= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
rabidchicken comments on Plant Seeds of Rationality - 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 (75)
I don't think this is the most pleasant way to be introduced to rationality, but irrational behavior as a teaching device has worked surprisingly often for me.
Most of the rationalists I know are self taught, and the reason they became interested in avoiding bias and fallacies in the first place is almost universally that they got tired of ridiculous arguments with someone else who was using them and began looking for rules that forced thought processes to stay a bit more sane.
Nobody I know appreciates being shown flaws in their own arguments, but if you advocate that we should stop using fireplaces on Christmas eve to protect Santa (for example), then sooner or later most people will come up with a good reason why your argument is irrational. When they come up with the rule on their own and you concede defeat, the rule is marked as a way to win arguments, not a tool other people can use to disprove my own ideas.
And once someone accepts that thoughts can be flawed and knows how to identify them, it is a hard habit to break. Each fundamental idea that helps you think rationally is slightly more easy to accept then the last one, even if actually applying them without help is still difficult.
Assume your subject has encountered common sense ever in their life. Leverage their hindsight bias and confirmation bias to give them the idea that being sensible is the assumed good idea. "People with common sense like us ..." You will even be telling the truth on all levels.
Is this an actual example you used? Who would bother rebutting it?
No, its a horrible example. I would try to be a more convincing under cover rationalist.
What if you are accidentally too persuasive and you convince people of ridiculous things? Do you only use things that seem ridiculous but also seem like you could actually believe them?
I ranted once at my fundie mother about how and why taking the Bible literally constituted deliberate misreading of it and that this was evidence of bad and unclear thinking and was therefore an error of religion. I'm not sure if she was convinced at all, but she's sure never brought up religion with me since. Note that I am in no way a Christian, in fact being completely atheist. I am still unsure if this constituted dark arts. I did, however, intend it to be a seed of the notion that joined-up thinking is not optional.
I have considered the possibility of my strategy backfiring, so I try to choose something I know they would be (relatively) certain to not accept, which also has simple ways you can show it is irrational, and something I do not actually believe (so I do not need to go back and tell them why my original opinion was probably correct after all later on) The Santa clause example might work if you were joking with a friend, but if you are in a more serious situation, something which is less obviously a trap would work better.
So far, I have not knowingly convinced anyone I know to accept an insane idea, but it is still something to watch out for.