= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis 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)
Having your beliefs converge on the truth is the desired outcome.
Values don't have a truthiness property. If your beliefs and your values converge, something else is going on.
Since you were talking about values in a political context, I assumed they were political values, which usually presuppose some facts. Policies are rarely preferred entirely deontologically.
Do you have specific examples of the values you were referring to?
Policies aren't values. Values are those things which cause an individual to choose which policies to support.
That's not helping me at all.
I know the fact value distinction. I'm asking for specific examples so I can understand how you personally apply that.
In order to help you, I have to know what you need help doing.
You suggested political values (which I'm re-interpreting as either "value" or "policy preference") presuppose facts. I think our definition of "value" must diverge if that is what you think is the case, and assume you are referring to policy preferences instead.
I'm not sure what you're asking for examples of, but here are some of my values:
Honesty. Correctness. Efficiency.
Here are some of my policy preferences:
Free speech (including lies or simple wrongness). Bodily autonomy (including abortion, drug usage, and sexuality). Market autonomy (that is, what is commonly referred to as capitalism).
The underlying axiom underneath my policy preferences is autonomy and self-responsibility. My central personal value is integrity.