So, wait. You mean, it’s better to make stuff up that you’d expect based on your worldview, because then when someone calls you on it you could change your mind?
If that’s not what you mean, this could use a rewrite.
because then you get calibrated properly, and because then it is far easier for others to tell that you are rationalizing, as the facts are far cheaper to check. I don’t propose you make up what you’d expect, it just naturally tends to happen for most people, and it’d better be producing detectable wrongness. Better for “us”, of course you’d feel stupid.
edit: how can you even interpret it this way? “Read up facts to make sure you are not wrong before posting, not only to persuade.” is in bloody abstract . You write what you think is true, you read up the facts to make sure you aren’t wrong, if you are off, your expertise is too bad or your cognition too motivated, and you are likely to be incorrect.
Other giant positive effect (for the society) happens when you are wrong, and you are the one who has been generating facts from world-model. Someone looks up facts, and then blam, your wrong world-model gets a slap on the nose.
This is where I got that notion.
Yeah, it was sloppy of me to phrase it that way. Sorry about that.
What I see happening instead, is that people have the conclusion that they didn’t make from facts, then they go on fishing for facts to support the conclusion, and if what they believed doesn’t actually follow from facts, they introduce any errors into structure of the argument, where they can be denied all day long. No. You write down why you believed it in the first place, then your errors will be in the facts, then ideally you check if you actually mis remembered the facts, if you did, that makes it likely you believed it wrong in the first place.
The few times I ever seen people change their view online, was when they quickly dumped why they believed something, and then were shown that they believe it for wrong factual knowledge. (excluding few special cases with math where one can demonstrate errors).
And note: I am speaking of elementary domain specific knowledge here. The one that anyone with any expertise about the topic would have. You still aren’t sourcing majority of assumptions you are making about this knowledge, just the assumptions are implicit not explicit, if you can’t get a few explicit ones right from memory then you’re no expert and must study the topic properly before making opinions.
So, wait. You mean, it’s better to make stuff up that you’d expect based on your worldview, because then when someone calls you on it you could change your mind?
If that’s not what you mean, this could use a rewrite.
because then you get calibrated properly, and because then it is far easier for others to tell that you are rationalizing, as the facts are far cheaper to check. I don’t propose you make up what you’d expect, it just naturally tends to happen for most people, and it’d better be producing detectable wrongness. Better for “us”, of course you’d feel stupid.
edit: how can you even interpret it this way? “Read up facts to make sure you are not wrong before posting, not only to persuade.” is in bloody abstract . You write what you think is true, you read up the facts to make sure you aren’t wrong, if you are off, your expertise is too bad or your cognition too motivated, and you are likely to be incorrect.
This is where I got that notion.
Yeah, it was sloppy of me to phrase it that way. Sorry about that.
What I see happening instead, is that people have the conclusion that they didn’t make from facts, then they go on fishing for facts to support the conclusion, and if what they believed doesn’t actually follow from facts, they introduce any errors into structure of the argument, where they can be denied all day long. No. You write down why you believed it in the first place, then your errors will be in the facts, then ideally you check if you actually mis remembered the facts, if you did, that makes it likely you believed it wrong in the first place.
The few times I ever seen people change their view online, was when they quickly dumped why they believed something, and then were shown that they believe it for wrong factual knowledge. (excluding few special cases with math where one can demonstrate errors).
And note: I am speaking of elementary domain specific knowledge here. The one that anyone with any expertise about the topic would have. You still aren’t sourcing majority of assumptions you are making about this knowledge, just the assumptions are implicit not explicit, if you can’t get a few explicit ones right from memory then you’re no expert and must study the topic properly before making opinions.