Animals also hold beliefs and there are some aspects that underly the formation of beliefs which are shared with other animal species, namely the relationship between causality, predictability and utility of beliefs

An Evolutionary Approach to the Adaptive Value of Belief. Anabela Pinto. Chapter in Evolutionary Psychology Meets Social Neuroscience, June 14th 2021. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.97538

Abstract: The word “belief” evokes concepts such as religious or political beliefs, however there is more to belief than cultural aspects. The formation of beliefs depends on information acquired through subjective sampling and informants. Recent developments in the study of animal cognition suggest that animals also hold beliefs and there are some aspects that underly the formation of beliefs which are shared with other animal species, namely the relationship between causality, predictability and utility of beliefs. This review explores the biological roots of belief formation and suggests explanations for how evolution shaped the mind to harbour complex concepts based on linguistic structures held by humans. Furthermore, it suggests that beliefs are shaped by the type and process of information acquisition which progresses through three levels of complexity.

Keywords: Biology of beliefutility of beliefsacquisition of information meaning causality predictability utility bias

5. The adaptive value of beliefs

Thinkers, scientists and philosophers reach their own conclusions through methodological approaches specific to their field of expertise. In the process, they innovate, discover new methodologies, suggest theories. In summary, they gain insights into the problems they are addressing. When creating testable hypotheses, they make assumptions held as true, testing them for inconsistencies, flaws, mistakes, illogicality, etc. Hopefully, after a certain amount of time and painstaking testing, some of these assumptions, become a ‘truth’ in the mind of the thinker and her followers even though it is only a hypothesis. This truth will only survive until new evidence refutes it. A new paradigm replaces the former and the cycle restarts. This paradigm shift was thoroughly discussed by the American philosopher and physicist Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Many of our present social and personal beliefs result from cultural inheritance, our reliance on other people and sources we trust. Our survival depends on a large number of “specialised believers” telling us what to think.

We believe in the insights of others that preceded us and adopt them as truths. The teachings of the Buddha and the Middle Eastern religions, the insights of Classical Greek philosophers about the mind and nature, the discoveries of the Enlightenment and the progress of the industrial revolution, all are examples of personal insights that spread in space and time. Some insights are independently arrived at in different cultures and time frames, their common aspects suggesting that they may be intuitive across humankind. Similar social norms and recommendations based on an awareness of human nature that ensure that social order is upheld are found in tribal societies that never had contact with each other. Some of these rules have deep roots in biology, such as those aimed at controlling female behaviour to ensure the paternity of the offspring. Many of these norms passed on from generation to generation become enshrined in our present cultural norms and are still held as unquestionable dogmas. Similarly, questioning religious and scientific dogmas is still frowned upon by members of the groups that hold such doctrines. Individuals become emotionally attached to such beliefs and express anxiety and defensive reactions when such beliefs are challenged. This begs the question by which processes do beliefs operate to induce such strong emotional attachment?

There are aspects of the content of the belief that tap deeply into our biology [1]. When the information content of a belief aligns in some way with processes that provide survival strategies, that information perceived as meaningful is ardently protected and any challenge to its truth is aggressively repelled.

Which attributes make up the mind is much debated; however, their common features include the integration of a sensorial mechanism which contributes to make sense of an individual’s external and internal world. Whether or not the individual is conscious of that sense or meaning is irrelevant to definition, since proving presence of awareness in most animals empirically is impossible due its subjective nature. In the Descent of Man, Darwin laid out the case for believing that the difference between the minds of humans and other animals was ‘certainly one of degree and not of kind’.

There are at least four basic conditions that make a belief meaningful. First the belief must offer an explanation for causal events, secondly it must offer a sense of predictability, thirdly, the information received must be reliable and correspond to what is believed to be fact and finally, that belief must have some utility providing survival advantages [40]. But before each one of these conditions is addressed, it is necessary to understand the notion of meaning.

5.1 A biological approach to the concept of meaning

The concept of meaning can be approached through a philosophical point of view such as ‘what is the meaning of life’, a psychological cognitive approach, such as ‘what you are telling me makes no sense in my mind’ and through a linguistic approach which begs for definitions such as in ‘what is the meaning of this word?’. The linguistic description of meaning plays an important role in communication and spread of beliefs. A sound, a word, a sentence, all have meaning when they contribute to the comprehension of the message. But comprehension or understanding is also a function of the subjective experiences of the receiver. If I say “table” it induces different mental images in the receiver. It can be a word that simply categorises objects with four legs and a surface high enough to allow our legs under it. But there are many variations of the concept table. Is it in wood or metal and glass? Is it unassuming with straight lines or convolutedly decorated with arabesques? The word table may confer a limited number of characteristics that are common to most people that have experienced the shape and function of furniture but its meaning varies accordingly to function. Is it a dining table, a coffee table or a desk? Whereas descriptive words for objects may be easy to define by just pointing at it or simply describing its function, abstract concepts may have different meanings to different people. For example, what is the meaning of the concept of freedom of speech? Does it mean I can say whatever I feel like or does it encompass a certain level of censorship to prevent incitement to harm others? What is the meaning of friendship? Does it require unconditional loyalty or does it give room for compassionate lies?

Frequently, what gives meaning to some of these abstract concepts is the level of emotion associated with them. People who believe in freedom, or God, or homoeopathy may feel threatened when their beliefs are challenged because such beliefs define the individual, her nature, his cultural identification, her expectations. Holding strongly to beliefs provides a sense of security and predictability. Such emotions are defined by neurological processes that transduce the sound of words, to their meaning and to their emotional valence; e.g. whereas to some people the word spider evokes fear and the word mouse evokes of cuteness, to others the word mouse may evoke feelings of fear and anxiety. A thing has meaning when its description aligns with our preconceived mental models. If I am learning statistics, a t-test only has meaning if I have a prior knowledge of means and other arithmetic calculations. Asking someone to do a t-test on a set of numbers without previous understating of basic concepts, renders the requirement meaningless. Furthermore, it may induce a state of anxiety due to acknowledgement of ignorance about that subject.

The informational content of a message acquires meaning, when it is compared with a mental database of previously learnt units of knowledge and it aligns or provides incremental increases to that knowledge. It follows that meaningful information is more useful than meaningless information. It functions as a tool of survival, based on which we can induce and deduce further knowledge. It is therefore reasonable to assume that an emotional connection between pieces of meaningful information is formed. On the other hand, meaningless information triggers a sense of discomfort and rejection. Meaningful information comes associated with an emotional protective layer to challenge. This explains the strong tendency to confirmation bias and rejection of new sources of knowledge that disconfirms our beliefs.

Individuals develop an emotional attachment to familiar information to the point of suffering great anxiety when that information is deemed false.

Festinger [41] defined meaning as the perception of coherence between one’s beliefs and the real world. “When these things align, we are left with the sense that the world is ordered, controlled, and understandable. When this coherence is disrupted, however, meaning is threatened and we feel distressed and anxious as a result”.

The sense of meaning could then be seen as an adaptive feature derived and supporting beliefs. Adaptive beliefs are those which contain information that contribute to individual survival. A belief is adaptive if the information about what caused an event is reliable, predictable and useful. Beliefs shaped in this context are very likely to be strong which means, they are upheld in the mind with vehemency and any challenge to the belief is perceived as a threat to constancy. Some mental processes are common across species because they are built on neural structures that have roots in common ancestors. Perhaps the most primitive processes are those that refer to identifying the causes of what happens around oneself. The next step consists in an ability to predict future events and prediction can only be successful if it relies on the accuracy and reliability of previously stored information.

5.2 Causality: understanding causes and sequences of events

As discussed above the establishment of associations between cause and effect is perhaps the most ancient form of learning. Such associations provide the organisms with opportunities to test and improve its tactics during the acquisition of resources essential for their survival. Beliefs about the cause of events are perhaps one of the most important factors for survival. When we know what caused an event, we can somehow predict the outcome next time a similar cause is enacted. The concept of causality is coupled with the perception of agency. An agent is a living or inanimate cause which triggers an event, but very often humans attribute intentionality to the agent.

Detection of the cause-effect association is quite powerful and the motivation to find an explanation for the cause sometimes disregards rational thinking. If the explanation satisfies, then it is likely to be promptly accepted as true.

Explanation of causes are often associated with the presence of an agent. In humans, when the cause is unknown because there is no direct observation of the causal event, there is a tendency to create an invisible agent and attribute human characteristics such as intentionality. This is an important component of magical thinking and is the origin of animistic religions which created a backcloth to religions with deities. Animism attributes intentionality to forces of nature without anthropomorphic representations of entities. In animism, the believer appeals to the forces and energy of nature. They refer to the spirit of the elements such as the wind, the water, the earth as if they were fuzzy undelimited agents with consciousness and aims. Religion with gods is built on this principle where the agent is no more the forces of nature, but some invisible figure that concentrates those forces. These agents can be represented as animals whose characteristics identify with the natural phenomenon or humans.

The assumption that we are hardwired to discern relationship between cause and effect induces us to pay more attention to events that coincide, or are salient especially when they support our beliefs, thus reinforcing confirmation bias and often supporting beliefs in the paranormal.

5.3 Predictability

Assuming predictability is a strategy for coping with uncertainty. It helps in planning future decision making. Uncertainty leads to anxiety and stress and, as such, beliefs that promote a false impression of predictability are naturally easier to accept. Observations of animal behaviour and historical narratives have shown evidence that safe environments promote co-operation and trust among the members of a social group, whereas instance of resource shortage and unpredictable social settings are conducive of social instability often expressed in varied forms of aggression [1].

Predictability is intrinsically associated with pattern detection. The perception of patterns, even when they are absent in reality, confers a sense of control. Patternicity equates constancy and repeatability [1].

The perception of patterns and the need for predictability underpin the onset of superstitious behaviours present in humans and animals [42]. A pursuit of predictability is yet more pronounced in situations marked by environmental social instability. For example, studies on political preferences suggested that the way humans perceive insecurity and unpredictable events may have some influence on their political beliefs. Research revealed that helping people imagine they are completely safe from harm can make them (temporarily) hold more liberal views on social issues [43, 44] and that a perception of threat can make liberals lean more towards conservative views [45].

When the information is provided by an informant rather than through subjective sampling, the reliability of the message can vary in levels of accuracy since many factors may corrupt the informational content from the time it leaves the informant and arrives at the receiver. The type and intensity of these modifications affect the reliability of the message and may therefore provide misleading information. The occurrence of ambiguity in the message is frequently interpreted as satisfying the desired goals inducing a belief that the message offers predictions that satisfy their expectations. This process is open to behaviour manipulation. Corrupted informational content may be unintentional, deriving from random mistakes or misperception, but can also be intentional where the informer sends purposefully dishonest signals. Since dishonest signalling is widespread in nature, detection systems have co-evolved to counteract such signals.

Conveying truthful and fake information are processes that promote the survival of individuals but are not without trade-offs. While cheating can be advantageous to individuals that interact only once, it will work against the cheater once the interaction is repeated and detected. Then cheating does not pay anymore. In social groups where most individuals know one another, the cheater may collect immediate rewards but once it is detected, it is promptly punished by elements of the group. However, in human social groups when the cheating is propagated through words that meet the desires and expectations of the receivers, the cheater can get away with his lies for quite a long time. Humans seem to be open to accept lies, as long as they align with their wishful thinking. In evolutionary terms this seems to be a process that would eventually vanish from the population, given its negative impact. However, it is not all negative, for there is also a need to conform with the beliefs of the group as a means of gaining protection.

5.4 Utility

Group membership in mammals is usually established by sharing similar scents. In humans, scent identification is complemented by the sharing similar ideas where thinking like the tribe becomes the equivalent of smelling like the tribe and fitting in the same social group. Similar scents indicate a level of kin relations and, accordingly to kin selection theory based on mathematical models developed by George R. Price [46] and popularised by W.D.Hamilton [47], altruism and cooperation are more prevalent among individuals that share the highest number of genes. This implies that individuals are more likely to protect those who share genes with them, than those who do not.

Likewise, in human societies this rule could be applied to ideas in the sense that those individuals that share the same stances as me are more likely to protect one another. These ideas were popularised by Richard Dawkins [48] who coined the word memes, suggesting that the transmission of information from mind to mind follows similar rules like the transmission of molecular information through genes from parents to offspring.

This convergence towards homogenous ideas inside the group may explain the success of religion, political factions, belief in conspiracy theories, doomsday and other cults, reflecting a process of group cohesion previously regulated by scent similarity. This is reflected by what political scientists call elective affinities—the notion that there is mutual attraction between ‘the structure and contents of belief systems and the underlying needs and motives of individuals and groups who subscribe to them’ [49].

Many beliefs are not derived from personal experience, but from trusted sources or communities. So, giving up those beliefs may threaten ties with the community. When established beliefs have a useful function there is a tendency to conserve them since the sharing of common beliefs promotes group cohesion. On the other hand, homogenous group thinking prevents creativity which may result from a reluctance to conform with established rules. Rebels threaten the cohesion of the group and in order to keep them under control it is necessary to develop punitive mechanisms that discourage deviating from the status quo [50].

Thus, a strategy based on a hierarchical system of policing develops. But this strategy is not exclusive to humans, or mammalian social groups. It is also observed in groups of social insects such as ants and bees. Note that there is a difference between the evolutionary concepts of “strategies” and “tactics”. While strategies refer to a set of behavioural adaptations that evolved over time, tactics refer to the individual actions taken to pursue a strategy [50, 51]. The concept of utility can also be observed in individuals who believe in conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory, however unlikely, represents an identification badge identifying that social group. In human societies the sharing of beliefs plays the same function as scent sharing in kin related animal groups. Common beliefs are the “intellectual scent” that unites a group. Conspiracy theories often offer theories that contradict the prevailing or official narrative of facts or events. They offer alternative explanations that appeal to those who believe they have a reason to distrust mainstream narratives. They usually refer to the existence of some hidden enemy and the individual finds safety in the confinements of their like-minded group. The belief in conspiracy theories relies on faith promoted by group think rather than evidence. The individual then finds a false sense of safety inside these ideological bubbles.

Perhaps one of the most puzzling aspects of beliefs which confer survival utility is the placebo effect which seems to have positive effects in healing of the mind and body. Perhaps one of the main characteristics of this effect is that it is grounded on the human’s tendency to magical thinking and embrace convictions rather than simple beliefs.