I agree. There's an awful lot we don't know. But we have a problem with not knowing everything. We need to know everything. So we make up what we have to in order to satisfy that need.

:up: :up:

It seems that humans are extremely, by default/nature, superstitious. That is to say that we possess thought patterns and behaviors that are meant to "make things go well or stay well". — schopenhauer1

Superstition is hard to define, but I think we all know that this is not the definition of superstition. Someone who has thought patterns and behaviors intended to make things go or stay well is a human being, not a superstitious human being.

Merriam-Webster, 'Superstition':

1a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
1b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Human cultures were (I am presuming) far more superstitious in previous millennia, and there is a residue that has been preserved into the present time. Some of the residue is preserved by official religious instruction and informal folkways. Some of it is new -- created by accident--Jack got a raise on the day he was wearing a bright red shirt. The shirt had nothing to do with the raise, but Jack associated the two events (quite strongly) and thenceforth thought of the shirt as 'strongly lucky'.

Superstitions are not the same as compulsions. The compulsion to count things isn't superstitious -- it's just slightly crazy. The lucky red shirt isn't crazy -- it's just slightly stupid.

Still, compulsions and superstitions can provide the sense of having control over the world, which tends to be important to us, given that we do not have control over a lot of things. A professor said, "Magic is religion you don't believe in; religion is magic you do believe in." A former priest said. "Nothing fails like prayer." Millions of people believe in the actual effectiveness of prayer (the gods will act) which is magic one believes in. Religious magic is basically superstitious.

So, my take is that many rational, intelligent, educated people feel better when they deploy whatever superstitious magic they believe in. And as luck would have it, things work out well enough often enough to provide support for magical thinking. And when it doesn't, there are other explanations available.

Superstitions are not the same as compulsions. The compulsion to count things isn't superstitious -- it's just slightly crazy. The lucky red shirt isn't crazy -- it's just slightly stupid. — BC

I'm wondering though if there is a connection between the two. Perhaps the compulsion is a maladaptive form of the superstitious tendency in humans. I think there is something to the fact that as you say:

Still, compulsions and superstitions can provide the sense of having control over the world, which tends to be important to us, given that we do not have control over a lot of things. — BC

Yes, certainly there is "brain chemical imbalance" involved in the obsessive-compulsive, but can this imbalance be a matter of degree of already innate tendencies to irrationally try to control our environment, and "magical thinking" in general? Religion is the sociological coming together of psychological motivations to control things. OCD can be diagnosed very young, for example. This is not something you need to have many years of enculturation to have. Also, magical thinking occurs in many people without OCD. The compulsions are perhaps not there, but the impetus to control the environment through altered behavior and ritual patterns is.

Superstition is hard to define, but I think we all know that this is not the definition of superstition. Someone who has thought patterns and behaviors intended to make things go or stay well is a human being, not a superstitious human being. — Leontiskos

I think what I defined and 1a seem pretty compatible. If you rather it be "superstitious behaviors", that's fine. "Superstition" encompasses a lot of things, and words can have family resemblances. I am talking about the kind whereby we try to control the world through ritual, belief, and behavior. I don't necessarily mean it in the "All irrational belief in various forces and causes", though this is a genre of that.

I think what I defined and 1a seem pretty compatible. — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure you're grasping how bad your definition is. According to your definition someone is superstitious if they get a haircut, or buy their girlfriend flowers, or exercise, because they are engaging in behavior meant to "make things go well or stay well."

"Superstition" is largely a pejorative word without a great deal of content, and this is why folks tend to have a hard time defining it. The definition process here is rather important.

As a follow up...and a sort of thought experiment...

What do you think of "psycho-somatic" disorders? This starts getting tricky because the delusions can be subtle.

So let's say that every time you touched a light switch before bed, you had to think of a particular thing in your mind- a white wall, otherwise your left nostril will get stuffy and you will not be able to sleep for the rest of the night. Let us say, you thought of a green wall or a blue gorilla eating pancakes under an umbrella in the arctic instead. You have to start again and flick the light switch on and then turn it off again.. But you realize, that you have to do it in sets of four, such that each time, you have to do it four times, and if you miss the 4th time, you have to start gain. Anyways, if you don't do it right, you actually feel your nose stuffy for the rest of the night. You aren't "fearing" a future event or something bad happening, something bad is happening. If someone says to you, "That's silly magical thinking", you can say, no I feel the stuffy nose right now as we speak. This is proven through your own introspection. In fact, the next day, you do the light switch ritual correctly, thinking of a white wall in sets of 4, and you get it right this time. And unlike the previous day, you actually feel your nose is not stuffy anymore. Voila! You are now back to normal and can have a good night sleep breathing normally and not fixating on a stuffy nose.

Well, is the ritual not, in all pragmatic senses of the word, causing the stuffy nose to go away and come back?

I'm not sure you're grasping how bad your definition is. According to your definition someone is superstitious if they get a haircut, or buy their girlfriend flowers, or exercise, because they are engaging in behavior meant to "make things go well or stay well."

"Superstition" is largely a pejorative word without a great deal of content, and this is why folks tend to have a hard time defining it. The definition process here is rather important. — Leontiskos

I see, well, I think I have defined it in a way that would preclude how you are generalizing its usage.

I think I have defined it in a way that would preclude how you are generalizing its usage. — schopenhauer1

I literally just explained why that's false.

Superstition is a kind of religious excess, and that is why a secular age struggles to wield the word with any degree of accuracy. If we want to know whether X is part of the human psyche, we first need to figure out what in the world we mean by X. I think superstition is a variety of causal error, usually created by confusing correlation with causation. Still, to give the genre is not to give the definition.

I literally just explained why that's false. — Leontiskos

I believe I addressed what concern you had of my original definition in my last post.

I literally just explained why that's false.

Superstition is a kind of religious excess, and that is why a secular age struggles to wield the word with any degree of accuracy. If we want to know whether X is part of the human psyche, we first need to figure out what in the world we mean by X. — Leontiskos

I think what I defined and 1a seem pretty compatible. If you rather it be "superstitious behaviors", that's fine. "Superstition" encompasses a lot of things, and words can have family resemblances. I am talking about the kind whereby we try to control the world through ritual, belief, and behavior. I don't necessarily mean it in the "All irrational belief in various forces and causes", though this is a genre of that. — schopenhauer1

Chill

Very much so. And perhaps and argument can be given that we are quite superstitious today, we simply aren't aware of it or we have modified ancient beliefs into our modern outlook. For instance, some aspects of "scientism" are very much of the same caliber as believing in ghosts.

Not to mention the way we often treat presidents or nations. Quite a few other things.

It is more sophisticated, there may be less amount of it on the whole, but I think it's part of our nature.

It is more sophisticated, there may be less amount of it on the whole, but I think it's part of our nature. — Manuel

I think we can readily split sociological forms of superstitious behavior from psychological superstitious/magical thinking behavior. I think, going to my point in my little debate with @Leontiskos not every ritual is a superstitious one. I think it has to be a component of "magical thinking". That is to say, there has to be a component of "Is this going to change reality in some way". One of the things that have changed over time, is that previously we might wholeheartedly just go along with the magical-thinking. Now, it can become a kind of neurosis (not technically, but analogously). That is to say, we might know X behavior is "irrational" but we still believe its effects on reality.

What do you think of "psycho-somatic" disorders? This starts getting tricky because the delusions can be subtle. — schopenhauer1

I don't know enough about It. From what I have read, people who have a 'psychosomatic condition' really do feel that something is wrong with them--feel, not just think. They can have real pain from a condition that doesn't actually exist. Some of these can be serious -- like unfortunate people who think one of their limbs actually belongs to somebody else. They don't 'recognize it' as their own.

I'm wondering though if there is a connection between the two. Perhaps the compulsion is a maladaptive form of the superstitious tendency in humans. — schopenhauer1

I tend to separate superstitious thinking "Hey, this red shirt is a lucky charm!" from OCD "I HAVE TO count the chairs in my row, or I'll be really uncomfortable." I have a habit, or mild compulsion, to rinse out my glass before I fill it with cold water from the tap. I find a wet glass more appealing. A plastic glass, on the other hand, can't be helped by rinsing it out first. Yuck. It's a non-functional behavior. I used to have more of these, but they have faded away.

If one has OCD, I would suspect that new compulsions will be manufactured out of superstitious ideas -- like the lucky red shirt MUST be worn under various circumstances or something bad will happen.

The sometimes screwy things that go on in our brains (superstition, religious fervor, unreasonable fearfulness or confidence, hallucinations, etc.) could very well be connected -- I just don't know how. The brain is just so damned complicated.

I tend to separate superstitious thinking "Hey, this red shirt is a lucky charm!" from OCD "I HAVE TO count the chairs in my row, or I'll be really uncomfortable." I have a habit, or mild compulsion, to rinse out my glass before I fill it with cold water from the tap. I find a wet glass more appealing. A plastic glass, on the other hand, can't be helped by rinsing it out first. Yuck. It's a non-functional behavior. I used to have more of these, but they have faded away. — BC

Yes.. I think many people (maybe most) have some form of non-functional behavior related to magical thinking. At least, it's not as uncommon as we might think.. That will take empirical data of course to confirm.

If one has OCD, I would suspect that new compulsions will be manufactured out of superstitious ideas -- like the lucky red shirt MUST be worn under various circumstances or something bad will happen.

The sometimes screwy things that go on in our brains (superstition, religious fervor, unreasonable fearfulness or confidence, hallucinations, etc.) could very well be connected -- I just don't know how. The brain is just so damned complicated. — BC

Yes, I am just wondering if OCD is more degree in an already exploitable trait. The brain has hijacked itself to fully commit to this predisposition for magical-thinking. As you say, someone who has the "plain old" magical-thinking tendency of normal humans, mildly believes in a connection of irrational thought. However, an OCD afflicted person has a rule-governed component that has hijacked this and maliciously exploits it by overemphasizing its efficacy on how it really effects reality.

not every ritual is a superstitious one — schopenhauer1

A good example is the rituals of Christian worship. A lot of the ritual (like saying "The Lord be with you / and also with you") has no "magical value". The words of institution in the Eucharist (for Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans...) do have a "magical value". Chanting the psalm for the day is a ritual -- not a magical act. Same for kneeling during prayer. Baptism is a magical act. Confession, on the other hand, is ritual and therapy at the same time. Exchanging the sign of peace with other members of the congregation has no magical value. It's just a nice ritual.

A good example is the rituals of Christian worship. A lot of the ritual (like saying "The Lord be with you / and also with you) has no "magical value". The words of institution in the Eucharist (for Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans...) do have a "magical value". Chanting the psalm for the day is a ritual -- not a magical act. Same for kneeling during prayer. Baptism is a magical act. Confession, on the other hand, is ritual and therapy at the same time. Exchanging the sign of peace with other members of the congregation has no magical value. It's just a nice ritual. — BC

Yes, very useful examples and analysis. However, I would only add that it should be explained how the magical act confers some positive or negative thing, or at least how it effects reality. So in the case of Christianity, it is a positive act because it is initiating one in the Way of Christ, or whatnot. However, some sects may only see it as symbolically cleansing one, and if not done, would have no real bones about it, as it confers nothing in any (material or spiritual) reality.

I think we can readily split sociological forms of superstitious behavior from psychological superstitious/magical thinking behavior. — schopenhauer1

That sounds like a very sensible distinction.

I think it has to be a component of "magical thinking". That is to say, there has to be a component of "Is this going to change reality in some way". One of the things that have changed over time, is that previously we might wholeheartedly just go along with the magical-thinking. — schopenhauer1

Well, not that you have mentioned this, but let's put prayer to the side and take a common observation: most cultures do not condone say, mishandling a human body or not offering some sort of something in a kind of ritual (for a recently deceased person) and this does have a bit of magical thinking.

The issue becomes obscure when we do things such as celebrate Christmas or some other holiday. Is this superstition or is it mere ritual? And what would be the difference?

That is to say, we might know X behavior is "irrational" but we still believe its effects on reality. — schopenhauer1

In some ways, yes, agreed.

Very much so. And perhaps and argument can be given that we are quite superstitious today, we simply aren't aware of it or we have modified ancient beliefs into our modern outlook. For instance, some aspects of "scientism" are very much of the same caliber as believing in ghosts. — Manuel

Superstition goes hand in hand with ignorance, and because our age is wildly ignorant there is a high potential for superstition. For example, suppose Elon Musk said, "If you wave your iPhone in three big circles above your head after turning it on, the scrambling of the gyroscope will make it harder for political activists who are not in your contact list to send you unsolicited messages." People would instantly start doing this, and would probably soon swear by the practice. Why? Because we have no freaking idea how an iPhone works. Our scientific culture is faith-based, premised on arguments from authority. As Arthur Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

(The irrationality that emerged from Covid, left and right, was remarkable. Much of it could be called superstitious.)

It seems that humans are extremely, by default/nature, superstitious. That is to say that we possess thought patterns and behaviors that are meant to "make things go well or stay well". — schopenhauer1

Nice OP. I agree with your points.

Given humans are meaning making creatures, working hard to identify or make some order out of the chaos, we can't help ourselves but to anthropomorphise nature and machines and devise magical rituals to protect us, along with ways to please our gods or powers. Superstition seems to be a continuum - from the primitive to the sophisticated.

Perhaps religions are the most sophisticated forms of codefied superstition and are really just a way for us to connect with an imagined or hoped for explanatory higher power which will protect us now and/or in the next world. Often such protection is against the pervasive fear of nihilism. There Must Be Transcendent Meaning! People who follow religions will likely resent this and consider it a simplification. But if ignorance is the wellspring of superstition, couldn't we say that god (which is so often also a god of the gaps -Why something rather than nothing? Why evil? Why death? Why morality?) operates as a kind of fetish to help us manage our nescience?

Do you think there is good reason to hold that what counts as superstition needs to be unsophisticated pre-rational thinking and that if a 'magical' system is more scriptural and sophisticated it is no longer superstition?

I tend to separate superstitious thinking "Hey, this red shirt is a lucky charm!" from OCD "I HAVE TO count the chairs in my row, or I'll be really uncomfortable." I have a habit, or mild compulsion, to rinse out my glass before I fill it with cold water from the tap. I find a wet glass more appealing. A plastic glass, on the other hand, can't be helped by rinsing it out first. Yuck. It's a non-functional behavior. I used to have more of these, but they have faded away. — BC

Is it superstition, or subconscious deep learning. By rinsing a glass, you can remove a substantial amount of heat from the glass. Without pre-chilling the glass, the heat in the glass would warm your drink and result in less enjoyment of the coldness of your drink.

Sounds like subconscious thermodynamics to me. :nerd:

- What if the desire for coldness is just a way to mask the unappealing flavor of one's drink, as some Europeans would say with respect to American beer? Subconscious mitigation of unappealing flavor? :razz:

Superstition (A) and "make things go well or stay well" (B) seem to be related by spiritual bypassing.

the adoption of non-physicalist or supernatural beliefs have been associated with maladaptive coping strategies such as avoidance or escapism, that is, through ‘spiritual bypassing’ (Welwood, J. Toward a Psychology of Spiritual Awakening (Shambhala, 2002)., Masters, R. A. Spiritual Bypassing (North Atlantic Books, 2010)., Kornfield, J. After the Ecstasy, the Laundry (Rider, 2000)., Hayes, S. C. A Liberated Mind (Avery, 2019).)

B is one of the causes of A. But A may also have other causes.

What if the desire for coldness is just a way to mask the unappealing flavor of one's drink, as some Europeans would say with respect to American beer? Subconscious mitigation of unappealing flavor? :razz: — Leontiskos

Well that too. I tend to go for Guiness.

I tend to go for Guiness. — wonderer1

Stella Artois for me. And I like it cold, even though it is a superior European product.

One of the ways the magic of the eucharist affects reality is that it unites communicants in the magic. The bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ for those who embrace the magical spell, even if the bread and wine maintain their appearance. Taking communion is participating in magic.

Baptism affects reality more subtly. Most Christians are baptized as infants and the magic is performed only once per person and is not redouble or undoable (according to the theology of the churches). Most people will work out the meaning of their magical baptism quite a few years after the act, unless they are baptized as adults. Or, they won't -- in which case, the magic is greatly diminished. The magic of the eucharist comes to naught as well if the individual just 'goes through the motions'.

This is all true for the rituals and magic in daily life as we know it. Air heads miss out on it.

subconscious thermodynamics — wonderer1

:100:

Exchanging the sign of peace with other members of the congregation has no magical value. — BC

What is your definition of 'magic'?

I don't have a personal definition. The dictionary says "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

The rituals of the church are no more magical than the various rituals we perform every day, like saying 'hello' to people on the street, or thanking the bus driver for letting us off the bus.