= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jonathan_Graehl comments on Some Thoughts Are Too Dangerous For Brains to Think - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (311)
I am grouping together "everything that goes into your brain," which includes lots and lots of stuff, most of it unconscious. See research on priming, for example.
This argument is explicitly about encouraging people to justify ignoring relevant data about reality. It is, I recognize, an extremely dangerous proposition, of exactly the sort I am warning against!
At risk of making a fully general counterargument, I think it's telling that a number of commenters, yourself included, have all but said that this post is too dangerous.
These are not just people dismissing this as a bad idea (which would have encouraged me to do the same), these are people are worrying about a dangerous idea. I'm more convinced I'm right than I was when I wrote the post.
It doesn't make you right. It just makes them as wrong (or lazy) as you.
If you feel afraid that incorporating a belief would change your values, that's fine. It's understandable that you won't then dispassionately weigh the evidence for it; perhaps you'll bring a motivated skepticism to bear on the scary belief. If it's important enough that you care, then the effort is justified.
However, fighting to protect your cherished belief is going to lead to a biased evaluation of evidence, so refusing to engage the scary arguments is just a more extreme and honest version of trying to refute them.
I'd justify both practices situationally: considering the chance you weigh the evidence dispassionately but get the answer quite wrong (even your confidence estimation is off), you can err on the side of caution in protecting your most cherished values. That is, your objective function isn't just to have the best Bayesian-rational track record.