cousin_it comments on Some Thoughts Are Too Dangerous For Brains to Think - Less Wrong

15 Post author: WrongBot 13 July 2010 04:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (311)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: cousin_it 14 July 2010 02:35:03PM *  13 points [-]

Anti-PC? Good name, I will use it.

I know my rationality isn't that fragile and I doubt yours is either.

What troubles me is this: your position on the divisive issues is not exactly identical to mine, but I very much doubt that I could sway your position or you could sway mine. Therefore, I'm pretty confident that at least one of us fails at rationality when thinking about these issues. On the other hand, if we were talking about math or computing, I'd be pretty confident that a correct argument would actually be recognized as correct and there would be no room for different "positions". There is only one truth.

We have had some big successes already. (For example, most people here know better than be confused by talk of "free will".) I don't think the anti-PC issue can be resolved by the drawn-out positional war we're waging, because it isn't actually making anyone change their opinions. It's just a barrage of rationalizations from all sides. We need more insight. We need a breakthrough, or maybe several, that would point out the obviously correct way to think about anti-PC issues.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 February 2011 03:01:29AM *  7 points [-]

Anti-PC? Good name

I don't think using this name is a good idea. It has strong political connotations. And while I'm sure many here aren't aware of them or are willing to ignore them, I fear this may not be true:

  • For potential new readers and posters
  • Once the "camps" are firmly established.
Comment author: Blueberry 14 July 2010 04:06:35PM 2 points [-]

your position on the divisive issues is not exactly identical to mine, but I very much doubt that I could sway your position or you could sway mine. Therefore, I'm pretty confident that at least one of us fails at rationality when thinking about these issues. On the other hand, if we were talking about math or computing, I'd be pretty confident that a correct argument would actually be recognized as correct and there would be no room for different "positions". There is only one truth.

But there are many different values. If we can't sway each other's positions, that points to a value difference.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 14 July 2010 04:23:40PM 6 points [-]

If we can't sway each other's positions, that points to a value difference.

If only it was always so. Value is hard to see, so easy to rationalize.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 July 2010 08:35:45PM 4 points [-]

I think it actually is a value difference, just like Blueberry said.

I do not want to participate in nastiness (loosely defined). It's related to my inclination not to engage in malicious gossip. (Folks who know me personally consider it almost weird how uncomfortable I am with bashing people, singly or in groups.) It's not my business to stop other people from doing it, but I just don't want it as part of my life, because it's corrosive and makes me unhappy.

To refine my own position a little bit -- I'm happy to consider anti-PC issues as matters of fact, but I don't like them connotationally, because I don't like speaking ill of people when I can help it. For example, in a conversation with a friend: he says, "Don't you know blacks have a higher crime rate than whites?" I say, "Sure, that's true. But what do you want from me? You want me to say how much I hate my black neighbors? What do you want me to say?"

I don't think that's an issue that argument can dissuade me from; it's my own preference.

Comment author: steven0461 14 July 2010 09:28:00PM 0 points [-]

Asserting group inequalities means speaking more ill of one group of people but less ill of another, so doesn't that cancel out?

Comment author: [deleted] 14 July 2010 09:44:28PM 1 point [-]

I'm not talking about empirical claims, I'm talking about affect. I have zero problem with talking about group inequalities, in themselves.