&qid=1374586297&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

That is true to an extent but the other way applies too: atheism tends to create an environment where it tries to insist that religions don't have a monopoly on morality.

As you demonstrated, true morality comes from reason but what if circular reasoning is in itself a part of reason?

This can seem irrational until you get immersed in some idea of heuristics.

This can be from reading articles like this:

> A heuristic technique (/hjʊəˈrɪstɪk/; Ancient Greek: εὑρίσκω, "find" or "discover"), often called simply a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method, not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, logical, or rational, but instead sufficient for reaching an immediate goal. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples that employ heuristics include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, a guesstimate, stereotyping, profiling, or common sense.

or buying books such as these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

or even better less layman books as these:

https://www.amazon.com/Judgment-under-Uncertainty-Heuristics-Biases-ebook/dp/B00D2WQFP2

Each can be a rabbit hole in itself that may be too vast for this topic but as the general idea goes:

When people suffer a breaking point, they can't afford to debate whether morality comes from God or not.

They simply end up reverting to what data and narratives they can pick up under duress.

This doesn't mean religion is superior to atheism. It just means that when people grow up immersed in a religion they are more likely to do things related to those religions.

Support it (this can involve joining the group or leaving the group to join a sub-related group that aligns with the beliefs of that group but slightly goes against it in a safer environment)

or they join the next easiest route with plenty enough people in it:

This being the next fast food concept competing with the previous fast food restaurant. Atheism.

This doesn't debunk either group, it just means that when a group grows large enough in size - they can make a country worse because large groups tend to become large because there are plenty of people within both groups to hold a sheltered opinion where they can afford to bicker on this.

Of course this doesn't mean that poor people cannot adopt such a stance. It just means someone whether they are poor or not can afford to isolate their opinions and infringe upon the other groups in such a way that it's the minorities or temporary minorities caught between those groups that are least likely to be helped and more likely to found themselves being turned into an outcast where neither group helps them.

It is like an expanded version of this tale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

An atheist can be more biased towards being the Samaritan. A theist can be more biased towards being the person hearing the tale of the Samaritan and seeing their religion as the good one.

This can be problematic for those oppressed in a country because the larger group will always indoctrinate you first and then the group that associates itself with being a Samaritan would more likely debate this group then help you during an emergency once it becomes morally uncomfortable for them.

Hence we end up with a basic case of Large group -> I go there for help. Second largest group that is a rebel for the large group -> I join that one because I got hurt by the large group

This produces a false morality where the bigger group is tactically establishing their foothold and the rebel group is too busy fighting the big group that rather than "true" morality blossoming - sometimes something as basic as just helping someone can fall towards minorities within those groups.

A delusional zealot for example would more likely risk being shot to save people while a passionate atheist with plenty of information would more likely protest the heinous acts rather than working on building a tax-free shelter that is so profitable it isn't just a place where the homeless live. It can be a comfortable air-conditioned building with a beautiful set of rituals that give you free food every Sunday.