Vakkotaur

Last night I read an article from the New Yorker, Atomic John by David Samuels. It's about a fellow, John Coster-Mullen, who has spent a few years digging into the history and design of Little Boy, and working out that a lot of the published material about it isn't accurate (not entirely surprising) and that it worked backwards from the typical diagram given for the bomb. That's not very hard to believe as disinformation, purposeful or accidental, is likely seen to be a good thing when it comes to even the simplest of nuclear weapon designs.

What struck me in the article was not John Coster-Mullen's work, or that more information than many seem to expect can be gleaned from photos, nor even that some Manhattan Project workers had let slip little bits here and there. What struck me Samuels' remark that "...[John Coster-Mullen] treats the world's most destructive invention as an ordinary clocklike mechanism, made of simple parts that must fit together according to readily discernible laws."

Mechanically it was exactly that. Okkay, "simple" might not describe every part when it comes to the material used or the precise shaping, but the fitting of things together must work "according to readily discernible laws." Something cannot fit into a space larger than its container, for example. Things can only be so big. They have to fit together, and when they do they have to fit together a certain way. This constrains the size of everything.

That line, "...[John Coster-Mullen] treats the world's most destructive invention as an ordinary clocklike mechanism, made of simple parts that must fit together according to readily discernible laws." seems to reveal something about David Samuels. That's that he seems to think a nuclear weapon as some sort of fantastic, magical thing, that would not need to work like other devices - or that he believes that is point of view or belief of typical New Yorker readers. This is perhaps a case of Clark's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. And since the technology is considered very advanced, many see it as magic. Meanwhile John Coster-Mullen sees it as just another device, or perhaps from David Samuels' point of view, that "any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science." as mentioned earlier.

In this post tacit writes about why people tend to believe things and why skepticism tends to feel unnatural. The reasoning makes sense, and while he doesn't go into it, helps explain why those who want real verification of things rather than simple faith tend to be considered and treated as alien.

I've been rereading Hypnosis by George Estabrooks which mentions how some things are done because of belief. One example is the classic demonstration of the hypnotic subject's body going rigid enough to seem like a board when held up only a pair of chairs, one chair at the head and shoulders and the other at the feet. If the hypnotist asides to someone "Of course it's possible, anyone can do it" then it will work since the hypnotic subject has overheard that it's possible and what the hypnotist says is true - or at least close enough. But if the hypnotist tells someone near him "It's all nonsense, nobody can do it. The stage demos are rigged up like a magic act" then the subject won't be able to do it. The only difference in the hypnotic subject is the matter of belief. In one case, "anyone can do it" and so therefore can he. In the other, nobody can do it so neither can he.

Another bit Estabrooks mentions is that to get a desired change, the most effective means is to act as if it has already occurred. It's not a matter of going to change, but a matter of having already changed. Things just are the desired way. This same idea shows up in visualization techniques that don't label themselves hypnosis. They say to picture the end result and focus on that. It doesn't matter what it's called, it's the power of belief being harnessed. It is a quite powerful tool, if you have it. Belief in oneself, self-confidence, is good at least up to a point. Misapplied, it gets overbearing.

That and a recent conversation suggested something to me. I do not intend to belittle anyone or claim that what they believe is wrong. I just have a possible explanation for something that I find interesting:

Imagine it's a long, long time back, prehistoric times. Suppose you've realized how powerful self-confidence is and want to help your friend(s) (family, tribe, whatever). But you hit the problem of self-doubt. "Oh, I could never do that." That's a hard barrier to get past. You probably beat yourself senseless trying to get rid of that barrier. Then it hits you like a feather. Specifically, like Dumbo's "magic feather." You can invent a lucky charm, a talisman. Your friend doesn't have to believe in himself, he can believe in the trinket and will then act as if it worked. It's all placebo effect and you can't explain that bit of "magic" without destroying it unless your friend is really ready to believe in himself. If you have a few like this, then even those who are in on it, if you dare tell them and trust them to stay quiet, have to go with the act. If they don't, the others might get suspicious and soon the whole works is ruined.

There are still problems. The trinket doesn't really work, and your friend will still run into problems. Making more talismans only works for so long, and what if it gets lost or damaged, or maybe stolen?

It's time to invent something that can't be lost and has a built-in explanation for not always working. You invent an imaginary friend. Maybe it's a general "energy" or maybe it's a collection of powerful beings, or maybe just one powerful being. This thing, this Great Omniscient Deity, will help your friend. But not always. "See, it.. well, he - it makes talking about it easier - while he's powerful, he also is all-knowing and will sometimes not help, or maybe not help in the way desired. It's not that there's anything wrong with you or him, it's that he can see the big picture." Now your friend can believe in this Great Omniscient Deity and get by, and even when things aren't going right, well, maybes it's the Grand Plan that it shouldn't work out. That's what you say.

This is a powerful idea. It's a useful idea. People no longer need to believe in themselves, they can believe in the Great Omniscient Deity that will help them. Since he can do anything, they can do anything. Oh crap, they will try to do anything, even if it's not really a good idea. Gotta fix that. To much ability without any responsibility. Let's see...

"Oh, yeah." you might say, "I spoke...er.. I had a vision... from the Great Omniscient Deity. He says 'Don't do anything to anyone unless you'd like them to do the same to you.'" A moral code, or the beginnings of one. Someone asks "And if we don't?" and more has to be invented. You could come up with karma, or reincarnation, or some sort of unverifiable reward program to keep it all going. If it really gets out of hand, you could even add a punishment rather than a reward to the mix. Maybe even invent a story about how there is a Tempter trying to mess things up.

"Why aren't we rewarded now? Why can't he make it all right now and be done with it?" You can't tell them that the reward is their own confidence - it'd ruin the effect, just like explaining the lucky charm. Aha! The big picture thing again. You say, "He works in mysterious ways" and things like that.

Good things get credited to the Great Omniscient Deity. Bad things, well, there's that mysterious plan. It's for the best, somehow, right? This grows. It grows until you can't stop it even if you want to. Anyone who realizes what's going on, well... they'd better watch themselves. People don't want to stop believing in the Great Omniscient Deity. That would mean far too much responsibility. No more "The Tempter tricked me into doing it!" Sometimes things in life would be *horrors* purely random.

Maybe others in other places hit on the same idea you did. Or maybe the people you told go and tell others and the stories change a bit with each telling. After a while it becomes "My Great Omniscient Deity is the real one, not yours! Your story is wrong!" "No, yours is wrong! Great Omniscient Deity is on my side!" and then, well, just look around. By this time you're long gone from the scene. You meant well. You just wanted to help your friends see that, yes, they could venture over that next hill. Yes, they would survive this storm, or this winter. Yes, they would find something to eat if they just kept looking. It wasn't supposed to drift into this mess.

And that's the idea. That religion might have started as a psychological crutch. There's no problem with using a crutch - it's a useful tool and lets you do more if you need it. But it shouldn't be used to beat others over the head. Did all this start because of some prehistoric psychiatrist, or a string of them through history?