Apparently, we Calvinists have a rather blinkered worldview:
The attentional blink is another of those weird and wonderful cognitive blind spots with which the human race is afflicted. Flash up two images in close succession, and we find it really difficult to even notice the second, let alone figure out what it is. That’s basically because our brains are still engaged in processing the first one.
In another recent study by Lorenzo Colzato . . . atheists and Dutch Christian Calvinists have had their attentional blinks assessed.
Lorenzo found that the atheists she tested had a shorter attentional blink than the Calvinists. In fact, as the figure shows, there actually seems to be a fairly direct relationship between how often the people in her study prayed, and the length of their attentional blink.
She thinks that this is related to her earlier finding (that Calvinists are ‘detail’ people rather than ‘big picture’ people). Calvinists are trained from birth to focus on a narrower, rather than a bigger context, and Lorenzo thinks that this have widespread effects on their style of information processing – when compared to individuals who are raised with a broader, more complex worldview (including religious people).
(Via: Big Questions Online)
September 29th, 2010 | 9:09 am | #1
I usually find sociological analysis of Calvinists to sound like they are coming from people who have no idea what they are talking about, as well as contradictory with other similar analyses, and this is no exception.
For every “Calvinists are trained from birth to focus on a narrower, rather than a bigger context,” you can find one, or maybe five, sociologists or historians who claim (with equal plausibility) that Calvinists think only of the big, eternal picture and have no idea of what’s in front of their noses. People are free to have their opinions based on a superficial analysis of a theology they haven’t had close experience with, but to take opinionated reactions like this that aren’t even generally agreed upon and then claim they’re doing “science” is just silly.
September 29th, 2010 | 11:04 am | #2
“People are free to have their opinions based on a superficial analysis of a theology they haven’t had close experience with…”
Free?
September 29th, 2010 | 11:31 am | #3
Yes, free. Calvinism, of course, does indeed insist that we have genuine freedom, just not libertarian freedom. See, for example, Jonathan Edwards’ robust defense of compatibilism not only as true but as the best way to package Calvin’s theology in the light of subsequent philosophical analysis. (Unless, of course, we’re talking about hyper-Calvinism’s insistence on hard determinism. But then we’ve left the realm of Calvinism.)
September 29th, 2010 | 11:36 am | #4
Maybe someday a case will be made for adding Calvinism to the DSM. Then perhaps the drug companies will offer us a remedy. Some chemist will surely earn a Nobel Prize.
September 29th, 2010 | 11:39 am | #5
Maybe someday a case will be made for adding Liberalism to the DSM. Then perhaps the drug companies will offer Liberals a remedy. Some chemist will surely earn a Nobel Prize.
September 29th, 2010 | 12:28 pm | #6
The only genuine freedom is libertarian freedom.
September 29th, 2010 | 1:02 pm | #7
That may be true, but it doesn’t exist. Try making a choice influenced neither by who you are, your past history, or your present desires.
September 29th, 2010 | 1:03 pm | #8
I have always thought Calvinists were great at identifying a tree, but missing the forest.
September 29th, 2010 | 1:17 pm | #9
I have always thought that Liberals were great at hugging trees, but missing the forest and what’s surrounding the forest and missing … and missing ….
September 29th, 2010 | 1:18 pm | #10
Actually, as a Calvinist, I can see both sides — I can see the overanalytical bent that sees the trees and misses the forest, but critiques (or worse) of Calvinism that stress the high-mindedness and fascination with the secret and eternal also abound — and there’s merit there, too.
In some ways both can be true, but to the extent that neither is absolutely true to the exclusion of the other, neither is a sound enough “given” to then spin other theories off of.
September 29th, 2010 | 1:28 pm | #11
pentamom, libertarian freedom is not uninfluenced freedom.
September 29th, 2010 | 2:19 pm | #12
Tom,
I was just going to say the same thing. Apparently what people believe they are arguing against really doesn’t exist. Libertarian freedom is uncoerced freedom.
September 29th, 2010 | 5:52 pm | #13
My daughter, who had no idea this discussion was going on, emailed me this link an hour ago. What is Calvinism?
It’s kind of funny, kind of sad.
(I can’t promise the answer this comment will still make sense tomorrow, since the link could change. It’s there for now, at any rate.)
September 29th, 2010 | 8:11 pm | #14
Tom said:
“My daughter, who had no idea this discussion was going on, emailed me this link an hour ago. What is Calvinism?
It’s kind of funny, kind of sad.”
Steve Drake: Really sad that our young people are not being taught the philosophical and cultural and economic heritage that came from John Calvin’s teaching and writings.
September 30th, 2010 | 10:07 am | #15
It’s only mildly funny, and I don’t find it sad, because I think it must be a joke.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact