= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Andy_McKenzie comments on Rationalist Storybooks: A Challenge - 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 (37)
I've heard this story that we have to teach things to children at a young age in order for them to fully embrace it before, but is there any evidence of this actually happening? Moreover, what's wrong with people opting into being rational?
You probably learned one language (probably English) when you were 1. Maybe you've learned one or more since. If so, how effortful is it to speak one of these later languages compared to your native language? How does the speaking ability of others, who have learned your language later in life, compare to your own?
Now imagine that the habits of subjecting our beliefs to criticism, of examining them from every angle, of seeking the truth with an open mind, were as effortless as speaking your native language. This is what we're trying to do.
I agree with your underlying point, but the way you framed your argument is less convincing because it doesn't coincide with the findings of linguists.
It's not the number of languages you learn, but the age at which you learn them. So a child might learn 4 languages as easily as learn 1. But once childhood is over, no matter how many languages you already know (or don't know), learning more is always difficult.
I was actually speaking of age, rather than number -- if I gave the opposite impression then I must have written my comment poorly.