= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RedErin comments on Quotes Repository - 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 (87)
This one should help you empathize with other people more.
-Neil Gaiman
I agree with Jiro that the typical mind fallacy is likely a large factor here, but I only see it as affecting the quantity/sophistication of worlds-inside-head, and not the quality that most people have them (I won't go as far as the quote's claim that all people have them, though.). I still agree with the sentiment that it's important to remember that people's inner lives are often much more complex and subjectively rational than we may see from the outside.
This seems like typical mind fallacy. Especially since the quote comes from a writer, who is used to having lots of worlds in his head and may be especially prone to making unwarranted assumptions that his mind is thus typical.
I think this is an uncharitable reading of the purpose of Gaiman's quote. His quote isn't really meant to be a factual claim but an inspirational one.
Now obviously some people will find more inspiration from quotes that express a truth as compared with those that don't. Perhaps you're such a person (I suspect that many people on LW are). At risk of irony, however, it's best not to assume that everyone else is the same as you in that regards.
Evaluating something with an emotional purpose in accordance with its epistemic accuracy (instead of its psychological or poetic force) is likely to lead to an uncharitable reading of many quotes (and rather reinforces the straw vulcan stereotype of rationality).
I interpret his statement as contradicting the typical mind fallacy. He invites us to consider that others' conceptions of the world might be "unimaginable" to us.
Given that his meaning by "worlds" is ambiguous, it seems unfair to claim he is making a mistake; unless you're suggesting that people don't have private thoughts or that you know what Neil Gaiman would and wouldn't find interesting.