It is important to be rational in such cases. But ‘situations where rationality is important’ isn’t the same set as ‘situations that are good didactic tools for rationality’. I mean, this is basically the central point of Politics is the Mind Killer: “What on Earth was the point of choosing this as an example? To rouse the political emotions of the readers and distract them from the main question?”
Charlie Hebdo wasn’t brought up as the topic, it was brought up as an example of a system that could have been demonstrated with a lot less baggage.
The actual discussion here in this thread does not seem to me to have suffered from the relevancy and poignancy of its subject. Do you see it differently, or are you just speaking in generalities that don’t turn out to be true in this case?
I just did a quick review of the entire thread and I would say this post and it s comments helped me reason better about recent emotionally charged events. Among other things:
1) That the Turkish president goes public with the theory that it was Mossad tells me how “mainstream” in what I might call median-rational Muslim countries is a wrong interpretation designed to protect Muslims from what other Muslims are doing in their name.
2) This thread reinforces my belief that staying away from discussions of emotionally charged recent news makes as much sense as not discussing controversial interpretations of quantum mechanics. I look at this discussion and think that things that are emotionally charged are generally quite important, and that it is important to understand them. That the point of learning how to be “lesswrong” includes being less wrong about things we get all heated up about. That, essentially, the idea that tabooing discussion of things that are emotionally charged is a way of tabooing a valuable part of learning to be less wrong .
Great idea asking this question a few weeks after the heat has died down.
What do you think of my conclusions? Is it important to learn how to be less wrong when people are so emotionally involved that their emotions drive them to distortion? Is doing “case studies” like this discussion a way to get there?
staying away from discussions of emotionally charged recent news
That’s a strawman. Nobody argued here that it’s bad to discuss recent news in general.
That, essentially, the idea that tabooing discussion of things that are emotionally charged is a way of tabooing a valuable part of learning to be less wrong .
That’s not what “politics is the mindkiller” advocates. It advocates not using emotionally charged examples to make points that you could make with examples that are less emotionally charged.
If the OP wanted to specifically talk about the issue of the attacks and reasons to think that the official version of this specific event isn’t correct he could have made a threat making an argument why the official story is wrong.
He didn’t. He used it as an example for a larger class of events.
If he wanted to speak about the value in believing conspiracy theories he could have analysed a case like Princes Diana’s death and the reasons for >0.01% believe that she was killed on purpose. The event happened years ago, so the evidence base is a lot better. There are interesting things to be said given how that case progressed.
A case study that likely wouldn’t use the term “real science”.
It is important to be rational in such cases. But ‘situations where rationality is important’ isn’t the same set as ‘situations that are good didactic tools for rationality’. I mean, this is basically the central point of Politics is the Mind Killer: “What on Earth was the point of choosing this as an example? To rouse the political emotions of the readers and distract them from the main question?”
Charlie Hebdo wasn’t brought up as the topic, it was brought up as an example of a system that could have been demonstrated with a lot less baggage.
The actual discussion here in this thread does not seem to me to have suffered from the relevancy and poignancy of its subject. Do you see it differently, or are you just speaking in generalities that don’t turn out to be true in this case?
Do you think the discussion in this thread produced interesting new insight for you, that in general help you reason better about political issues?
I just did a quick review of the entire thread and I would say this post and it s comments helped me reason better about recent emotionally charged events. Among other things:
1) That the Turkish president goes public with the theory that it was Mossad tells me how “mainstream” in what I might call median-rational Muslim countries is a wrong interpretation designed to protect Muslims from what other Muslims are doing in their name.
2) This thread reinforces my belief that staying away from discussions of emotionally charged recent news makes as much sense as not discussing controversial interpretations of quantum mechanics. I look at this discussion and think that things that are emotionally charged are generally quite important, and that it is important to understand them. That the point of learning how to be “lesswrong” includes being less wrong about things we get all heated up about. That, essentially, the idea that tabooing discussion of things that are emotionally charged is a way of tabooing a valuable part of learning to be less wrong .
Great idea asking this question a few weeks after the heat has died down.
What do you think of my conclusions? Is it important to learn how to be less wrong when people are so emotionally involved that their emotions drive them to distortion? Is doing “case studies” like this discussion a way to get there?
I think they are correct.
That’s a strawman. Nobody argued here that it’s bad to discuss recent news in general.
That’s not what “politics is the mindkiller” advocates. It advocates not using emotionally charged examples to make points that you could make with examples that are less emotionally charged.
If the OP wanted to specifically talk about the issue of the attacks and reasons to think that the official version of this specific event isn’t correct he could have made a threat making an argument why the official story is wrong.
He didn’t. He used it as an example for a larger class of events.
If he wanted to speak about the value in believing conspiracy theories he could have analysed a case like Princes Diana’s death and the reasons for >0.01% believe that she was killed on purpose. The event happened years ago, so the evidence base is a lot better. There are interesting things to be said given how that case progressed. A case study that likely wouldn’t use the term “real science”.
yes, it’s a kind of exercise challenge to think rationally on the hot topics.