User Comment Replies

Well, fine, but I bet it's still true.

I bet your mother was older than you and had therefore had more time to learn not to do daft things such as keep re-searching the refrigerator from exactly the same angle.

But there is no such thing as a theory of age related psychology* to bring that explanation to mind, and would not have been a very flattering theory to come up with.

*Perhaps there should be.

Guardians of the Truth

Pseudonymous217y50

"The Inquisition thought they had the truth! Clearly this 'truth' business is dangerous."

The Inquisition was not that unusual. Religious and political loyalties tended to be quite entwined, so most states discriminated against believers in the wrong religion, sometimes banning such religions entirely. This naturally led to people carrying on the old (or new) beliefs in secret.

So the Inquisition was empowered to go looking for those secret heretics.

There were large, bloody and religiously inspired wars in Britain, France and Germany, to name but three.

There were none in Spain or Portugal, so perhaps the Inquisition did more good than you think.

-1Rixie12y

This website kinda beats up on Christianity a lot . . . I'm sure that there are plenty of other influental religions to bang on . . .

Avoiding Your Belief's Real Weak Points

Pseudonymous218y140

To do better find someone smart who disagrees with you. He'll do a much better job of questioning your beliefs than you ever will.

Better still, find many such people.

Arandur14y100

That would be why I'm here. :3

Availability

Pseudonymous218y40

I imagine it is a lot easier to avoid an accident than avoid most modern diseases eg cancer. So it make sense to concentrate on the risks you can do most about.

people refuse to buy flood insurance even when it is heavily subsidized and priced far below an actuarially fair value.

How do they know it is heavily subsidized and priced far below an actuarially fair value?

Is it worth going to all the trouble of finding out?

2zorbix3653y

Whilst it is true that it is a lot easier to avoid an accident than a disease, you can probably do more about your risk of dying of disease. For example, you could verse yourself in the symptoms of various diseases; then you would be more likely to know if you caught one. With a lot of diseases, catching it early will vastly increase your odds of surviving. Combine that with the fact that dying of an accident isn't a common cause of death in the first place; and even if you were able to cut your risk of disease death by only one-fifteenth, that would be more than completely eliminating the risk of accidents.

5gwern14y

I don't think they realize this. Recently in my area some flood maps were updated to take account of new data suggesting increased risks, with subsequent increases in the subsidized flood insurance rates. The affected households raised a hue and cry, enlisting senators in their cause, and many got the increases reversed. Nothing in the rhetoric I read suggested that they realized they were already getting a great deal; instead, here and in the Florida articles I read (where the government objected to the remaining insurer increasing rates after recent hurricanes), the unstated assumption seemed to be that the rates were 'unfair' and profitable. A house is hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the disruption to your life if it and its contents are destroyed is profound. In some place like Florida, it may be more likely than not that in your lifetime your house will be damaged or destroyed, especially given the suggestion that global warming will increase the variance of storms (and hence the occurrence of super-hurricanes). I think it is worthwhile!

Belief as Attire

Pseudonymous218y10

Ignorance. I may think I understand their minds, but that does not prove that I do understand their minds.

All you know is that you have a mental model of their minds which seems credible to you. Have you tested this model, and if so, how?

All I am reasonably sure of is that they did not see their act as evil and cowardly. Doubtless the same was true of Jack the Ripper and the Boston Strangler, but that tells me nothing about the differences between them and everyone else. After all, I only think that is true of them is because it seems to be true of most people.

It is really just an assumption.

0pnrjulius13y

That's really an interesting question. What about the ones who really ARE insane psychopaths? Do they think they are doing the right thing, or do they really just not care? I'm inclined toward the latter, actually. I've read some of Stalin's journals, where he says things like "What is efficient is good. What is inefficient is bad." That sounds like he literally doesn't understand what morality MEANS to ordinary, non-psychopathic people.

Bayesian Judo

Pseudonymous218y320

That was cruel. Fun, but cruel.

A woman who had stood nearby, listening to the conversation, said to me gravely, "That was beautiful."

And people wonder why men argue so often.

LESSWRONG
LW

All of Pseudonymous2's Comments + Replies