That we are unconsciously suggestible to information is a valuable point. Now, this begs the question: why do some people leave cultish beliefs after being raised in them? It seems we are not all equally suggestible in all circumstances. It then seems to me of the greatest importance to discover what prevents or accelerates unconscious validation of information: what circumstances, what character traits? What allows people to un-validate unconsciously validated information?
Note: Some readers might not get the half-joke if I include cosmology and nutritional epidemiology in the above list, so I refrained from doing so
Not to mention belief in the Egyptian god Apophasis.
Avoid discussions that heavily relate to sex and politics, because people tend to switch to full-on tribal-signaling and tribal-propaganda
These topics most of the time are a rational minefield with little to gain. Still, nothing says there isn’t or won’t be a time when it’s worth going there. Maybe there will be a particularly strong incentive, maybe you will be trained enough in rationality so the costs to your sanity will be lower. In any case, there seems to be a risk if all the rational actors leave such important fields to everyone else.
Learn the “establishment” position and the arguments for it before learning the “wake up sheeple” position. On the whole, I think it’s safe to assume establishment positions are better than random the alternatives.
Correction by me to avoid biased word.
Everybody can agree that there were historical situations in which this was the right thing to do, and others in which this was the wrong thing to do. So the question is: how to distinguish them?
The word choice was intentional. Since alternative is a loaded word. People don’t think of an insane’s relatives facebook post when you say “alternative to conventional medical knowledge”.
Everybody can agree that there were historical situations in which this was the right thing to do, and others in which this was the wrong thing to do. So the question is: how to distinguish them?
There obviously were, but in aggregate the establishment opinion is likely the correct one unless you have very good proof that you are surrounded by geniuses which can give you a better take.
Also, please note that I’m calling for “starting with” the establishment view, not limiting yourself to it.
That we are unconsciously suggestible to information is a valuable point. Now, this begs the question: why do some people leave cultish beliefs after being raised in them?
What’s the chance those people still hold a lot of misguided beliefs and leaving the cult took and still takes a great deal of time spent reasoning through the false beliefs they were indoctrinated with.
See first heading, I’m not claiming truth doesn’t win over falsehood in the end (or rather that more probable beliefs don’t win over less probable alternatives), only that significant mental energy must be spend for such a thing to happen, and we can’t do it with every single belief we have.
That we are unconsciously suggestible to information is a valuable point. Now, this begs the question: why do some people leave cultish beliefs after being raised in them? It seems we are not all equally suggestible in all circumstances. It then seems to me of the greatest importance to discover what prevents or accelerates unconscious validation of information: what circumstances, what character traits? What allows people to un-validate unconsciously validated information?
Not to mention belief in the Egyptian god Apophasis.
These topics most of the time are a rational minefield with little to gain. Still, nothing says there isn’t or won’t be a time when it’s worth going there. Maybe there will be a particularly strong incentive, maybe you will be trained enough in rationality so the costs to your sanity will be lower. In any case, there seems to be a risk if all the rational actors leave such important fields to everyone else.
Correction by me to avoid biased word.
Everybody can agree that there were historical situations in which this was the right thing to do, and others in which this was the wrong thing to do. So the question is: how to distinguish them?
The word choice was intentional. Since alternative is a loaded word. People don’t think of an insane’s relatives facebook post when you say “alternative to conventional medical knowledge”.
There obviously were, but in aggregate the establishment opinion is likely the correct one unless you have very good proof that you are surrounded by geniuses which can give you a better take.
Also, please note that I’m calling for “starting with” the establishment view, not limiting yourself to it.
What’s the chance those people still hold a lot of misguided beliefs and leaving the cult took and still takes a great deal of time spent reasoning through the false beliefs they were indoctrinated with.
See first heading, I’m not claiming truth doesn’t win over falsehood in the end (or rather that more probable beliefs don’t win over less probable alternatives), only that significant mental energy must be spend for such a thing to happen, and we can’t do it with every single belief we have.