= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Open Thread, October 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (477)
Yes it does. I think you need to read it again a couple of times and maybe a few OvercomingBias posts.
It makes no difference to the point whether the religion is dangerous, admirable or even the literally correct and the path to eternal bliss. Thoughts about tribal affiliations typically matter more than abstract reasoning when it comes to this kind of belief.
Maybe I misunderstood. It sounded like you were suggesting that theists be baited with a honeypot (mate or group) that they'd like to be attractive to. The pressure to be liked would cause them to abandon their beliefs. I'm not saying this can't work, but it's a transformational pressure that works equally well in both directions. The person isn't better informed at the end of it, they're just trying to fit in with a group that happens to be more accurate.
(If atheism highly correlated with sexiness, maybe this would pull more people out of religion than in, but, in fact, religions are better at being organized into tribes with status anyway)
But, I think, given your response, that I've misread you. Can you correct me?
It'd work, sure. Doesn't sound like a good use of my time.
Your statements have the implied premise that having true beliefs raises the sanity line even if the process of reaching those beliefs is not correlated with the correctness of the beliefs.
I prefer "raising the sanity line" to refer to increased usage of processes correlated with creating correct beliefs. Your hostile reaction to this understanding doesn't exactly advance the ball on figuring out how to actually achieve either goal.
I didn't use that premise. But I suppose it could be true anyway.
Given the context, I understood you to be saying that way to persuade theists was to demonstrate that atheists have higher social status. Regardless of the sociological truth of that assertion, we both know that "high-status" is not correlated with "correct beliefs."
Did I misunderstand you?
I said something kind of similar to that so I'll accept it for the sake of the argument without implying any endorsement of the claim.
I actually doubt this is true, that is there probably is such a correlation---the world is unfair like that. But putting that aside even if I assume the claims you make in the parent are true it still doesn't mean I had any particular premise (or conclusion) about the sanity line.
I think you resolved the ambiguous 'this' in palladias's comment in a different direction.
Yeah, but probably it's a very weak one.