Instead of assuming, as the linked post does, that “I am right and those loonies are wrong”, consider answering the question in the link, when applied to oneself:
“What if you got irrefutable proof that the Earth was round? You’d lose all your friends. Could you walk away from this culture you helped create?”
Say
“What if I got irrefutable proof that [my belief X] contradicts evidence? I’d lose all my friends believing X. Could I walk away from this culture I helped create?”
where X can be “left-wing political values” or “Bayesian rationality” or “freedom of choice” or… you name a belief you hold dear and invested a lot of effort to create a group around.
It’s very interesting to read that, because i had the exactly opposite reaction: What if I got irrefutable proof that [my belief X] contradicts evidence? I’d NOT lose all my friends believing X. what’s wrong with them, that their friendships depend on believing X?
my beliefs are idiosyncratic enough that i never met a person that i don’t disagree with on something substantial. and yet, i have friends. maybe it’s because i didn’t invest lot of effort to create groups around believes?
now i wonder how much i typical-mind other people in regard to that question, because i expect that most people will not lose all their friends over that. especially not “real” friends.
i feel there is some way i still failing on ITT here, but i can’t grasp exactly where.
I guess it depends on the emotional investment of the person on their beliefs. Most people are sane and practical. Beliefs don’t really mean much to them personally when compared to the functions of a social support structure. This is basically people taking the social dynamics happening in a social group founded on certain beliefs at face value. The actual social interactions are not actually dependent on the specifics of the beliefs themselves. That’s why you see the echo chamber effect regardless of the beliefs themselves.
Instead of assuming, as the linked post does, that “I am right and those loonies are wrong”, consider answering the question in the link, when applied to oneself:
Say
“What if I got irrefutable proof that [my belief X] contradicts evidence? I’d lose all my friends believing X. Could I walk away from this culture I helped create?”
where X can be “left-wing political values” or “Bayesian rationality” or “freedom of choice” or… you name a belief you hold dear and invested a lot of effort to create a group around.
It’s very interesting to read that, because i had the exactly opposite reaction:
What if I got irrefutable proof that [my belief X] contradicts evidence? I’d NOT lose all my friends believing X. what’s wrong with them, that their friendships depend on believing X?
my beliefs are idiosyncratic enough that i never met a person that i don’t disagree with on something substantial. and yet, i have friends. maybe it’s because i didn’t invest lot of effort to create groups around believes?
now i wonder how much i typical-mind other people in regard to that question, because i expect that most people will not lose all their friends over that. especially not “real” friends.
i feel there is some way i still failing on ITT here, but i can’t grasp exactly where.
I guess it depends on the emotional investment of the person on their beliefs. Most people are sane and practical. Beliefs don’t really mean much to them personally when compared to the functions of a social support structure. This is basically people taking the social dynamics happening in a social group founded on certain beliefs at face value. The actual social interactions are not actually dependent on the specifics of the beliefs themselves. That’s why you see the echo chamber effect regardless of the beliefs themselves.