0 could be a bad thing if either one of the following is true...
It reflects the fact that you haven’t considered a lot of evidence.
You ignored/rationalized substantial evidence that contradicted your fundamental beliefs.
If somebody has had one or more true linvoids, then I can’t accuse them of always ignoring evidence that contradicts their fundamental beliefs.
Very generally speaking… I’m guessing that people with higher linvoids consider a lot of evidence and have a tendency to adjust their beliefs to fit the evidence and not the other way around.
That being said, if I had been raised as a pragmatarian atheist rather than a liberal christian… then perhaps my LQ would be 0 as well. The available evidence would have confirmed, rather than contradicted, my beliefs.
Your example is funny in how it mirrors a comment that I recently posted on this blog entry… Davis on AI capability and motivation. I don’t know if your example counts as a linvoid. Neither of my linvoids were caused by any single event. They were the result of a lot of digging. They sure weren’t epiphanies. This doesn’t mean that a significant event can’t provide a preponderance of evidence… it just means that I’d be a bit hesitant to label any resulting shift in belief as a linvoid.
Anyways, this is my first real attempt at analysis. It just seems like a truism that the more evidence somebody considers… the more likely they are to encounter evidence that contradicts their fundamental beliefs. It also seems like a truism that no two people are going to be equally able to adjust their fundamental beliefs accordingly.
One thing I notice about myself is that I always endeavor to “consume” evidence that my “opponents” throw at me. This is how I became just as familiar with the best anarcho-capitalist arguments for eliminating government as I am with the best liberal arguments for not eliminating governments. If I had only consumed evidence that supported my belief in limited government libertarianism… then I never would have had my second linvoid. So it’s not just the quantity of evidence considered… it’s the quality of evidence that one considers. And by “quality” I mean evidence that challenges your belief.
I posted this survey in a few different forums and the results have been disappointing. You’re really the only person who actually responded in a way that I had hoped for! Most other people either didn’t grasp what I was after… or they did grasp it but preferred not to provide it. In retrospect… perhaps a large part of the problem stems from how I worded it. No surprise there!
I’d be really interested to see how people on this forum would respond to a much better worded survey. Unfortunately… I’m not so great with words and my karma is too low to post articles. If you’d be interested in the results as well… please feel free to improve on my attempt. I’d of course be happy to provide any feedback on any drafts.
0 could be a bad thing if either one of the following is true...
It reflects the fact that you haven’t considered a lot of evidence.
You ignored/rationalized substantial evidence that contradicted your fundamental beliefs.
If somebody has had one or more true linvoids, then I can’t accuse them of always ignoring evidence that contradicts their fundamental beliefs.
Very generally speaking… I’m guessing that people with higher linvoids consider a lot of evidence and have a tendency to adjust their beliefs to fit the evidence and not the other way around.
That being said, if I had been raised as a pragmatarian atheist rather than a liberal christian… then perhaps my LQ would be 0 as well. The available evidence would have confirmed, rather than contradicted, my beliefs.
Your example is funny in how it mirrors a comment that I recently posted on this blog entry… Davis on AI capability and motivation. I don’t know if your example counts as a linvoid. Neither of my linvoids were caused by any single event. They were the result of a lot of digging. They sure weren’t epiphanies. This doesn’t mean that a significant event can’t provide a preponderance of evidence… it just means that I’d be a bit hesitant to label any resulting shift in belief as a linvoid.
Anyways, this is my first real attempt at analysis. It just seems like a truism that the more evidence somebody considers… the more likely they are to encounter evidence that contradicts their fundamental beliefs. It also seems like a truism that no two people are going to be equally able to adjust their fundamental beliefs accordingly.
One thing I notice about myself is that I always endeavor to “consume” evidence that my “opponents” throw at me. This is how I became just as familiar with the best anarcho-capitalist arguments for eliminating government as I am with the best liberal arguments for not eliminating governments. If I had only consumed evidence that supported my belief in limited government libertarianism… then I never would have had my second linvoid. So it’s not just the quantity of evidence considered… it’s the quality of evidence that one considers. And by “quality” I mean evidence that challenges your belief.
I posted this survey in a few different forums and the results have been disappointing. You’re really the only person who actually responded in a way that I had hoped for! Most other people either didn’t grasp what I was after… or they did grasp it but preferred not to provide it. In retrospect… perhaps a large part of the problem stems from how I worded it. No surprise there!
I’d be really interested to see how people on this forum would respond to a much better worded survey. Unfortunately… I’m not so great with words and my karma is too low to post articles. If you’d be interested in the results as well… please feel free to improve on my attempt. I’d of course be happy to provide any feedback on any drafts.