Taylor G. Lunt

I don’t want your rationality. I can supply my own, thank you very much. I want your data. If you spot a logical error in my thinking, then please point it out. But short of that, among mostly-rational people, I think most disagreements come down to a difference of intuitions, which are rooted in a difference in the data people have been exposed to, and instead of presenting a logical counter-argument, you’re better off doing a “Rationalist mind meld” where you share your data. I find myself making this mistake a lot. Let’s say I came across this (fake) comment: > There aren’t really classes in America anymore, because there’s no legal class distinctions and everyone has the same opportunities. And class mobility is very high. They’re wrong and I know it. Maybe my instinct would be to reply like this: > Actually, a lack of a legally enforced class system doesn’t imply there are no classes. There is a lot of wealth inequality in America, and children born to poorer families don’t have the same opportunities as richer families. Class mobility is low in America, and classes are hugely significant. This is some combination of: 1. Asserting what I believe without justifying it. 2. Justifying what I believe based on simple facts everyone in the conversation already knows. 3. Pointing out logical errors (“lack of legally enforced classes doesn’t imply there are no classes”) The problem with this kind of response is that my own beliefs about class were not formed by this kind of logic. My own beliefs about class were largely informed by this Slate Star Codex essay on class, the linked essays about class, and Paul Fussel’s book Class. All this material describes in detail how the different classes act, look, earn their money, and how easy it is to move between classes. I’m expecting the person I’m talking to to believe what I believe about class while having heard almost none of what I’ve heard about class! In the Rationalist community, there’s the concept of a cr