Seat belts, and flawed perceptions OP ED

[Brian37]

No link, but saw a story on CBS this morning about how taxi customers are less likely to wear a seat belt riding in the back of a cab, while normally in their own car, they would wear it. And that people in general are more likely to wear it in the front of any car and less likely in the back of a car. This is the same type of flawed logic that leads to forming god claims and religions. This literal flawed logic can and does far too often end in harm to self and or others. And of course with the seat belt story, accident data collectors have said for decades that if you don't wear your seat belt your risk of injury or death greatly increases. 

For whatever reason, humans under certain conditions come to bad conclusions and make bad decisions out of ignorance. Seat belts save lives so it makes no sense under any conditions not to wear them. And just like seat belts, wearing reason and testing and falsification with good method of observation increases the quality of data and reduces the risk of coming to bad conclusions.

Outside religion, humans are more likely to question their observations. Just like if you went to pick up your paycheck at work, and the boss said "It is an invisible check, the money is invisible, have faith" You know darned well that if you have rent or a mortgage you could use the same excuse to pay for those things.

Our species perceptions of reality are notoriously flawed. We have evolved to overcome those things though. It is when we value facts over feelings, and have the willingness to face the evidence despite our perceptions that we as a species improve our understanding of reality. Just like car companies once fought better safety standards only to end up marketing those safety standards. Scientific method is the seat belt that insures more accurate data.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In a little while, I'm going to have an apple and a bowl of oatmeal.  Please explain how this ties into religion.

Boru

[Cato]

That's fucking easy. Eve ate the apple and I'm almost 100% confident that oatmeal was one of the wise guy gifts. At a minimum, oatmeal was part of the 'free' breakfast at The Manger.

[abaris]

I've never before seen a person so desperately trying to square a circle. Is everything about religion in your life? You give the impression of obsessing.

[popeyespappy]

I've never before seen a person so desperately trying to square a circle. Is everything about religion in your life? You give the impression of obsessing.

Brian? Obsessive? Tell me it isn't so.

[Chad32]

Presumably the back of the seat will provide some cushion in case you get flown forward, so people think seatbelts in the back seat aren't as important. Some people are still coming out of a generation when cars didn't even have seatbelts. or certainly no one cared to pull you over just for not wearing one.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Oddly enough, seatbelts, while they do unquestionably reduce traffic fatalities, may be (partly) responsible for a slight but steady uptick in the overall number of road accidents.  This is a phenomenon called 'risk compensation', a behaviour that makes people take more risks than they would in the absence of safety equipment.  Thus, people who wear seatbelts tend to drive faster, people with ABS tend to follow other cars a little more closely, and people with side-impact airbags are a somewhat more likely to cross oncoming traffic streams when they probably shouldn't.

I'm sure there's a connection between air bags and altar boys who steal from the collection plate, but I haven't been able to suss it out.

Boru

[Brian37]

I've never before seen a person so desperately trying to square a circle. Is everything about religion in your life? You give the impression of obsessing.

Brian? Obsessive? Tell me it isn't so.

Holy crap, this isn't about being "obsessed" this is about pointing out the evolutionary nature of human behavior and thought. Question someones actions outside religion, and you have more of a chance of getting them to think. Question religion and people flip out.

This is about how any type of thought process about any subject can affect what happens to you or others. The person who doesn't wear their seat belt is not thinking. The person who believes in a god is not only not thinking, they are justifying bad logic to a political degree, not just a personal bad decision.

Everything humans do in life requires input into their brain, then a response to that input. The problem is both inside and outside religion in very real evolutionary terms more often than not, our species perceptions of reality are notoriously flawed. Understanding this can help reduce bad outcomes. Much like Nadar got car companies to make better cars.

The same flawed perception that leads our species to create religions and god claims is the same flawed perception that causes a cat to gurrr  or dog to bark at it's own image in a mirror. Dawkins in "The God Delusion" rightfully equates this flaw in perception as "the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight". It is the same flawed perception that can have a kid believe that the bowl of covered olives at the Halloween party in the dark room are eyeballs.

In the case of the person who constantly doesn't wear their seat belt, may get away of not being injured for a time, but do it enough eventually it will affect you. Simply doing something because you can, or because it is popular, or because you have not been hurt before by your own logic, does not mean you have a good sample rate or thought process to lead you to your decision making.

Religion is dangerous, not as a claim that you can get rid of it, but it is dangerous because more than any other claim humans make, it is the most political and those religious people make moral claims and have weapons. But the flawed logic that the person not wearing their seat belt isn't a religion, but both are still based on flawed logic.

You can believe all you want that speeding will never affect you or others on the road, but eventually, keep doing that or thinking that, you either end up with a ticket, or in a wreck or dead. 

My post is not an "obsession" anymore than saying gravity is real. Our species inside and outside religious issues can have very flawed perceptions of reality, but only religion gets special treatment. This post is not a call to create a godless utopia, but an explanation of evolutionary behavior. 

The only difference between the guy on the street corner claiming he gets investment advice from his dog, and a guy who wears a costume and reads an antiquated book is the popularity of the delusion. I bring seat belts into it because at one time most people stupidly thought seat belts were a bane on there personal comfort, but Nadar proved that the data proved that they saved lives and car companies eventually adapted.

The foot dragging by car companies on safety is the same clinging to the past "just because" that religion stubbornly does on bad claims.

[Brian37]

Presumably the back of the seat will provide some cushion in case you get flown forward, so people think seatbelts in the back seat aren't as important. Some people are still coming out of a generation when cars didn't even have seatbelts. or certainly no one cared to pull you over just for not wearing one.

Thank you, this is what people are failing to see. The same clinging to the past is what causes people to cling to religions. It takes questioning to pull humanity out of old thinking. That is what I mean by our perceptions being flawed.

[KUSA]

I've been in several car accidents. The only time I didn't get hurt at all was the time I was in the back seat not wearing my seatbelt.

The others in the car got banged and scraped up while wearing their seatbelt. Why didn't I get hurt? I bear hugged the seat in front of me as the car rolled over several times. The car stopped upside down with the top crushed in. I crawled out feeling fine.