Annoyance comments on Intelligence enhancement as existential risk mitigation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (198)
Logical fallacy: stating a contingent proposition as a universal principle.
"sharp people still distinguish themselves by not assuming more than needed to keep the conversation going"
Sometimes the conversation shouldn't be permitted to continue.
Are we looking to facilitate social interaction, or use rational argument to discover truth? The two are often, even usually, incompatible.
An interesting claim, please explain why you believe this to be true?
The two are compatible only when the preferred social feedback standards match the standards of rational thought. All other social standards necessarily come into conflict. Thus, all else being equal, a randomly-chosen standard is quite unlikely to be compatible with rationality.
In actual groups, the standards aren't chosen randomly. But humans being what they are, they usually involve primate social dynamics and associational reasoning, neither of which lend themselves to the search for truth. Generally they involve social/political 'games' and power struggles.