= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gleb_Tsipursky comments on Intentionally Raising the Sanity Waterline - 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 (89)
You make a fair comment about the article on polyamory potentially turning off some conservative readers. We will post other articles in the future, of course :-) However, one of our orientations is to help advance the goal of de-stigmatizing polyamory, even though doing so might turn off some conservative readers.
I'm curious on your take about the article not promoting rational thinking about relationships. There is plenty of research cited there about the nature of relationships, poly and non-poly ones alike, and I hope that getting our readers engaged with research on relationships would help promote more rational thinking. What do you think?
Are you trying to promote rationality or de-stigmatize poly? Because those are in conflict. If I wanted to promote X, I would start with the most broadly accessible, least controversial part of X. Or, you know, just talk about X and not a completely unrelated topic Y.
:)
That's a great point :-) As you can see from the diverse posts on the website, we are writing about a wide variety of topics. A rational perspective on relationships is one of several topics.
But your comments are duly noted, and we will be working on another post soon. Thanks for helping incrementally update my beliefs
Take the sentence "Moreover, research on poly relationships show that people with consensual non-monogamous relationships are happier, especially with their sex lives, than those who are in traditional monogamous relationships, and communicate more openly."
"Research" links to no peer reviewed paper. "Happy" links to another mainstream media article. "Communicate more openly" a published paper but that published paper isn't a decent study that compared poly people with nonpoly people but it's about a focus group discussion among poly women.
If you want to get people engaged with research than cite a bunch of papers directly and discuss them.
I notice I'm confused.
In the Intentional Insights article about polyamory, the word "research" links to the following article in Psychology Today that cites a wide variety of research papers. The word "happy" also links to a similar article
We think it's quite appropriate to direct readers to an article that cites many research-based papers, as opposed to citing the papers themselves - it's a pretty efficient goal factoring approach.
Moreover, the large majority of our target audience for the blog posts - people who are early onward in the process of gaining more rational thinking - would be unlikely to read research studies in-depth, and would be much more likely to read articles informed by research studies. So please keep that in mind as you read the Intentional Insights website. Our goal is to raise the sanity waterline by translating complex content for broad audiences.
Part of rationality is not trusting a mainstream media article to accurately represent the state of scientific knowledge. To the extend that you implicitly try to teach that a post titled "Open Relationships Reduce Jealousy? 12 Surprising Facts About Non-Monogamy" is equivalent to peer reviewed research because it includes citations, you aren't raising the sanity waterline.
You are not discussing the arguments for whether or not polyamory raises happiness. The argument in that article is also pretty stupid. Just because a poll that only targeted Swingers shows that the Swingers in that study were more happy than average census takers doesn't mean you can generalize. That's no controlled study setup.
If you actually want to teach rationality than you should teach people not to trust claims made based on non-controlled observational studies. At least I would guess that's what most people on LW would expect from a project that tries to teach rationality.
The other paper towards which you link directly contains the nice phrase: "The research aimed to explore issues around gender in non-monogamous relationships and to explore the potentials of participant-led methods to conduct research into this aspect of women's sexuality with a qualitative, feminist framework."
If you are serious about that, write your next article about why someone who wants to be a rationalist should take research like that seriously.
So your goal isn't to teach critical thinking but do the critical thinking yourself an then give it's results to your audience?
I'm curious, do you believe that the goal of translating complex content for broad audiences is a value-less endeavor? If so, then I accept we have a difference of opinion.
As part of doing so, we believe that raising the sanity waterline requires creating cognitive ease for audiences who do not yet have advanced rational analysis skills. If we disagree, then I accept we have a difference of opinion.
I don't have any issue with someone trying to change beliefs of society. That are many cases where belief change is useful.
On the other hand that's not the same thing as teaching people critical thinking or raising the sanity waterline.
Eliezer counts "...what constitutes evidence and why;" as one of the things of raising the sanity waterline. By teaching people that they should treat uncontrolled surveys and research done in a participant-led, qualitative, feminist framework as good evidence you are part of the problem and not part of the solution as far as raising the sanity waterline goes.
Deciding that you are rational and therefore can see that polyamory should be better respected in society and then using whatever way to convince people whether or not that way has anything to do with rational argument isn't what I consider raising the sanity waterline.
Can you clarify why you believe that such research is unacceptable as a form of Level III evidence? After all, some evidence is better than no evidence for actually changing one's mind. Polyamory research is a very new field, and descriptive studies are pretty much the best there is at this stage. But if you find other relevant research on polyamory that we missed, I would be happy to update my beliefs.
I don't see a good reason to believe that it's representative of all polyamorous people. There's a certain scene that very much values openness but there are other people who live polyamorously and who aren't very open. Just because the feminist who runs the study is herself very open in her communication and interacts with others who are also very open doesn't mean that everybody is.
You also did present it as fact in your article and especially if you are writing for a naive audience telling them about the uncertainty is useful if you want to train critical thinking. Skepticism is a default for critical thinking. If there no evidence either way, than there no evidence.
Feynman held his cargo-cult science speech about reasoning with better quality.
If you also sincerely believe that we should put more weight on science done with an explicit feminist framework that's a position worthy writing an article about because I guess that you are holding a minority position under self-labeled rationalists.
A core question of rationalism is: "Why do we believe what we believe? In this case you don't tell the reader why you think the particular material you reference should make him believe that poly people are happy and open.
I'm curious why you attribute that position to our blog post - that's the opposite of a steel man move. In fact, the Intentional Insights blog post did not make the claim you seem to attribute to it. What we claimed was the following, which I am quoting from the blog post: "research on poly relationships show that people with consensual non-monogamous relationships are happier, especially with their sex lives, than those who are in traditional monogamous relationships, and communicate more openly."
If you have research - any sort of research - demonstrating otherwise, I would be happy to update my beliefs. I think we can agree that the quality of evidence should be the deciding factor :-)
I think the common meaning of the phrase "research shows X" is "research shows X is true". If that's not what you want to argue you can use phrases like "research suggests X".
If the thing you want to teach is evidence based reasoning it would be still useful to explain a naive audience the strength of the evidence.
A post either has mistakes or it doesn't. The point of steelmanning is to change someone's argument to make it better. I'm not denying that it's possible to steelman the claim that polyamory increases happiness or openness but that's not what I care about here. The thing that matter is whether or not this post encourages critical thinking. Using "show" when you mean "suggest" doesn't help for that goal.
That depends, in particular on whether "some evidence" is a representative sample. If the only evidence you see is a selected subset, it might well be worse than no evidence at all.
Good point about a selected subset, I agree. We have tried, in that post, to be representative of the current research on polyamory. If you happen to find contradictory research, I would be happy to update my beliefs.
The belief you ought to update (and reject), based on the evidence that is the almost unanimous comments to your post, is that, regardless of whether polyamory advocacy is rational, it is useful to keep it prominently visible on your site.
That's a fair point, which I accept, and we are working on additional posts. In fact, we just posted one about dual process theory. Do you think that post is better suited for promoting rationality?
In general yes, but you started the OP with arguing that LW has too much jargon. In that post you invent new jargon with "autopilot system" and "intentional system". If I google those terms there are only 4 hits with both and most of them aren't even relevant hits.