Even slavery?

Elizer, it seems crazy to me to think that we would need a second brain in order to not throw up. Couldn't we just take advantage of the cognitive dissonance architecture built into our brains? I have personal anecdotal evidence where intellectually I remember having disgust reactions that I no longer experience. (You can thank the Internet for most of that). I agree that the arrangement of brains are different between men and women but saying that you need a new seperate brain in order to avoid disgust reactions seems like protesting too much.

When I was a child, my parents took me to church a few times. My brother and I always pitched a fit, so eventually our parents gave up. I would love to say that was the start of my journey and that we did it because the things they tried to teach us didn't make enough sense, but that would be a lie. The real sin that the local church made was to be super boring. So with my sanity waterline firmly unraised, I started my own religion. It had aliens, because aliens were cool. I even got a convert. (You are now free to laugh at middle school me.)

Eventually my friend decided that he didn't want to play the game anymore. (This also included an awkward conversation where he asked if I actually believed what we were talking about.) I remember holding firm to my beliefs because admitting that I was wrong would be embarrassing. This was my first taste of my brain really going crazy and rationalizing 'dangerous thoughts' away. My first steps happened when my brain finally calmed down and let rationality take hold. I realizing that I never wanted to do something like that again and I needed to watch my thoughts.

(I also learned that being a cult leader is super fun. If you ever need priest for the Bayesian Conspiracy I will be there with a funny robe on.)

Having different levels of ask cultures makes so much sense to me now that I've heard about it. It explains why I felt creeped out the first couple of time I heard a woman say, "There's nothing less sexy that a man who asks to kiss you."

If rationalists should win, then we should have a secret signal that lets others know whether we want to be asked or guessed at. So the older I get the more I want some of Yvain's Rakiovik status beads to tell people, "Ask me anything, please criticize me, and don't worry about offending me." On the Internet, maybe those 'how to treat me' labels go in my profile?

Whenever I start to get angry and defensive, that's a sign that I'm probably rationalizing.

If I notice, I try to remind myself that humans have a hard time changing their minds when angry. Then I try to take myself out of the situation and calm down. Only then do I try to start gathering evidence to see if I was right or wrong.

My source on 'anger makes changing your mind harder' was 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'. I have not been able to find a psychology experiment to back me up on that, but it has seemed to work out for me in real life. It suggests that, if you think someone else is rationalizing, then the first step to changing their mind is to get them to be calm. It also seems to suggest that calming yourself down and distancing yourself from whatever generated the rationalization (a fight, a peer group, your parents, etc.) is what you need to do to work through a possible rationalization.

devoid of perverse incentives

Not so, you're better of improving in small increments than doing the best you can immediately.

I wondered if this bias is really a manifestation of holding two contradictory ideas (a la belief in belief in belief). I wonder because, when past me was making this exact mistake, I notice that it tended to be a case of having a wide range of possible skill rank coupled with a low desire for accuracy.

If I think that my IQ is between 100 and 80 then I can have it both ways. I don't know that for sure, so I can brag: "Oh my IQ is somewhere below 100." because there is still a chance that their IQ is 100. However, if I am bout to be presented with an IQ test, I am tempted to be humble and say 80, because the test is probably going to prove me wrong in a positive way. That way I get to seem humble and smart, rather than overconfident and dumb.

Why are we surprised that the subjects were still trying to act is high status ways when they weren't being watched? This isn't like an experiment where I'm more likely to steal a candy bar if I'm anonymous. My reward for acting high status when no one is watching, is that I get to think of myself as a high status actor even when other people aren't watching. I always have an audience of at least one person. myself.

If rhetoric is the dark arts, then rationalists need a defense against the dark arts.

I've always seem debates as a missed opportunity for rationality training/testing. Not for debaters, but for the audience.

When you have two people cleverly arguing for an answer, that is an opportunity for the audience to see if they can avoid being suckered in. To keep things interesting, you could randomize the debate so that one, bother, or neither debater is telling the truth. (Or course in the toughest debates, the debaters are both partially true and the audience needs to find out what is the real answer.) And if we want to keep the students from compartmentalizing what they have learned, we probably need to make the debates a mix of real world and abstract debates. We might also have easy, medium, and hard difficulty debates, but you don't tell the audience beforehand.

I think that this would be useful thing, because lots of place already have debate clubs and public debates. All we would need to have an audience game running in the background.

I think that the most helpful part of the lesson would come after the debate and after the audience has been scored on their confidence intervals. If we can get the debaters to explain the rhetorical tricks they used, so the audience can recognize them in the future and hopefully not fall for them a second time.