“Are you wondering what you’re supposed to think right now?”
You probably haven’t seen the last of this sort of thing, in one form or another.
Many around here, including the founders of this site and it’s sister, insist on strict rules about what you’re allowed to believe, and in some cases even what you’re allowed to think about. Despite once having very strong reactions against this kind of rule (rejection of them was almost a fundamental starting point), I think they’re essentially right.
Thanks for the links, though I wonder if the goal of those posts was to present an idea that can then be “assimilated” or “owned” as well. In other words, I’m guessing that Robin and Eliezer’s hopes were not to produce an internal dialogue when asked about opinions, for example, e.g. “Robin Hanson says that I can’t have opinions, therefore that’s what I’m supposed to say/think.” Rather, I’d propose they are expressing a bold statement which has resulted from considering the issue and would prefer that I think through their reasoning/defense and accept the conclusion as my own.
Does that make sense? I definitely hear the point, but am trying to paint it in a slightly different light. I might not quite be getting the essence of your larger paragraph from the linked articles, though.
Yes, that’s a good way to think about it, and I should really have emphasized something like that in my original comment after making the initial point.
I wouldn’t normally do this, but I suspect this whole idea is an ugh field, and if so it should be dragged out and looked at.
Please could people downvoting, or even if you felt like downvoting but didn’t, say why. (Feel free to still downvote, but please comment).
Do you disagree that strict rules have been proposed about what we are allowed to believe/think about, or disagree with me that those rules are correct, or dislike how I communicated the point, or for another reason? Thanks.
You are being downvoted because you are making a poor comparison. In the context of the poster in question “what you are supposed to think” is due to 1) tribal allegiance and 2) pronouncements from authorities. That’s not the same thing as reasoned essays as to why one should think something.
I wouldn’t normally do this, but I suspect this whole idea is an ugh field, and if so it should be dragged out and looked at.
Please could people downvoting, or even who just doesn’t like the post and feel like to downvoting, say why. (Feel free to still downvote, but please comment).
Do you disagree that strict rules have been proposed about what we are allowed to believe/think about, or disagree with me that those rules are correct, or dislike how I communicated the point, or for another reason? Thanks.
[Edit: On reflection, this was a poor comparison]
Hi, and welcome.
You probably haven’t seen the last of this sort of thing, in one form or another.
Many around here, including the founders of this site and it’s sister, insist on strict rules about what you’re allowed to believe, and in some cases even what you’re allowed to think about. Despite once having very strong reactions against this kind of rule (rejection of them was almost a fundamental starting point), I think they’re essentially right.
Eliezer’s posts, No One Can Exempt You From Rationality’s Laws and Privileging the Hypothesis, and Robin Hanson’s You Are Never Entitled to Your Opinion are some examples.
Thanks for the links, though I wonder if the goal of those posts was to present an idea that can then be “assimilated” or “owned” as well. In other words, I’m guessing that Robin and Eliezer’s hopes were not to produce an internal dialogue when asked about opinions, for example, e.g. “Robin Hanson says that I can’t have opinions, therefore that’s what I’m supposed to say/think.” Rather, I’d propose they are expressing a bold statement which has resulted from considering the issue and would prefer that I think through their reasoning/defense and accept the conclusion as my own.
Does that make sense? I definitely hear the point, but am trying to paint it in a slightly different light. I might not quite be getting the essence of your larger paragraph from the linked articles, though.
Yes, that’s a good way to think about it, and I should really have emphasized something like that in my original comment after making the initial point.
I wouldn’t normally do this, but I suspect this whole idea is an ugh field, and if so it should be dragged out and looked at.
Please could people downvoting, or even if you felt like downvoting but didn’t, say why. (Feel free to still downvote, but please comment).
Do you disagree that strict rules have been proposed about what we are allowed to believe/think about, or disagree with me that those rules are correct, or dislike how I communicated the point, or for another reason? Thanks.
You are being downvoted because you are making a poor comparison. In the context of the poster in question “what you are supposed to think” is due to 1) tribal allegiance and 2) pronouncements from authorities. That’s not the same thing as reasoned essays as to why one should think something.
You’re right. It was a poor comparison, I apologize.
I wouldn’t normally do this, but I suspect this whole idea is an ugh field, and if so it should be dragged out and looked at.
Please could people downvoting, or even who just doesn’t like the post and feel like to downvoting, say why. (Feel free to still downvote, but please comment).
Do you disagree that strict rules have been proposed about what we are allowed to believe/think about, or disagree with me that those rules are correct, or dislike how I communicated the point, or for another reason? Thanks.