= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
KnaveOfAllTrades comments on Rationality Quotes from people associated with LessWrong - 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 (62)
If idiots do exist, and you have reason to conclude that someone is an idiot, then you shouldn't deny that conclusion -- at least when you subscribe to an epistemic primacy: that forming true beliefs takes precedence over other priorities.
The quote is suspiciously close to being a specific application of "Don't like reality? Pretend it's different!"
That can be a useful method of learning. Pretend it's different, act accordingly, and observe the results.
That's ... not quite what "framing" means.
This is more to address the common thought process "this person disagrees with me, therefore they are an idiot!"
Even if they aren't very smart, it is better to frame them as someone who isn't very smart rather than a directly derogatory term "idiot."
(Certainly not my criterion, nor that of the LW herd/caravan/flock, a couple stragglers possibly excepted.)
I think you missed a trick here...
That quote summarizes a good amount of material from a CFAR class, and presented in isolation, the intended meaning is not as clear.
The idea is that people are too quick to dismiss people they disagree with as idiots, not really forming accurate beliefs, or even real anticipation controlling beliefs. So, if you find yourself thinking this person you are arguing with is an idiot, you are likely to get more out of the argument by trying to understand where the person is coming from and what their motivations are.
Having spent some time on the 'net I can boast of considerable experience of arguing with idiots.
My experience tells me that it's highly useful to determine whether one you're arguing with is an idiot or not as soon as possible. One reason is that it makes it clear whether the conversation will evolve into an interesting direction or into the kicks-and-giggles direction. It is quite rare for me to take an interest in where a 'net idiot is coming from or what his motivations are -- because there are so many of them.
Oh, and the criteria for idiotism are not what one believes and whether his beliefs match mine. The criteria revolve around ability (or inability) to use basic logic, tendency to hysterics, competency in reading comprehension, and other things like that.
Yes, but fishing out non-idiots from say Reddit's front page is rather futile. Non-idiots tend to flee from idiots anyway, so just go where the refugees generally go to.
LW as a refugee camp... I guess X-D
The term 'idiot' contains a value judgement that a certain person isn't worth arguing with. It's more than just seeing the other person has having an IQ of 70.
Trying to understand the world view of someone with an IQ of 70 might still provide for an interesting conversation.
Except that often it can't be avoided/ is "worth" it if only for status/hierarchy squabbling reasons (i.e. even when the arguments' contents don't matter).
That's why it's not a good idea to think of others as idiots.
Indeed, just as it can be smart to "forget" when you have a terminal condition. The "pretend it's different" from my ancestor comment sometimes works fine from an instrumental rationality perspective, just not from an epistemic one.
Whether someone is worth arguing with is a subjective value judgement.
And given your values you'd ideally arrive at those through some process other than the one you use to judge, say, a new apartment?
I think that trying to understand the worldview of people who are very different from you is often useful.
Trying to explain ideas in a way that you never explained them before can also be useful.
I agree. I hope I didn't give the impression that I didn't. Usefulness belongs to instrumental rationality more so than to epistemic rationality.