Skip to main content

Experimenting with Religion - Jonathan Jong *****

The idea of experiments related to religion may seem more than a little odd, but Jonathan Jong's exploration of a small but significant corner of the psychological landscape is genuinely fascinating. The aim is not to somehow prove or disprove religious beliefs, but rather to get a better understanding of what we really believe and what, if anything, influences those beliefs.

Since the replication crisis, which has showed that the results of many classic psychology experiments were dubious, I've been suspicious of all claims for new discoveries in the field. What's excellent about the way that Jong approaches it is that he doesn't cover things up (all too often, pop psychology books don't even mention the crisis), but rather openly discusses it. In fact, several of the studies discussed here have proved unreproducible - this is what makes the book particularly interesting. It doesn't just operate at the level of the findings - it tells us how the experiments were undertaken, what their limitations were and the provisos we need to attach to any findings and future research.

It helps, as he takes us through studies that try to discover whether thinking causes atheism, if children believe in souls and what people think God knows (to name but three), that Jong has a very warm, approachable writing style. I've read many popular psychology books, but I've rarely felt so much that I was getting an insight into how the researchers thought, as if I were able to chat to them in a relaxed environment. It's really well written.

My biggest reservation is that, despite acknowledging the crisis, Jong doesn't go far enough in questioning the approach taken, and seems to give too much weight to results that are at best statistically borderline. Two examples. In the first experiment to fail replication (the one about thinking and atheism), the experimenters tried to get people into an analytical frame of mind by showing them a picture of Rodin's statue The Thinker. The obvious question is why they didn't just get them to do an analytical task, rather than rely on the surely doubtful idea that just looking at a statue somehow will change your mental state in a clearly defined direction.

The second example is one where the researchers got no useful result and as a result start to indulge in what is effectively cherry picking. Jong is clear that this invalidates the experiment - but still goes on to describe their corrupted findings. Surely, if experimental psychology is to regain any trust, we need to say that as soon as an experiment is shown to be invalid, we can't deduce anything from the findings. They should be discarded and the researchers need to start again.

However, this concern does not make the book any less excellent, and Jong does make it clear when results are confusing or inappropriate. This is certainly the best psychology title I've read this year and well worth a look.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more