Never underestimate the power of self-deception.
Let me preface this post by saying that a number of years back I used to work part-time for a certain major Canadian coffee chain. I must have brewed hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of pots of coffee in the short time that I worked there. Occasionally, somebody would forget to take the coffee grounds out of a machine before brewing the next pot of coffee, causing the same grounds to be used twice. The result was a very light-colored, but very bitter tasting, coffee product. Naturally, we would just spill this pot out and brew a fresh one.
This morning, I was in the kitchen pouring some coffee, when my mom commented on how strong/bitter the coffee tasted this morning. I took a taste, and noticed that it did taste bitter – a lot like the coffee grounds had been run through the machine twice. Examining the color, I noticed that it was lighter than usual… also consistent with my hypothesis. I told my mom that the coffee grounds had probably been accidentally re-used and that we should spill the coffee out and make a new batch. It’s important to understand that my mom hates wasting food; I’ve seen her drink lumpy milk before in an attempt to forego spilling it out. So it didn’t surprise me that she was opposed to the idea of spilling out the coffee. What came next did surprise me, however. She took another taste of her coffee, and then told me that it tasted fine to her. Not more than 60 seconds after she had pointed out the bitter taste of the coffee, she was now telling me that it had a perfectly normal taste. She genuinely seemed to believe that the coffee now had a normal taste, even though nothing about it had changed.
So what’s the lesson of this story? Never underestimate the human mind’s ability to self-deceive. What something is often takes a back seat to what we want something to be.

Main Contributors

















































2 responses so far ↓
1
dalponis // Jul 27, 2008 at 10:59 pm
If your mother didn’t want to throw out her coffee enough, she really could make it taste better to herself.
Who’s to say she’s incorrect. She honestly thinks it does taste better.
—
If I say I am flying, am I not flying? Who is to say whether or not I am actually flying?
According to you I am not flying, but maybe are you the one that is incorrect.
—
I am God, care to prove me wrong?
((I think, therefore I am.))
2
Mitchell Gerskup // Jul 28, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I don’t disagree that she was correct in her belief that it tasted better. The important point is what changed: it wasn’t the coffee, it was her perception of the coffee.
Flying, unlike tastiness, is a rather objective state. To empirically determine tastiness, we must ask people their opinion*, thus making it a subjective measure. Flight is something that is not based on opinion, but rather a clearly observable physical state.
Also, if you’re god, then you’re a bastard for letting people die of AIDS and malaria.
I would gladly prove you wrong, if you define what you mean by “God”.
Lastly, “I think, therefore I am” contains the unstated premise “I”. If you assume an identity for your thoughts, then you will (obviously) arrive at an entity who has those thoughts. All that you really prove with that Cartesian statement is that “there is a thought”.
*Strictly speaking, this probably isn’t true. We might be able to determine this information from some type of active brain scan.
You must log in to post a comment.