I think it is mostly hopeless trying to teach rationality to most people.
For example, both of my parents studied Math in university and still have a very firm grip of the fundamentals.
I just got a phone call yesterday from my father in Germany saying: “We saw in the news, that a German tourist couple got killed in a shooting in San Francisco. Will you avoid going out after dark?” When I tried to explain that I won’t update my risk estimates based on any such singular event, he seemed to listen to and understand formally what I said. Anyhow, he was completely unimpressed, finishing the conversation in an even more worried tone: “I see, but you will take care, won’t you?”
Remember, if it’s in the news don’t worry about it. The very definition of news is “something that almost never happens.” When something is so common that it’s no longer news — car crashes, domestic violence — that’s when you should worry about it.
I think not worrying about things in the news needs some fine-tuning—if a war is happening where you live, it will affect your safety level, and it will be in the news.
They’re saying “I love you” in an irrational way. This can hurt because there is no easy way to quibble with the second part and not violate cultural conventions about how to express your acceptance of the first.
This is well-understood by irrationalists. Once in a discussion about the necessity of evidence, I got landed with “But you don’t demand evidence that your wife loves you, right? You just have faith...”
A clever move. Now arguing the point requires me to… deny that I have faith in my wife?
I had a similar discussion with a family member, about the existence of the Christian god, where I received that exact response. My wife was sitting right there. I responded with something along the lines of, “True, but my ‘faith’ in her love is already backed up by evidence, and besides, I have plenty of evidence that she exists. If there was evidence for God and evidence of His love, I would happily put faith in that too.”
But I agree—it definitely caused me to pause to consider a tactful response.
Ah, the old “agree with me or say something rude!” gambit. I wonder if you could turn it around—“what, are you saying you don’t think my wife loves me?”
The error, of course, is that it elides between two meanings of “faith.” You trust your wife because you have (one would hope) spent a great deal of time with her and found her to be honest, concerned about your well-being, &c.
Of course, you might at some point come upon evidence that this is not warranted, and in this case the irrationalists might have a point: it may be more wise to use motivated cognition to convince yourself that she is faithful or still in love with you. Othello can be read as an extended argument for avoiding reasonable conclusions if you know that your reactions are not guaranteed to be reasonable.
You trust your wife because you have (one would hope) spent a great deal of time with her and found her to be honest, concerned about your well-being, &c.
Ah, but you see, that cannot be put into a test tube. And as all of your least educated neighbours know, if you can’t put it into a test tube, it ain’t evidence.
I think it is mostly hopeless trying to teach rationality to most people.
For example, both of my parents studied Math in university and still have a very firm grip of the fundamentals.
I just got a phone call yesterday from my father in Germany saying: “We saw in the news, that a German tourist couple got killed in a shooting in San Francisco. Will you avoid going out after dark?” When I tried to explain that I won’t update my risk estimates based on any such singular event, he seemed to listen to and understand formally what I said. Anyhow, he was completely unimpressed, finishing the conversation in an even more worried tone: “I see, but you will take care, won’t you?”
“don’t worry—that sort of thing is so rare, when it happens, it makes the news!”
Well said! Here’s how Bruce Schneier put it:
Remember, if it’s in the news don’t worry about it. The very definition of news is “something that almost never happens.” When something is so common that it’s no longer news — car crashes, domestic violence — that’s when you should worry about it.
I wrote an essay about the utter irrationality of “stranger danger” based on that quote: http://messymatters.com/strangers
I think not worrying about things in the news needs some fine-tuning—if a war is happening where you live, it will affect your safety level, and it will be in the news.
That’s the canonical response now! Thanks!
Your parents aren’t saying “Please update your estimate of the probability of your violent death, based on this important new evidence.”
The are saying, “I love you.”
This has nothing to do with how rational or irrational they are.
They’re saying “I love you” in an irrational way. This can hurt because there is no easy way to quibble with the second part and not violate cultural conventions about how to express your acceptance of the first.
This is well-understood by irrationalists. Once in a discussion about the necessity of evidence, I got landed with “But you don’t demand evidence that your wife loves you, right? You just have faith...”
A clever move. Now arguing the point requires me to… deny that I have faith in my wife?
‘Why would I need to demand evidence? My wife freely gives me evidence of her love, all the time!’
I had a similar discussion with a family member, about the existence of the Christian god, where I received that exact response. My wife was sitting right there. I responded with something along the lines of, “True, but my ‘faith’ in her love is already backed up by evidence, and besides, I have plenty of evidence that she exists. If there was evidence for God and evidence of His love, I would happily put faith in that too.”
But I agree—it definitely caused me to pause to consider a tactful response.
And the proper name for a wife that doesn’t freely give evidence of her love is an ex-wife!
And for someone who doesn’t require evidence to believe in that love—a stalker!
So religious people are all God’s stalkers?
My reply was in this vein, essentially. But it’s still a sneaky bugger of a question.
See also, “The Riddle of Kyon”.
It was good! I didn’t realize you had other fanfic than HP:MoR.
He has quite a few more. Go look for the sword of good, for example..
Yeah, I should have said I didn’t know there were anymore apart from the ones on LW and HPMOR. Brain fart.
Ah, the old “agree with me or say something rude!” gambit. I wonder if you could turn it around—“what, are you saying you don’t think my wife loves me?”
The error, of course, is that it elides between two meanings of “faith.” You trust your wife because you have (one would hope) spent a great deal of time with her and found her to be honest, concerned about your well-being, &c.
Of course, you might at some point come upon evidence that this is not warranted, and in this case the irrationalists might have a point: it may be more wise to use motivated cognition to convince yourself that she is faithful or still in love with you. Othello can be read as an extended argument for avoiding reasonable conclusions if you know that your reactions are not guaranteed to be reasonable.
Ah, but you see, that cannot be put into a test tube. And as all of your least educated neighbours know, if you can’t put it into a test tube, it ain’t evidence.