you could prove that (A ⇒ B) and (B ⇒ C) and (C ⇒ D) and (D ⇒ F) Justice would nod its head and agree, but then, when you turned to claim your coup de grace, A ⇒ F irrevocably, Justice would demur and revoke the axiom of transitivity, for Justice will not be told when F stands for freedom.
I think Justice really, really should let emself be told when F stands for freedom.
Since we overestimate the strength of conjunctions, transitive chains may be weaker than they appear. So unless the issue is entirely clear-cut, it’s reasonable for people to fail to accept A ⇒ F. (Of course, it is true that ideally a rational person would at least consider A ⇒ F and adjust probabilities accordingly.)
Transitivity is evoked when Justice imagines F and finding the dream a pleasurable one sets about gathering cushions to prop up their slumber.
This sounds like searching for arguments to a foregone conclusion.
True. But it also sounds like the gathering of evidence using emotional tags. Direct evidence, in some areas, overwhelmingly beats a transitive chain. So although the evidence is not being gathered evenhandedly by Justice, there is a justification for this manner of thinking. I do think the “gathering [of] cushions to prop up a slumber” is adaptive and a fair representation of how people think.
What I found interesting about this blog post is that a successful person, who has tried to persuade others of his political ideas, has identified models/strategies for persuasion which strongly mirror the LW posts I have read.
I suppose there are far superior guides to persuasion with actual empirical evidence. Admittedly, those are more appropriate for Less Wrong. You people probably already find LW resonances in much of what you read anyway.
Since we overestimate the strength of conjunctions, transitive chains may be weaker than they appear. So unless the issue is entirely clear-cut, it’s reasonable for people to fail to accept A ⇒ F. (Of course, it is true that ideally a rational person would at least consider A ⇒ F and adjust probabilities accordingly.)
True. But it also sounds like the gathering of evidence using emotional tags. Direct evidence, in some areas, overwhelmingly beats a transitive chain. So although the evidence is not being gathered evenhandedly by Justice, there is a justification for this manner of thinking. I do think the “gathering [of] cushions to prop up a slumber” is adaptive and a fair representation of how people think.
What I found interesting about this blog post is that a successful person, who has tried to persuade others of his political ideas, has identified models/strategies for persuasion which strongly mirror the LW posts I have read.
I suppose there are far superior guides to persuasion with actual empirical evidence. Admittedly, those are more appropriate for Less Wrong. You people probably already find LW resonances in much of what you read anyway.