Understanding And Belief: Gilbert’s Experience
Gilbert’s experiment attempted to resolve a debate that had been in effect for no less than four centuries. This debate began in the 16th century between two great philosophers: René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza. The reason for the controversy concerned the way beliefs are formed in humans.
René Descartes, the greatest exponent of rationalism, argued that understanding and belief were two separate processes. According to him, people first acquired the information, analyzed it, and then decided whether they could believe it or not. In other words, Descartes’ beliefs were the product of the analysis of the information received.
Baruch Spinoza, meanwhile, supported another hypothesis. For this philosopher, understanding and belief were two processes produced simultaneously. By acquiring information and understanding it, we automatically form beliefs. In other words, we believe what we are told or written without subjecting the words to detailed analysis.
Gilbert’s experience
The debate between the two philosophers has never been fully elucidated. To verify the validity of each of these theses, Gilbert’s experiment was imagined. The creator of this experiment was the psychologist Daniel Gilbert accompanied by his colleagues, in 1993.
The central question of his research was whether understanding and belief were two separate processes or occurred simultaneously.
To define which of the two theses was true, a group of 71 volunteers was selected. Each of them received a text detailing a theft. Based on what they read, the volunteers had to decide what sentence to give the thief.
The text provided had some lines in green and some in red. Participants were told that the green lines corresponded to statements that were true. The red lines, on the other hand, were wrong. They should take this into account to understand the circumstances of the theft and pass the fairest sentence.
The development of Gilbert’s experience
The red and false statements contained information about the details of the crime. Some of these claims revealed the most violent robbery. It was said, for example, that the thief was armed or behaved aggressively.
Other texts containing statements which sought, in one way or another, to “soften” the crime. One could read, for example, that the thief had family and children and had stolen out of necessity. His attitude was “kind” and never violent.
During the development of Gilbert’s experiment, half of the participants were interrupted by distractions. The other half were allowed to complete the exercise without any distractions.
Those who were distracted had to act more naturally, precisely because they were deprived of control over the situation and prompted to behave as they normally would.
The results
At the end of Gilbert’s experiment, a significant difference was observed between the two groups.
Generally speaking, the group of distracted volunteers did not take into account that the text contained false and true statements. Those who had received texts containing false information that made the thief much more cruel, gave him up to twice as much pain as the others. Those who had false allegations in favor of the offender awarded him less than half the sentence.
In contrast, those who had not been distracted during Gilbert’s experience omitted the false allegations and imposed a penalty based on the crime committed. They had had enough time to make this informative distinction, and that is why they were more equanimous.
What is disturbing about this experience is that if one refers to everyday life, the false and the true do not appear in red or green. Gilbert’s experience proved that the philosopher Baruch Spinoza was right. Understanding and beliefs are formed simultaneously. This basically means that we tend to believe everything we are told.
To a certain extent, this is a good thing, otherwise we would spend our entire lives checking each other’s claims. But it is also disturbing how easily we believe details that may not be true.
Our thoughts Highly intelligent people aren’t always the ones who make the best decisions.
