For many people (but not for me), it seems the judge explicitly speaks in the voice of one of their parents.
Certainly I think the judge is serving a group-coordination role. It manages outward-facing justifiability. Hence, I associate the judge with crony beliefs. I interpret you as saying that if the judge didn’t handle those, they could start getting everywhere—and also that the judge may be associated with other benefits, as in the case of mathematical reasoning.
I have actually done away with the judge at times, one time lasting a whole week. I would use the same language as before for social coordination purposes, but it wouldn’t carry the same meaning—for example, “I feel bad about X” would mean “I wish X could have happened without giving anything else up”, but carry no feeling of conflict in my mind; normally, it would mean “I am feeling conflicted about my policy around X”.
So, from that perspective I expect that getting rid of the judge tends to make one more epistemically coherent and less prone to bend thoughts toward social consensus. The social-coordination role of the judge then has to be replaced with other strategies.
On the other hand, your hypothesis doesn’t seem absurd to me.
You make an interesting point.
For many people (but not for me), it seems the judge explicitly speaks in the voice of one of their parents.
Certainly I think the judge is serving a group-coordination role. It manages outward-facing justifiability. Hence, I associate the judge with crony beliefs. I interpret you as saying that if the judge didn’t handle those, they could start getting everywhere—and also that the judge may be associated with other benefits, as in the case of mathematical reasoning.
I have actually done away with the judge at times, one time lasting a whole week. I would use the same language as before for social coordination purposes, but it wouldn’t carry the same meaning—for example, “I feel bad about X” would mean “I wish X could have happened without giving anything else up”, but carry no feeling of conflict in my mind; normally, it would mean “I am feeling conflicted about my policy around X”.
So, from that perspective I expect that getting rid of the judge tends to make one more epistemically coherent and less prone to bend thoughts toward social consensus. The social-coordination role of the judge then has to be replaced with other strategies.
On the other hand, your hypothesis doesn’t seem absurd to me.