Feel free to ask your own questions – head to Podblackblog on Twitter and ‘tweet’ your question! Topics like superstition, belief in the paranormal, pseudoscience and conspiracy theories and gender differences are particularly fun to tackle.
A question from Naontiotami – visit his blog too! What does supernatural mean?
Okay – apparently someone told Naontiotami just the dictionary definition, which is okay and fine and everything. There is a little more to it all though. It’s not just a TV series that is now available on DVD at a story near you!
If we break down the word, we find that it consists of two Latin terms – super/ supra, meaning “above” and natura, meaning “nature”. We’re talking about supernatural beings, for example, that can do things that are not found in nature, are beyond the natural world as we know it – reading minds, having ’special powers’ like being able to cast spells. Creatures like vampires and werewolves are examples of supernatural creatures that are popular in literature. It’s something that appears to be universal and we can find examples of these across cultures and times – from Asia, Australia, USA and so forth. The word ’supernatural’ has also been around since since 1526, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
By the way? That nice vampire t-shirt is available thanks to the Young Adult Literature Track at Dragon*Con.
Apparently science has no empirical basis for them and they’re supposedly not subject to scientific laws – which shouldn’t stop anyone from saying ‘if you’re making a claim about it that influences the natural world, then it should be able to be tested‘ (Humphrey and Dennett, 2008)!
“Supernatural beliefs are not simply transmitted by what people tell us to think. Rather, I would argue that our brains have a mind design that leads us naturally to infer structures and patterns in the world and to make sense of it by generating intuitive theories. These intuitive theories create a supersense. I think this happens early in development even before culture can have its major influence. That effect of culture may occur much later in a child’s development. Meanwhile, there is something in our biology that leads us to belief.” Supersense: From Superstition to Religion – The Brain Science of Belief, Chapter Nine, page 236.
It has also been proposed (as discussed in Aarnio and Lindeman, 2007) that different kinds of supernatural beings and phenomena (such as angels, ghosts, life after death or reincarnation), all appeal to people’s intuitive minds (Barrett, 2003; Boyer, 3003; Wuthnow, 1978).
There has been some research which shows that there is some influence via cultural factors such as family, peer groups, media influences, and the persuasive power of social institutions (e.g., religious or cultural groups) and education (Clark, 2002; Díaz-Vilela & Álvarez-González, 2004; Schriever, 2000). Socialisation has been used to explain gender differences concerning the extent of such beliefs. Clark (2005) for example, wrote of the prevalence of popular culture and new age beliefs in teenage females, while Mason, Webber, Singleton and Hughes (2006) recorded a shift towards secular views of the world which incorporated many new age beliefs and practices.
[Kind of like Madonna getting into some trend-setting spiritual Yoga in recent years. But not whilst wearing lacy-gloves and a bustier on the outside - you can't really trend-set whilst a corset bone is jabbing into your cosmic-consciousness. Anyway, you can imagine why they'd seem like a good move at the time, when there are classes being held down the road at the recreation hall with half price on Fridays.]
If you’ve read some of my blog posts before (or have an interest in the topic) you may be aware that research suggests that women are more superstitious than men (Gallup & Newport, 1991) and that females hold a greater range of paranormal beliefs than males (Wolfradt, 1997; Shermer, 1997; Rice, 2003), although men express greater belief in UFOs and extraterrestrials (Rice, 2003). According to Susan Blackmore (1997) a possible reason for this is that males are encouraged to engage in science, while females are more encouraged towards social and religious issues which emphasise fantasy life. Age related differences in beliefs are also evident with adults under the age of 30 reported as being more superstitious than older age groups (Gallup & Newport, 1991) and that increasing age may lead to greater belief in the supernatural (Aarnio & Lindeman, 2006; Shermer, 1997).
Now I know that there’s a few people out there familiar with the topic, who will cite the 2005 Gallop Poll, which said that there was no ’statistically significant differences’ between the genders when it comes to such beliefs – but we have to keep in mind that it was only one poll and the phrasing of the questions is important. For example, in the newly released (and highly recommended!) book ‘Supersense: Why We Believe The Unbelievable‘ by Professor Bruce Hood, it says on page 102:
‘In our culture in the West, most supernatural beliefs such as those surveyed in the Gallup poll …(2005)… are regarded as questionable, even though the majority of people believe at least one. Adults may even deny supernatural beliefs, but as we noted earlier, so long as no one mentions the word ‘supernatural,’ adults are quote happy to entertain notions of hidden patterns, forces and essences.
In the 1980s, researchers interviewing British women in Manchester about their supernatural beliefs found that they had to drop the term ‘the supernatural,’ as this was generally met with negative reactions. However, as soon as the term ‘the mysterious side of life,’ was used the interviewees showed decided interest and were eager to talk. These women, mostly retired, happily went on to recount multiple experiences of ghosts, precognition, and feeling the spirits of the dead. They regarded these experiences not as supernatural, but rather as mysterious.”
It could be said, therefore, that the very word ’supernatural’ has associated negative connotations with it – why would you want to believe something that can’t be tested by science and is just… weird? But those odd things that ‘just might have something to it’? That’s different!
Generally, the various polls and research studies appear to illustrate a growing trend not only towards traditional supernatural beliefs, but to new ones. Technological advances such as genetically modified foods, computer games, SMS phone games, a far broader range of exposure to esoteric beliefs through the Internet and films, and television shows are seen as contributing factors to such new beliefs in the mystical and paranormal (Clark, 2002; Mowen & Carlson, 2003; Preece & Baxter, 2000).
[One example that particularly interests me in that regard? Those television adverts that ask you to type in 
the name of your loved one via SMS and say that they'll tell you whether or not they're 'meant for you' or even cheating on you! In fact, YouTube allows adverts for them:
We allow ads for mobile content services only upon the conditions noted here. Mobile content services include, but are not limited to, sites that promote downloading ringtones, wallpaper, or text messages for predictions, love life advice, news, personality quizzes, or other entertainment services.
How does the phone know that I have to dump him?? It must be beyond the understanding of the natural world as we know it! Pardon me whilst I take this short break to tip over a mobile phone transmission tower for not telling me sooner...]
Where were we?
Oh, a good friend pointed out that after reading Chapter Five of Supersense, how our common mentalistic vocabulary may indeed “lay[s] the foundation for many of the beliefs in both religious and secular supernaturalism“, yet we’re still seeking scientific vocabulary that might help overcome this. For colloquial speech, “mind” is perfectly acceptable; when Sacks, Ramachandran, and other popularisers of neurology speak in language which carries with it centuries of dualistic baggage (implying that mind and brain are the same thing) – is it any wonder that supernatural beliefs are still going strong?
Lindeman, M., & Aarnio, K. (2006). Paranormal beliefs: their dimensionality and correlates European Journal of Personality, 20 (7), 585-602 DOI: 10.1002/per.608
![[Valid RSS]](http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9879/validrsscf0.png "Validate my RSS feed")
{ 3 comments }
Hi Podblack,
This is a question that I have been asked a number of times now. Sex differences are not only scientifically dubious (try getting a biologist to nail down the exact difference!) but morally questionable (for obvious reasons). Nevertheless, we all operate with this category because it seems so obvious. But of course, what we really mean is external secondary sexual characteristics…..
Anyway… I believe that females (as biologically defined) are indeed more inclined (but only as a group) towards intuitive reasoning because of genes. So I agree with my colleague Simon Baron-Cohen on this controversial issue. One consequence according to my theory is a corresponding stronger supersense.
But this is an empirical hypothesis that is testable. So hopefully others will take up the challenge
Bruce
Oh, I’d agree as a group that women are more inclined and that’s what the research seems to say – the mention of Simon Baron-Cohen was one you made on the interview we did, as I recall, along with a mention of the autism research he does? I also recall having a grump about an online survey which had only ‘male/female’ boxes to tick – how often do we have an opportunity to discuss intersex and transgender people in these cases? I’ve yet to find papers on it… something to further figure out!
I have noticed that there is more variety WITHIN a gender than between them – from the research I have, I’ve certainly seen a range of beliefs and contradictions (what people say about creationism, evolution and continental drift, for example – it is apparently possible to believe that all of them are true??), leaving my item on ‘Belief in Aliens’ as possibly the nicest-looking graph with a clear difference between male/female belief, whilst all the others merrily squiggle and cross-over!
Speaking of which, I have to tidy up the index on my dissertation, I’ve still got a few more parts of it to complete – I’d be keen to test more theories on gender differences and belief in the future, but I have to get this degree done first!!
“But this is an empirical hypothesis that is testable. So hopefully others will take up the challenge”
Meh… it is a valid hypothesis, certainly, but not necessarily one that is currently feasible to test. As Podblack points out, the sample noise is enormous when it comes to trying to nail down attitudes within gender boundaries let alone between them.
“Supernatural” is really a redundant term, because anything that manifests itself in our perceived reality is, by virtue of being experienced, a part of the natural order. If we discovered a genuine and fully bona fide vampire somewhere in the future, its existence would simply lead to a reassessment of the natural order, and that vampire would be realised as being a natural element within that order. It would not be “supernatural” but merely a piece of tangible evidence suggesting that we need to rethink certain conclusions that we’ve drawn about our reality.
A common error by non-scientific skeptics is to assume that something is only “real” or “natural” if it can be subjected to empirical investigation. Although this is hypothetically correct, it is often nonsense in practice. The actual extent of the natural world that is currently amenable to our current empirical methods is limited and only a portion is ever likely to be revealed, regardless of how sophisticated we become.
This is compounded by the fact that the manner of “supernatural” hypotheses tend to render them almost impossible to falsify. How do you determine the non-existence of a hypothetically conscious agent like a God or a ghost? i.e. and agent that can choose not to be observed? Or how does one test the existence of Descarte’s Demon? You simply can’t.
The correct response towards such claims then, is to simply say there is insufficient evidence to warrant our accommodation of such views, and there currently seems to be little practical benefit in pursuing them further. Anything else overstates the skeptics case and leaves materialism vulnerable to attack as being dogmatic and prone to similarly unsubstantiated claims, when it isn’t.
Comments on this entry are closed.