Mindkill? It’s allowed to change your mind given new information. While the original issue doesn’t go away, it doesn’t need to be considered in isolation.
Consider this example:
“Your terminally ill aunt disowns her own children—your beloved cousins—over some trivial spat.”
How dare she! (Situation A.)
“Your terminally ill aunt disowns her own children—your beloved cousins—over some trivial spat. Oh, did I mention, it’s you who’ll get the considerable inheritance!”
Oh, that’s kinda nice! (Situation A+B.)
The point being, at that latter point you don’t have to consider A in isolation anymore, even though that ‘issue’ is still present, it’s now only one consideration in a greater whole, and changing your opinion as new information becomes available can just as well be an update, no mindkill.
Even though you still may object to some courses of action on principle, not all such principles need be equally sacred. In your example, ‘democratically elected MPs should be allowed to speak their mind’ can possibly be outweighed by ‘it’s (more) important not to allow populist pandering that threatens to take away important civil liberties’ without committing any error in reasoning.
I don’t think the problem was changing views on new evidence, or even doing it selfishly. I think the problem shminux is referring to is that of deftly, instantly reframing the entire situation, backstory and everything, to make the new view more plausible.
It’s related to that bias/failure mode (forget its name) of thinking that positive traits are all correlated—that if advocate’s position A is good, everything about it must be good, or something to that effect.
deftly, instantly reframing the entire situation, backstory and everything, to make the new view more plausible.
Yes.
It’s related to that bias/failure mode (forget its name) of thinking that positive traits are all correlated—that if advocate’s position A is good, everything about it must be good, or something to that effect.
You probably mean the halo effect, though I don’t think that would quite explain what happened.
that if advocate’s position A is good, everything about it must be good
If you’re valuing e.g. the right to choose really, really highly, then nearly any course of action that supports it may indeed be considered to be good in context, even if you’d object to it in isolation. Killing versus killing to depose of an ‘evil’/misunderstood dictator.
Mindkill? It’s allowed to change your mind given new information. While the original issue doesn’t go away, it doesn’t need to be considered in isolation.
Consider this example:
“Your terminally ill aunt disowns her own children—your beloved cousins—over some trivial spat.”
How dare she! (Situation A.)
“Your terminally ill aunt disowns her own children—your beloved cousins—over some trivial spat. Oh, did I mention, it’s you who’ll get the considerable inheritance!”
Oh, that’s kinda nice! (Situation A+B.)
The point being, at that latter point you don’t have to consider A in isolation anymore, even though that ‘issue’ is still present, it’s now only one consideration in a greater whole, and changing your opinion as new information becomes available can just as well be an update, no mindkill.
Even though you still may object to some courses of action on principle, not all such principles need be equally sacred. In your example, ‘democratically elected MPs should be allowed to speak their mind’ can possibly be outweighed by ‘it’s (more) important not to allow populist pandering that threatens to take away important civil liberties’ without committing any error in reasoning.
I don’t think the problem was changing views on new evidence, or even doing it selfishly. I think the problem shminux is referring to is that of deftly, instantly reframing the entire situation, backstory and everything, to make the new view more plausible.
It’s related to that bias/failure mode (forget its name) of thinking that positive traits are all correlated—that if advocate’s position A is good, everything about it must be good, or something to that effect.
Yes.
You probably mean the halo effect, though I don’t think that would quite explain what happened.
Halo effect.
If you’re valuing e.g. the right to choose really, really highly, then nearly any course of action that supports it may indeed be considered to be good in context, even if you’d object to it in isolation. Killing versus killing to depose of an ‘evil’/misunderstood dictator.