Tetronian comments on The problem with too many rational memes - Less Wrong

80 Post author: Swimmer963 19 January 2012 12:56AM

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

Comments (339)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 18 January 2012 12:44:16AM 54 points [-]

I've seen something like this myself, but I agree with Tordmor about what it is.

In my engineering degree, we had to take some "liberal studies" courses to complement the technical stuff. In one of these we had an irrationalist as a teacher. She would state crazy beliefs like that homeopathy was just as legitimate as "western" medicine, different cultures have different truths, and that science doesn't work in some cultures. Naturally, I challenged some of these ideas, but the response was to just shut down criticism and dodge questions "who's science?", "yes that may be your view, but we are talking about this guy", and so on. I didn't want to just irritate everyone and disrupt the class indefinitely, so the teacher could just ignore criticism until it went away.

At this point we were all strong technical thinkers, so it was very frustrating for everyone, tho everyone else was much more shy about calling out teachers than I. We eventually decided on a model of what was going on: we were being presented with incoherent "facts" that we were forced to memorize and were not allowed to criticize. It was practically a recipe for brainwashing. What it felt like was undermining the precision of thought that we had trained as engineers. It felt like my brain would turn to mush by being forced to integrate these incorrect bits of knowledge.

I don't think that terrible feeling was the result of a clash of memes from opposing belief systems. Engineering is not a belief system; it is a precise art that requires precise thought. It felt like being forced to use your nicely sharpened tools on a task that would destroy them.

So I think that when you notice that feeling, you should stand up for the sanctity of your mind. Even listening to that stuff puts gunk in your gears. You should have called the guy out (politely) for depriving people of the ability to help each other reach a better understanding of things.

Communication must be two-way to be useful. If you disallow criticism, so that only agreement is allowed, the communication ceases to be interactive. You lose the ability to discuss an idea before accepting or rejecting it.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 January 2012 02:44:27AM *  22 points [-]

So I think that when you notice that feeling, you should stand up for the sanctity of your mind.

This is only useful to the extent that you already trust your mind to generate accurate beliefs. It's possible or even likely that relativists get the same "ick" reaction when scientists start talking about universal laws.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 18 January 2012 03:42:27AM 7 points [-]

It's potentially useful even if I don't, if I trust my mind to recognize a good-faith effort at explanation.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 19 January 2012 08:35:49PM *  0 points [-]

Downvoted for confusing "postmodernists" and "relativists" and spreading a common missconception.

Comment author: ahartell 20 January 2012 03:47:20AM 9 points [-]

Could you explain the two of them to me?

Comment author: [deleted] 19 January 2012 08:37:43PM 2 points [-]

Fixed, thanks.

Comment author: lessdazed 24 January 2012 07:55:16PM 1 point [-]

that relativists get the same "ick" reaction

I wonder. An analogy: a relatively uncompartmentalized mind encountering such (potentially instrumentally useful) wrong beliefs suffers from epistemic contagion like water encountering Ice-nine. A honeycombed, extremely inconsistent mind encountering universal laws suffers like a ship with extensive compartment breaches.