Thanks. It's a work in progress to try to question the fundamentals of belief, and the discussions it has generated show it's surprising difficult to get intelligent people to question their own cherished beliefs, which in the case of rationalists in theory should not be the case.
it's surprising difficult to get intelligent people to question their own cherished beliefs
Only if your prior was that intelligent people should be easy to get to question their cherished beliefs. The reverse seems to be the case, it is dumb people who know they are dumb who change belief easily. Smart people do not, by and large, change their beliefs, no matter the evidence.
But contrary to the prediction of SCT, such polarization did not abate among subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased. This outcome supported ICT, which predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks.
Raw intelligence, g, or IQ is an impediment to wisdom. It allows us to bully others with complex arguments, Euler math and factiods, which reinforces our intellectual arrogance. Being smart moves you further from Truth, not closer. It is a handicap to be struggled with, not a superpower.
Only if your prior was that intelligent people should be easy to get to question their cherished beliefs.
Not really. Only people who claim to follow logic, reasoning, and scientific thinking who tend to be intelligent, but not all intelligent people do that. These people (the scienticians) should in theory understand that they should conform their beliefs to the data, not the other way around. Science is supposed to be set up to avoid confirmation bias, and that's why the falsification principle that Karl Popper set up was supposed to be so powerful.
But yeah, they disregard all that when their beliefs are sufficiently cherised.
Smart people do not, by and large, change their beliefs, no matter the evidence.
Very interesting. But not at all surprising to me.
Raw intelligence, g, or IQ is an impediment to wisdom.
Weird, I started the article writing precisely about the difference between intelligence and wisdom, but it diverged so much that I changed the topic. I'll finish the article about wisdom later.
It allows us to bully others with complex arguments, Euler math and factiods, which reinforces our intellectual arrogance. Being smart moves you further from Truth, not closer. It is a handicap to be struggled with, not a superpower.
I think this is the case, but it shouldn't be the case. Smart people have the capacity to move closer to the truth, but only by using the right heuristic, and scientific thinking clearly doesn't seem to be sufficient. Intellectual humility is necessary, and accepting the possibility that perhaps they could be wrong, which many don't.
This is a very Motteish, meta contrarian hipster thing to say. This seems absurd, contrary to reason and personal experience. Intelligent people are not right about everything, but I would find it hard to believe they are wrong more often than stupid people.
The upper classes are not entirely devoid of superstition and conspiracy theory, but talking to an average lower class person for even a few minutes generally exposes truly wild reptilian-level beliefs in a senseless mishmash. You are romanticizing retards
but I would find it hard to believe they are wrong more often than stupid people.
That's not what I or the research said. They are less likely to change their beliefs. Whether they are wrong more than less intelligent people depends a great deal on the intellectual fashions of their social class and the subject of debate. If it's something boring, not culture war and technical, they're probably wrong less than dumb people, if it's classifying the sexes of the human species in 2022, they're probably wrong more.
"Rationalists" are just as inclined to use "rationalism" to reinforce the priors they came in with as opposed to challenging them. That's not the only reason, but I consider the whole "movement" silly.
I'm not very familiar with the movement, but after a few interactions with them I feel like they are even more inclined to reject evidence against their beliefs than the average person. I debated Scott Alexander in reddit, and after I pointed out fallacies he committed, he straight up rationalized that making fallacies wasn't a problem, and me pointing them out was too basic and "uninteresting".
He said by pointing out fallacies taught in philosophy 101 I was not responding to his argument, but isn't the whole point of fallacies being taught in philosophy 101 to avoid making them in arguments? A fallacious argument is invalid, so "this is a fallacy" is all the response needed.
I don't see how he could possibly think he is beyond the realm of fallacies.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Thanks. It's a work in progress to try to question the fundamentals of belief, and the discussions it has generated show it's surprising difficult to get intelligent people to question their own cherished beliefs, which in the case of rationalists in theory should not be the case.
Only if your prior was that intelligent people should be easy to get to question their cherished beliefs. The reverse seems to be the case, it is dumb people who know they are dumb who change belief easily. Smart people do not, by and large, change their beliefs, no matter the evidence.
http://culturalcognition.squarespace.com/browse-papers/motivated-numeracy-and-enlightened-self-government.html
Raw intelligence, g, or IQ is an impediment to wisdom. It allows us to bully others with complex arguments, Euler math and factiods, which reinforces our intellectual arrogance. Being smart moves you further from Truth, not closer. It is a handicap to be struggled with, not a superpower.
Not really. Only people who claim to follow logic, reasoning, and scientific thinking who tend to be intelligent, but not all intelligent people do that. These people (the scienticians) should in theory understand that they should conform their beliefs to the data, not the other way around. Science is supposed to be set up to avoid confirmation bias, and that's why the falsification principle that Karl Popper set up was supposed to be so powerful.
But yeah, they disregard all that when their beliefs are sufficiently cherised.
That has been my experience.
Very interesting. But not at all surprising to me.
Weird, I started the article writing precisely about the difference between intelligence and wisdom, but it diverged so much that I changed the topic. I'll finish the article about wisdom later.
I think this is the case, but it shouldn't be the case. Smart people have the capacity to move closer to the truth, but only by using the right heuristic, and scientific thinking clearly doesn't seem to be sufficient. Intellectual humility is necessary, and accepting the possibility that perhaps they could be wrong, which many don't.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a very Motteish, meta contrarian hipster thing to say. This seems absurd, contrary to reason and personal experience. Intelligent people are not right about everything, but I would find it hard to believe they are wrong more often than stupid people.
The upper classes are not entirely devoid of superstition and conspiracy theory, but talking to an average lower class person for even a few minutes generally exposes truly wild reptilian-level beliefs in a senseless mishmash. You are romanticizing retards
That's not what I or the research said. They are less likely to change their beliefs. Whether they are wrong more than less intelligent people depends a great deal on the intellectual fashions of their social class and the subject of debate. If it's something boring, not culture war and technical, they're probably wrong less than dumb people, if it's classifying the sexes of the human species in 2022, they're probably wrong more.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Rationalists" are just as inclined to use "rationalism" to reinforce the priors they came in with as opposed to challenging them. That's not the only reason, but I consider the whole "movement" silly.
I'm not very familiar with the movement, but after a few interactions with them I feel like they are even more inclined to reject evidence against their beliefs than the average person. I debated Scott Alexander in reddit, and after I pointed out fallacies he committed, he straight up rationalized that making fallacies wasn't a problem, and me pointing them out was too basic and "uninteresting".
He said by pointing out fallacies taught in philosophy 101 I was not responding to his argument, but isn't the whole point of fallacies being taught in philosophy 101 to avoid making them in arguments? A fallacious argument is invalid, so "this is a fallacy" is all the response needed.
I don't see how he could possibly think he is beyond the realm of fallacies.
I'd love to see a link to this if you wouldn't mind.
Sorry about the delay.
Here's the subthread: Rationalists are too easily duped.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link