= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JamesCole comments on A social norm against unjustified opinions? - 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 (158)
I get what you're saying, but I don't think that's quite the problem.
The real problem is the social norm that says "you aren't allowed to be critical of someone else's view because everyone has the right to an opinion".
The italicized bit is the problem. I think everyone should have the right to an opinion, but also that everyone should have the right to be able to express criticisms of other's opinions.
(I think the "you can't criticise other's views" thing stems from relativism).
put another way, I think the problem is a norm that says "the right to have an opinion means the right to not have it criticised"
I think this is a good distinction, and anyone somehow trying to shift social norms (perhaps within a subcommunity) might be well-advised to shift the norms in order: First, teach people that others have a right to criticize their opinion; then, teach them that they have no right to an opinion.
"teach them that they have no right to an opinion."
I know people throw the term around (I try not to), but this is maybe the most fascist thing I've seen on this board. They have no right to an opinion? You might want to rephrase this, as many of my opinions are somewhat involuntary.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/you_are_never_e.html
It seems that in this article, Robin is co-defining "opinion" with "belief". This isn't, exactly, incorrect, but I don't think it maps completely onto the common use, which may be causing misunderstanding. If I say "it's my opinion that [insert factual proposition here]", then Robin's remarks certainly apply. But if it's my opinion that chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream is delicious - which is certainly a way people often use the word "opinion" - then in what way might I not be entitled to that? Unless I turn out to be mistaken in my use of the term "chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream", or something, but assume I'm not.
Robin was clear about what he meant by "opinion". From his first paragraph, with emphasis added:
Though I agree that it can cause problems to use "opinion" in an unusual way, even in the context of explicitly stating one's unusual definition, when people are going to quote the conclusion as a slogan out of the clarifying context.
On the other hand, "You are entitled to your utility function but not your epistemology" would not make an effective slogan. (Well maybe, if it has enough "secret knowledge" appeal to motivate people to figure out what it means.)
Thank you. An opinion is a thought. What does it mean to say that you are not entitled to a thought?
In this case, it means that you're not entitled to refuse to change a belief that's been proven wrong.
If you think "everyone likes chocolate ice cream", and I introduce you to my hypothetical friend Bill who doesn't like chocolate ice cream, you're not entitled to still believe that 'everyone' likes chocolate ice cream. You could still believe that 'most people' like chocolate ice cream, but if I was able to come up with a competent survey showing that 51% of people do not like chocolate ice cream, you wouldn't be entitled to that belief, either, unless you could point me to an even more definitive study that agreed with you.
Even the belief "I like chocolate ice cream" could be proven false in some situations - peoples' tastes do change over time, and you could try it one summer and discover that you just don't enjoy it any more.
It also implies that you're supposed to go looking for proof of your claims before you make them - that you're not 'entitled' to have or spread an opinion, but instead must earn the right by doing or referencing research.
(And I agree with the two posters in the other comment-branches who pointed out that it's a poor wording.)
That article is entitled "You Are Never Entitled to Your Opinion" and says:
I don't think Robin really means that people aren't entitled to their opinions. I think what he really means is people aren't allowed to say "I'm entitled to my opinion" - that is, to use that phrase as a defense.
There's a big difference. When people use that defense they don't really mean "I'm entitled to have an opinion", but instead "I'm entitled to express my opinion without having it criticised".
In other words "I'm entitled to my opinion" is really a code for "all opinions are equally valid and thus can't be criticised".
That said, I do think it is valid to say "I am entitled to an opinion" in situations where your right to expression is being attacked.
I'm not saying you always do have a right to freely and fully express yourself. But in situations when you do have some measure of this, it can be unfairly stomped on.
For example, you might be in a business meeting where you should be able to have input on a matter but one person keeps cutting you off.
Or say you're with friends and you're outlining your view on some topic and, though you're able to get your view out there, someone else always responds with personal attacks.
Sometimes people are just trying to shut you down.
I don't see how "I'm entitled to my opinion" is a particularly optimal or meaningful response to these situations. What about "it's unfair not to give me a chance to express my position" in the former situation, and "concluding I'm an asshole because I'm pro-X isn't justified" in the latter?
Right, "opinion" is so overloaded with meaning that in order to determine if the use of "I'm entitle to my opinion" or "You are not entitled to your opinion" is virtuous, one should taboo "opinion", and probably "entitled" as well, and express the thought in way that is specific to the situation, such as in your examples. And of course, having gone through the mental exercise of validating that what you say makes sense, you should give everyone else the benifet of this thought process and actually communicate the alternate form, so they also can tell if it is virtuous.
Agreed, absolutely. I have nothing against hearing about people's half-baked theories - something about the theory or their logic may turn out to be useful, or give me an idea about something else, even if the theory is wrong. But it'd be nice to be able to ask "so why do you think that?" without risking an unpleasant reaction. It might even lead me to figure out that some idea that I would have otherwise dismissed is actually correct!
Most people don't derive their conclusions from reasons. They establish conclusions, then go searching for 'reasons' to cite.
Asking for the reasons for the conclusion, in a way that indicates the conclusion ought to follow from them, is perceived by most people as an attack.
The only way not to risk receiving an unpleasant reaction is to avoid talking to such people.
Yes, but maybe if there was a social norm such that if I asked that and they couldn't answer, they would take the social-status hit, instead of me, they wouldn't act that way.
Social pressure is pretty much the only thing that can force normal people to acknowledge failures of rationality, in my experience. In a milieu in which a rationalization of that failure will be accepted or even merely tolerated, they'll short-circuit directly to explaining the failure away rather than forcing themselves to acknowledge the problem.
Yeah, it'd be nice, but it's probably not going to happen.
Yes, I was giving people too much credit again, wasn't I?
It took me years to even recognize that I was doing that, and I still haven't managed to stop completely.
One obstacle: as long as they aren't expected to produce obvious results to meet your expectations, people really, really like being given too much credit. And they really, really dislike being given precisely enough credit when they're nothing special, even if it lets them off the hook.
Many of my social 'problems' began once I recognized that other people didn't think like I did, and were usually profoundly stupid. That's not a recognition that lends itself to frictionless interaction with others.
This little tidbit highlights so much of what's wrong with this community:
"Many of my social 'problems' began once I recognized that other people didn't think like I did, and were usually profoundly stupid. That's not a recognition that lends itself to frictionless interaction with others."
You'd think a specimen of your gargantuan brainpower would have the social intelligence to handily conceal your disdain for the commonfolk. Perhaps it's some sort of signaling?
I think you're underestimating the degree of social intelligence required. To pull that off while still keeping the rationalistic habits that such people find offensive, you'd have to:
You'd also probably have to at least to some degree integrate the idea that it's 'okay' (not correct, just acceptable) to be irrational into your general thought process, to avoid unintentional signaling that you think poorly of them. If anything, irrational people are more likely to notice such subtle signals, since so much of their communication is based on them.
I agree here: Reading stuff like this totally makes me cringe. I don't know why people of above average intelligence want to make everyone else feel like useless proles, but it seems pretty rampant. Some humility is probably a blessing here, I mean, as frustrating as it is to deal with the 'profoundly stupid', at least you yourself aren't profoundly stupid.
Of course, they probably think given the same start the 'profoundly stupid' person was given, they would have made the best of it and would be just as much of a genius as they are currently.
It's a difficult realization, when you become aware you're more intelligent then average, to be dropped into the pool with a lot of other smart people and realize you really aren't that special. I mean, in a world of some six billion odd, if you are a one-in-a-million genius, that still means you likely aren't in the top hundred smartest people in the world and probably not in the top thousand. It kind of reminds me of grad school stories I've read, with kids who think they are going to be a total gift to their chosen subject ending up extremely cynical and disappointed.
I think people online like to exaggerate their eccentricity and disregard for societal norms in an effort to appeal to the stereotypes for geniuses. I've met a few real geniuses IRL and I know you can be a genius without being horribly dysfunctional.
Or perhaps simply the recognition that it's sometimes impossible to fluff other people's egos and drive discussion along rational paths at the same time.
If people become offended when you point out weaknesses in their arguments - if they become offended if you even examine them and don't automatically treat their ideas as inherently beyond reproach - there's no way to avoid offending them while also acting rationally. It becomes necessary to choose.
No kidding.
My sanity-saver ... but obviously not rationality-saver... has been to learn to encourage the people I'm dealing with to be more rational, at least when dealing with me. My inner circle of friends is made up almost entirely of people who ask themselves and each other that kind of question just as a matter of course, now, and dissect the answers to make sure they're correct and rational and well-integrated with the other things we know about each other.
That doesn't help at all when I'm trying to think about society in general, though.
And worse, they can cite completely incoherent "reasons", which can be observed by noting that the sequence resulting from repeated application of "what do you mean by X" basically diverges. It reminds me of the value "bottom" in a lifted type system. It denotes an informationless "result", such as that of a non-terminating computation.
I think the way we conduct debating has become stuck in a bad place.
In a debate we want to win quickly, all else equal. But all else is not equal. If you try specifically to be nice, and complement the person on the things they do get right, they have an easier time accepting criticism. In any other social situation than a purely factual debate, would you even think of only being adversarial?
This general climate is the aggregate consequence of every debate we have.
If the approach is: "Everything about you sucks, now CHANGE!" The reception will not be: "Okay, I will change X and Y, but not Z" but: "My opinions shall be immune to criticism"
The internet has enabled this polarization, by making the rationalist crowd (rightfully) more fundamentalist about their epistemic skill.
When you see that logic and evidence works to clear up so much confusion and falsity in your beliefs, you think that you can cure the "sick" person of all his diseases in one fell swoop.
Thinking of the dilemma as one of opposing "rights" also doesn't help: [My right to criticize your beliefs] vs [Your right to have them not be criticized]
When they refuse to listen to your criticism you feel angry about your rights not being respected, rather than sad that you cannot help them towards better beliefs.
Disclaimer: The "You" in this comment is the "We as rationalists"