= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on [Link] Admitting to Bias - 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 (129)
If you want to get a job providing safety equipment for workplaces, you should probably not proclaim that you believe that workplaces are too safe. If you want to get a job as a doctor, you should probably not announce yourself as a believer in Christian Science and faith-healing. If you want to get a job as a Friendly AI researcher, you should probably not declare that you believe any AI that has been blessed by the Pope is assuredly friendly.
The common use of "conservatism" today proudly includes positions that are anti-science; as such, it is unsurprising that scientists might consider affiliation with that label to be evidence of incompetence, unseriousness, or opposition to their field. I do not see a need to introduce the hypothesis of "political bias leftward" when it is quite possible that t he scientists doing this so-called "bias" are merely taking the claimed beliefs of conservatives seriously.
I could make the same case about "liberalism". The difference being that since liberals have more influence in academia, they can actually force most scientists who disagree with them to keep quiet.
I want to see you do this, but unlike many things that people here are overly concerned about, this idea seems right at the heart of the mind-killing part of politics, so it would probably be best to do it outside of LessWrong.
Look at the discussion below this comment. Notice that the people trying to argue the liberal side aren't even bothering to argue that their position is "true", but merely that people should pretend it is for the sake of making people feel good. Call it what you want, it's definitely anti-science.
You may note that in the thread you linked, there is a current unresolved disagreement LITERALLY BETWEEN YOU AND ME. This is clearly a problematic example when it comes to my own learning, and is the exact reason that I was interested in that example being moved outside of LessWrong; perhaps I should have additionally specified that the example would ideally come from outside of LessWrong.
Yes, and do you disagree with the characterization of the argument I gave above?
At least in part.
My primary objection remains that it will be vastly more difficult for me to learn to identify the bias that you are indicating exists if your only examples of it appear to be personal attacks. I don't mean to say that this is what your example is, obviously I only posted one or two comments out of dozens, but my silly little ape brain isn't letting me consider your proposal objectively so I would like it if you could provide a different example.
Given that you seem to be a liberal, what makes you think you won't be equally mind-killed by the other examples?
I often agree with what are labeled as "liberal" positions on many issues. That doesn't mean that anyone who identifies as "liberal" suddenly becomes a staunch friend and ally to me. When I personally am involved in a debate and do not feel that I am communicating my own point well, this is the most emotionally involved state that I regularly get into--I tend not to feel so strongly about debates between other people.
I certainly agree that I will have some degree of problems coping with a point that "attacks liberals," but it seems like a pretty weird hypothesis to say that I will have an equal degree of difficulty seeing biases even in friends as I do in myself. Rational is far, right? And anything that involves me specifically puts me in near mode more than anything else possibly can.
Mind-killed? Yes. I will have to deal with that, I want to deal with that, that's why I asked for examples. But equally? No way.