DanielLC comments on What causes people to believe in conspiracy theories? - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Servant 07 May 2011 12:06AM

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

Comments (45)

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

Comment author: DanielLC 08 May 2011 04:08:18AM 2 points [-]

Something more in line with your worldview is more likely. This is the point of a worldview.

Someone whose opinion you respect is more likely to be right. This is the point of respecting people's opinions.

What's the irrational decision-making you're alluding to?

Comment author: Caerbannog 09 May 2011 04:06:52PM 0 points [-]

Your worldview and your choice of people whose opinion to respect don't have to be selected rationally. I would argue, in fact, that a large proportion of people don't choose these rationally.

An alarmingly large fraction of Americans believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, a position that most people here would find irrational. This is a worldview that is most often acquired from one's parents or from respected religious figures. Would such a worldview be considered to be rationally selected?

Other people hold the position that humans evolved from earlier primates over millions of years through evolution by natural selection. Many of these people don't understand evolution well enough to hold it as a rational belief, and they may also have acquired this belief through their parents or other respected figures rather than by a reasoned analysis. I've been asked by someone who accepts evolution: "Wouldn't it be great if humans would evolve wings! That would increase fitness, why doesn't that happen?" [paraphrased]

I think it's not controversial to say that peoples' worldviews and authority figures are not selected rationally.

Comment author: DanielLC 09 May 2011 07:00:42PM 0 points [-]

True, but the way they irrationally found those is what's in error, not using them. This is sort of like having a bad prior and blaming Bayes' Theorem.