I mostly think it's too loose a heuristic and that you should dig into more details
Some of the probability questions (many worlds, simulation) are like... ontologically weird enough that I'm not entirely certain it makes sense to assign probabilities to them? It doesn't really feel like they pay rent in anticipated experience?
I'm not sure "speaking the truth even when it's uncomfortable" is the kind of skill it makes sense to describe yourself as "comfortable" with.
I think it's pretty good to keep it in mind that heliocentrism is literally speaking just a change in what coordinate system you use, but it is legitimately a much more convenient coordinate system.
Switch to neuroscience. I think we have an innate “sense of sociality” in our brainstem (or maybe hypothalamus), analogous to how (I claim) fear-of-heights is triggered by an innate brainstem “sense” that we’re standing over a precipice.
I think lately I've noticed how much written text triggers this for me varying a bit over time?
...Does that hold together as a potential explanation for why our universe is so young? Huh.
I think my ideal is to lean into weirdness in a way that doesn't rely on ignorance of normal conventions
For a while I ended up spending a lot of time thinking about specifically the versions of the idea where I couldn't easily tell how true they were... which I suppose I do think is the correct place to be paying attention to?
I think there is rather a lot of soap to be found... but it's very much not something you can find by taking official doctrine as an actual authority.
That does seem likely.
In case it's a helpful data point: lines of reasoning sorta similar to the ones around the infohazard warning seemed to have interesting and intense psychological effects on me one time. It's hard to separate out from other factors, though, and I think it had something to do with the fact that lately I've been spending a lot of time learning to take ideas seriously on an emotional level instead of only an abstract one.