It’s important to distinguish between the goal of communicating with others in ways that feel natural (e.g., without constantly having to back up and fill over inferential gaps), vs. the goal of sharing with others the Good News about rationality.
I think you are talking about the latter, though I’m not 100% sure.
The best way I know of to do that is not to talk about rationality at all… indeed, not to talk about cognition at all. Rather, I talk with people about specific things in the world they consider worth talking about, and I share my thinking about those things with them.
If my thinking about that subject is clear and cogent and well-grounded in observable reality and statistical reasoning, and if it leads me to useful conclusions, then I am demonstrating the usefulness of such thinking; consistently demonstrated usefulness has a way of compelling people, especially if I don’t appear to be trying to convince them of anything.
Conversely, if my thinking about that subject is incoherent or grounded in ideology or doesn’t lead to useful conclusions, then I’m unlikely to be much help (though the conversation might still be useful, for example, if it leads me to a clearer understanding).
Well, yes, but it’s really hard to get away from the need to observe reality if we care about the difference between truths and compelling falsehoods.
Sure, among people with some level of trust or shared theoretical background it’s fine to have proxies for direct observation (like trustworthy reports of observations, or careful speculation grounded in previously accepted theory, or even analogies to other systems generally understood to be similar). Which is, as you say, convenient.
But those proxies tend to break down when talking to “outsiders,” which seemed to be the context. (Though as I said initially, I was not 100% sure of the context.) If an evolutionary biologist tells me that recent genome research shows a particular fact about the evolutionary history of primates, I will have a lot of confidence in that fact, but if I’m talking to a creationist that will cut no ice.
That said: those proxies are also easily abused by “insiders” to promote beliefs that just ain’t so, which is one reason periodically talking to “outsiders” is valuable even if one isn’t convincing them of anything.
It’s also why I prefer to avoid conversations that are just about showing other people that they’re wrong and I’m right. (Which is not to say I always succeed in avoiding them.)
Admittedly, there’s always the option of giving up on demonstrating the benefits of rationality and instead relying on rhetorical techniques for convincing people they ought to be rational. It’s best to use that approach only when I’m “certain” that I’m correct, though.
It’s important to distinguish between the goal of communicating with others in ways that feel natural (e.g., without constantly having to back up and fill over inferential gaps), vs. the goal of sharing with others the Good News about rationality.
That’s a useful distinction, and thee are aspects of both. I’m more personally annoyed with the former, finding it difficult to explain these things in a non-boring/confusing way.
I’d be lying to say that I’m not interested in the latter, but I still find that to be a bit on the creepy side… Though reading through the post again its really mostly talking about that, on the next draft I’ll emphasize the other more.
On your other point when I do that I don’t think the mode of thinking is transferred enough. A lot of times I’ll do that and people will agree, but think that it was just me being insightful. I’d rather have them learn how to do it too.
A lot of times I’ll do that and people will agree, but think that it was just me being insightful. I’d rather have them learn how to do it too.
Sure, that makes sense. That said, IME developing a reputation for being insightful makes it a lot more likely that people will learn from me. Also, practicing transparency helps… that is, getting better over time at describing my thinking in ways people can follow.
Totally agreed. I’d just like a bit of help on that last part of describing it/teaching it well, so that it doesn’t sound too trivial to remember, or too abstract to care about.
Well, here too, concreteness helps. Do you have any specific cases in mind where you’ve attempted to describe your clear thinking about a particular issue, but felt that the result sounded too trivial or too abstract?
Right now the only example I have is your post, about which you’ve gotten a fair amount of feedback from various people… has any of that feedback been helpful along this axis? More generally, if you had to rewrite it to make your thinking more transparent to your readers, would you change anything?
It’s important to distinguish between the goal of communicating with others in ways that feel natural (e.g., without constantly having to back up and fill over inferential gaps), vs. the goal of sharing with others the Good News about rationality.
I think you are talking about the latter, though I’m not 100% sure.
The best way I know of to do that is not to talk about rationality at all… indeed, not to talk about cognition at all. Rather, I talk with people about specific things in the world they consider worth talking about, and I share my thinking about those things with them.
If my thinking about that subject is clear and cogent and well-grounded in observable reality and statistical reasoning, and if it leads me to useful conclusions, then I am demonstrating the usefulness of such thinking; consistently demonstrated usefulness has a way of compelling people, especially if I don’t appear to be trying to convince them of anything.
Conversely, if my thinking about that subject is incoherent or grounded in ideology or doesn’t lead to useful conclusions, then I’m unlikely to be much help (though the conversation might still be useful, for example, if it leads me to a clearer understanding).
Precis: show, don’t tell. Lure by example.
This often requires a real-life test case, which may not be convenient.
Well, yes, but it’s really hard to get away from the need to observe reality if we care about the difference between truths and compelling falsehoods.
Sure, among people with some level of trust or shared theoretical background it’s fine to have proxies for direct observation (like trustworthy reports of observations, or careful speculation grounded in previously accepted theory, or even analogies to other systems generally understood to be similar). Which is, as you say, convenient.
But those proxies tend to break down when talking to “outsiders,” which seemed to be the context. (Though as I said initially, I was not 100% sure of the context.) If an evolutionary biologist tells me that recent genome research shows a particular fact about the evolutionary history of primates, I will have a lot of confidence in that fact, but if I’m talking to a creationist that will cut no ice.
That said: those proxies are also easily abused by “insiders” to promote beliefs that just ain’t so, which is one reason periodically talking to “outsiders” is valuable even if one isn’t convincing them of anything.
It’s also why I prefer to avoid conversations that are just about showing other people that they’re wrong and I’m right. (Which is not to say I always succeed in avoiding them.)
Admittedly, there’s always the option of giving up on demonstrating the benefits of rationality and instead relying on rhetorical techniques for convincing people they ought to be rational. It’s best to use that approach only when I’m “certain” that I’m correct, though.
I’d be lying to say that I’m not interested in the latter, but I still find that to be a bit on the creepy side… Though reading through the post again its really mostly talking about that, on the next draft I’ll emphasize the other more.
On your other point when I do that I don’t think the mode of thinking is transferred enough. A lot of times I’ll do that and people will agree, but think that it was just me being insightful. I’d rather have them learn how to do it too.
Sure, that makes sense. That said, IME developing a reputation for being insightful makes it a lot more likely that people will learn from me. Also, practicing transparency helps… that is, getting better over time at describing my thinking in ways people can follow.
Totally agreed. I’d just like a bit of help on that last part of describing it/teaching it well, so that it doesn’t sound too trivial to remember, or too abstract to care about.
Gotcha.
Well, here too, concreteness helps. Do you have any specific cases in mind where you’ve attempted to describe your clear thinking about a particular issue, but felt that the result sounded too trivial or too abstract?
Right now the only example I have is your post, about which you’ve gotten a fair amount of feedback from various people… has any of that feedback been helpful along this axis? More generally, if you had to rewrite it to make your thinking more transparent to your readers, would you change anything?