= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Identifying bias. A Bayesian analysis of suspicious agreement between beliefs and values. - 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)
Comments (26)
How many beliefs concern propositions which aren't probabilistically correlated with each other, though?
Also, this seems to ignore the possibility of deriving one's values from one's beliefs.
Also, this seems to ignore the possibility that people cannot research everything themselves, and therefore have to trust others to get some of their beliefs, and that if they have reason to distrust someone who happens to be using a true belief, they can justifiably distrust true beliefs. Climate change is extremely convenient for the left to promote leftist policies, to the point where anyone on the right who doesn't know a lot of science would justifiably think "the people who believe in climate change are probably engaged in motivated reasoning".
The possibility (or something closely related) is raised in the section headed "Causes of agreement between political views and factual beliefs" -- it's option (b) in the list near the start of that section. But that option gets dismissed rather rapidly. (Too rapidly, I think.)