You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Prismattic comments on 9/11 as mindkiller - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: NancyLebovitz 12 September 2011 05:44PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (111)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Prismattic 13 September 2011 04:04:19AM 2 points [-]

I really don't think this is the place to relitigate the Iraq War, but for the record, there were people opposing the war for reasons that were a)not easily compressed into slogans and b)to a greater or lesser degree validated by the evidence. For my part, I opposed the Iraq war despite overestimating the probability that Iraq had functional "weapons of mass destruction" (I mean chemical and biological here, and the former really shouldn't be considered WMD, but such is the terminology) because I expected that it would produce regional geopolitical chaos afterward. At the time, I underestimated the amount of sectarian conflict and (so far at least) overestimated the degree of Kurdish-Arab ethnic violence. But I was not and am not an expert on the area. Other people really did get this right at the time.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 13 September 2011 04:06:43AM 0 points [-]

Upvoted. I certainly don't disagree with the point that some people got it right. The concern is more that the fraction that got the right objection seems to have been a small fraction of the people opposing entry.

Comment author: Desrtopa 13 September 2011 09:24:06PM *  0 points [-]

I'm not so sure about that. Certainly if I reasoned from the positions of my own immediate social circle, I would get an unrepresentative picture of what people opposed in general believed, but I can say that those who could articulate clear and sensible reasons for not going to war which were vindicated by time were not in short supply, even at anti-war rallies where the actual talking points were more along the lines of "no blood for oil."

Comment author: lessdazed 13 September 2011 09:54:46PM 4 points [-]

those who could articulate clear and sensible reasons for not going to war which were vindicated by time were not in short supply

The main problem with motivated cognition isn't that it fails to find true results, the main problems are that it can't distinguish between true and false and is blind to contrary evidence.