SarahC comments on Doublethink (Choosing to be Biased) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (161)
I'm through with truth.
I never had a scientific intuition. In college, I once saw a physics demonstration with a cathode ray tube -- moving a magnet bent the beam of light that showed the path of the electrons. I had never seen electrons before and it occurred to me that I had never really believed in the equations in my physics book; I knew they were the right answers to give on tests, but I wouldn't have expected to see them work.
I'm also missing the ability to estimate. Draw a line on a sheet of paper; put a dot where 75% is. Then check if you got it right. I always get that sort of thing wrong. Arithmetic estimation is even harder. Deciding how to bet in a betting game? Next to impossible.
Whatever mechanism is that matches theory to reality, mine doesn't work very well. Whatever mechanism derives expectations about the world from probability numbers, mine hardly works at all. This is why I actually can double-think. I can see an idea as logical without believing in it.
A literate person cannot look at a sentence without reading it. But a small child, just learning to read, can look at letters on a page without reading, and has to make an extra effort to read them. In the same way, a bad rationalist can see that an idea is true, without believing it. I can read about electromagnetism and still not expect to see the beam in the cathode ray tube bend. I spent ten years or so thinking "Isn't it odd that the best arguments are on the atheist side?" without once wondering whether I should be an atheist.
Should I break down that barrier? I'm not sure. I'd do it if it would allow me to make money, I think. But not if it came at the cost of some kind of screaming Cthulhu horror.
You know what I really wish I had? Team spirit. Absolute group loyalty. Faith. Patriotism. The sense of being in the right. In Hoc Signo Vinces. I have fleeting glimpses of it but it doesn't last. I want it enough that I keep fantasizing about joining the Army because it might work. I always wanted to be a fanatic, and my brain would never do it. But I'm starting to wonder if that's hackable; I'm sure enough sleep deprivation and ritual would do it.
Congratulations. You're just like most humans.
Well, then why does he say self-delusion is impossible? It's not only possible, it's usual.
I wasn't talking about that aspect (although I think he's wrong there also) but just about the aspect of not doing a good job at things like estimating or mapping probabilities to reality.
I think it's really the same thing. Mapping probabilities to reality is sort of the quantitative version of matching degree of belief to amount of evidence.
Possibly taboo self-delusion? I'm not sure that's what he means. Self-delusion in this context seems to mean something closer to deliberately modifying your confidence in a way that isn't based on evidence.
I am under the impression that much of Eliezer Yudkowsky's early sequence posts were writted based on (a) theory and (b) experience with general-artificial-intelligence Internet posters. It's entirely possible that his is a correct deduction only on that weird WEIRD group.